Page 5 of 11

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 9:55 am
by christopher:::
Paññāsikhara wrote:As Paul has pointed out, it is about the Buddha's sarira and caityas.

Glad that somebody gave my earlier quote about "Rely on the meaning, not on the words."

I certainly hope that others also read my distinction between the two main interpretations of "buddha nature" (and synonyms), and that only one of them is akin to an "atman" at all. But, I've already tried to point this out in more online Forum threads than I care to remember, and something tells me that sometimes people just prefer to make a stab at things before getting a bigger picture.

Please excuse my foul mood.
Thanks for joining us, Venerable. I hope that mood will pass before too long...
PeterB wrote:The philosophical reality might be as you describe Ven Huifeng, that we are not talking about one simple model.
The pragmatic reality however in many Mahayana discussions and instructions, whether in the Vajrayana or Zen or whatnot ,is glowing individual pudding portions who slip into the Great Pudding somwhere down the line..
Perhaps yes, but it's important to remember that both the portions and the Great Pudding are inherently empty of pudding-thing-ness...

:anjali:

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 10:11 am
by Paññāsikhara
PeterB wrote:The philosophical reality might be as you describe Ven Huifeng, that we are not talking about one simple model.
The pragmatic reality however in many Mahayana discussions and instructions, whether in the Vajrayana or Zen or whatnot ,is glowing individual pudding portions who slip into the Great Pudding somwhere down the line..
Hi PeterB,
All the teachings I have received about anything to do with "buddha nature" could probably be split about 50/50 either way. Not all of them are about pudding, by any means. So, I personally wouldn't go for a "pragmatic reality" over "philosophical reality", as my pragmatic experience is the same as the philosophical. Maybe what you refer to in Vajrayana and Zen is the later stuff, but these two groups are by no means the totality of Mahayana, unfortunately. Maybe - some teachers from these two traditions may also use that explanation because it has parallels in Western religious thought - maybe. Although they happen to be the two most popular one's in English language Buddhism.

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 11:07 am
by PeterB
christopher::: wrote:
Paññāsikhara wrote:As Paul has pointed out, it is about the Buddha's sarira and caityas.

Glad that somebody gave my earlier quote about "Rely on the meaning, not on the words."

I certainly hope that others also read my distinction between the two main interpretations of "buddha nature" (and synonyms), and that only one of them is akin to an "atman" at all. But, I've already tried to point this out in more online Forum threads than I care to remember, and something tells me that sometimes people just prefer to make a stab at things before getting a bigger picture.

Please excuse my foul mood.
Thanks for joining us, Venerable. I hope that mood will pass before too long...
PeterB wrote:The philosophical reality might be as you describe Ven Huifeng, that we are not talking about one simple model.
The pragmatic reality however in many Mahayana discussions and instructions, whether in the Vajrayana or Zen or whatnot ,is glowing individual pudding portions who slip into the Great Pudding somwhere down the line..
Perhaps yes, but it's important to remember that both the portions and the Great Pudding are inherently empty of pudding-thing-ness...

:anjali:
I think its a bit more radical than that Chris, I think neither the individual portions or The Great Pudding correspond to any actual reality at all.
Things arise dependantly.

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 5:18 pm
by Aloka
.

.
PeterB wrote:...... the Great Pudding

Er.... can I have custard with mine, please ?



Image

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 7:03 pm
by PeterB
Consider it done Aloka.. :smile:

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 7:08 pm
by mikenz66
I find this thread interesting because many of the people at my local "insight" group are into this pudding thing - feeling "connected", saving the planet, etc.

Perhaps at the next discussion I'll tell them that they are in danger of "stepping back from the utterly radical position that the Buddha took" (thanks Peter).

I just have to figure out how to quickly add that they should be working to help others and the planet. But out of compassion. If they think they can actually fix themselves, others, or the planet, they haven't been paying attention...

Metta
Mike

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 11:05 pm
by christopher:::
Post moved to One Dharma? discussion....

