Stephen wrote:If by "Buddha nature" you mean the potential to reach the same awakening, Nibbana, then naturally it need not be pointed out anywhere in the suttas because it is the entire point of the Buddhist teachings to reach this state of enlightenment.
I'd try not to call the Buddha "Lord", as it makes it seem like he's being worshiped or thought of as some kind of deity by anyone who doesn't understand Buddhism fully (which is a lot of people in the West). Perhaps better to say either Buddha, Master, Teacher or Tathagata (as he referred to himself, also meaning Teacher). Anything but "Lord".
Stephen,
"Lord," is just an honorific, like "sir." It does not denote anything supernatural. You're getting your definition from the Christian usage most likely.
Aloka wrote:.The reason why I asked is because after many years as a Vajrayana practitioner and knowing hardly anything at all about any other tradition,...
Aloka
may I ask what tradition you have been following?
I am asking because not all Mahayana tradition are so focused on "Buddha nature" teachings which may be the wrong impression caused by this thread.
Stephen wrote:
I'd try not to call the Buddha "Lord", as it makes it seem like he's being worshiped or thought of as some kind of deity by anyone who doesn't understand Buddhism fully (which is a lot of people in the West). Perhaps better to say either Buddha, Master, Teacher or Tathagata (as he referred to himself, also meaning Teacher). Anything but "Lord".
Aloka wrote:.The reason why I asked is because after many years as a Vajrayana practitioner and knowing hardly anything at all about any other tradition,...
Aloka
may I ask what tradition you have been following?
I am asking because not all Mahayana tradition are so focused on "Buddha nature" teachings which may be the wrong impression caused by this thread.
Kind regards
Hi,
I already stated the tradition - Vajrayana (Tibetan) - and I don't want to start getting into a discussion about it because its not appropriate to the forum - suffice to say that Buddha Nature was mentioned a lot by some teachers (offline)
I don't think I've given the wrong impression .I'm speaking not from internet readings, but from extensive personal experience over a number of years. I don't intend going into any further personal details though - ok ?
I dont want to be contentious just for the sake of it, but one of the reasons I drew away from the Vajrayana after investing a lot of time and energy in its practice, is because of a growing sense of unreality around the whole issue of Buddha Nature.
As a concept it seemd to raise more problems than it solved.
The fact that it is uncanonical is also of some importance...
PeterB wrote:The fact that it is uncanonical is also of some importance...
Yes. Doubly so given we're in the Discovering Theravada forum!
Metta,
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Aloka wrote:.The reason why I asked is because after many years as a Vajrayana practitioner and knowing hardly anything at all about any other tradition,...
Aloka
may I ask what tradition you have been following?
I am asking because not all Mahayana tradition are so focused on "Buddha nature" teachings which may be the wrong impression caused by this thread.
Kind regards
Hi,
I already stated the tradition - Vajrayana (Tibetan) - and I don't want to start getting into a discussion about it because its not appropriate to the forum - suffice to say that Buddha Nature was mentioned a lot by some teachers (offline)
I don't think I've given the wrong impression .I'm speaking not from internet readings, but from extensive personal experience over a number of years. I don't intend going into any further personal details though - ok ?
PeterB wrote:I dont want to be contentious just for the sake of it, but one of the reasons I drew away from the Vajrayana after investing a lot of time and energy in its practice, is because of a growing sense of unreality around the whole issue of Buddha Nature.
As a concept it seemd to raise more problems than it solved.
The fact that it is uncanonical is also of some importance...
This can be avoided if one follows the advice of teachers that teach to first focus on the path common to Mahayana and non-Mahayana.
If one jumps into Vajrayana right away, what do you expect other than confusion?
I actually started off in the Theravada T Mingyur, then after meeting Chogyam Trungpa spent many years in the Vajrayana befrore going back to the Theravada. I didnt experience confusion. Just a sense of the superfluous.
I dont regret my years in the Vajrayana. Neither do I think I learned anything of value I would not have learned if I had stayed in the Theravada.
Hopefully there was a connecting thread there with your dhamma practice year-to-year, Peter, not dependent on the group you belonged to or the conceptions held, no?
TMingyur wrote:
This can be avoided if one follows the advice of teachers that teach to first focus on the path common to Mahayana and non-Mahayana.
If one jumps into Vajrayana right away, what do you expect other than confusion?
Kind regards
I think the same kind of problems arise for Zen practitioners, and agree in terms of the optimal "cure"...
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)." ~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
Stephen wrote:
I'd try not to call the Buddha "Lord", as it makes it seem like he's being worshiped or thought of as some kind of deity by anyone who doesn't understand Buddhism fully (which is a lot of people in the West). Perhaps better to say either Buddha, Master, Teacher or Tathagata (as he referred to himself, also meaning Teacher). Anything but "Lord".
When I hear "Lord" I think of Jesus. My favorite nickname for the Buddha is The Blessed One.
christopher::: wrote:Hopefully there was a connecting thread there with your dhamma practice year-to-year, Peter, not dependent on the group you belonged to or the conceptions held, no?
TMingyur wrote:
This can be avoided if one follows the advice of teachers that teach to first focus on the path common to Mahayana and non-Mahayana.
If one jumps into Vajrayana right away, what do you expect other than confusion?
Kind regards
I think the same kind of problems arise for Zen practitioners, and agree in terms of the optimal "cure"...
The commonalities were the 4NT, The 8fp, Vipassana, Samatha ,DO etc. Which is why I said that I would not have missed anything ( other than an exposure to an extraordinary personality ) if I had stayed in the Theravada Chris.
Because those are of the essence.
"Buddha nature" Tulkus, even "Bodhicitta " as seen in TB, and the Bodhisattva vow, arent of the essence imo.