:toilet: :jedi:

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 11:58 pm
by tiltbillings
Ken Wilbur? No thank you, especially in this section.

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:10 am
by meindzai
Fundamental authentic trans-personal self? LOL

Lemme guess, he has a bunch of books, he's a "brilliant thinker", and his books are recommended by Oprah..

{googles}

http://wilber.shambhala.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"most comprehensive philosophical thinker of our times"

http://www.oprah.com/oprahradio/Philosopher-Ken-Wilber" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh man, I didn't really think i was going to be so horribly right...

-M

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:20 am
by tiltbillings
meindzai wrote:Fundamental authentic trans-personal self? LOL

Lemme guess, he has a bunch of books, he's a "brilliant thinker", and his books are recommended by Oprah..

{googles}

http://wilber.shambhala.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"most comprehensive philosophical thinker of our times"

http://www.oprah.com/oprahradio/Philosopher-Ken-Wilber" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh man, I didn't really think i was going to be so horribly right...

-M
And all accorduing to him. He has a sort of Mahayana bias, and no understanding of the Theravada (which is hinayana) that I have seen in anything I have read by him. "I am." Really.

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:27 am
by christopher:::
tiltbillings wrote:Ken Wilbur? No thank you, especially in this section.
I hear ya. Post edited....

:tongue:

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:28 am
by Paññāsikhara
tiltbillings wrote:
meindzai wrote:Fundamental authentic trans-personal self? LOL

Lemme guess, he has a bunch of books, he's a "brilliant thinker", and his books are recommended by Oprah..

{googles}

http://wilber.shambhala.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"most comprehensive philosophical thinker of our times"

http://www.oprah.com/oprahradio/Philosopher-Ken-Wilber" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh man, I didn't really think i was going to be so horribly right...

-M
And all accorduing to him. He has a sort of Mahayana bias, and no understanding of the Theravada (which is hinayana) that I have seen in anything I have read by him. "I am." Really.
:offtopic:

I'd say "Vendanta bias". Most Mahayanists would really keep well away from what he teaches, I think.
He used to support "Da Free John" <shudder> and people like Mr Zen Big Mind <shudder>. I don't know what to call that.
:focus:

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:11 am
by christopher:::
Paññāsikhara wrote:
I'd say "Vendanta bias". Most Mahayanists would really keep well away from what he teaches, I think.
He used to support "Da Free John" <shudder> and people like Mr Zen Big Mind <shudder>. I don't know what to call that.
You mean Mr. Zen Big Mind Genpo Roshi?

We are indeed veering waaaaaaaay out of "Discovering Theravada" bounds here....
christopher::: wrote:Genpo Roshi & Ken Wilber posts moved to One Dharma discussion....
:anjali:

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:20 am
by tiltbillings
Paññāsikhara wrote: [Speaking of Ken Wilbur] I'd say "Vendanta bias". Most Mahayanists would really keep well away from what he teaches, I think.
He used to support "Da Free John" <shudder> and people like Mr Zen Big Mind <shudder>. I don't know what to call that.
:focus:
Agreed.

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 8:02 am
by PeterB
tiltbillings wrote:
meindzai wrote:Fundamental authentic trans-personal self? LOL

Lemme guess, he has a bunch of books, he's a "brilliant thinker", and his books are recommended by Oprah..

{googles}

http://wilber.shambhala.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"most comprehensive philosophical thinker of our times"

http://www.oprah.com/oprahradio/Philosopher-Ken-Wilber" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh man, I didn't really think i was going to be so horribly right...

-M
And all accorduing to him. He has a sort of Mahayana bias, and no understanding of the Theravada (which is hinayana) that I have seen in anything I have read by him. "I am." Really.
I cant resist retelling the story of being in a bookshop with a friend when he picked up a book called " I Am That" I think it is a populist vedantic tome. Wilbur would love it.
" I Am That" he said in mock portentious tones , and added " all that and a bag of chips"..before returning the book to its slot.