phil wrote:Hi, in my opinion there is nothing wrong with it for those who enjoy playing with it, it probably helps them to be nice people, but it wasn't taught by the Buddha and has nothing to do with liberation.
Lazy_eye wrote:According to the Theravada, do all beings have the potential to achieve enlightenment/arahantship (provided, of course, that they follow the Eightfold Path?)
But very frequently it gets used that way.darvki wrote:
The article's concluding paragraph begins with: "So instead of making assumptions about innate natures or inevitable outcomes..."
My issue with this is that no one ever said buddha nature had to be an innate nature or an inevitable outcome.
tiltbillings wrote:The yearly arrival of a Buddha-nature thread:
Dogen did it better: Buddha-nature=impermanence.Aloka wrote:In Tibetan Buddhism, 'Buddha Nature' is defined as "Unrealised enlightened mind, the essential nature of all sentient beings"
( from 'Awakening the Sleeping Buddha' by the 12th Tai Situpa)
tiltbillings wrote:But very frequently it gets used that way.
tiltbillings wrote:Dogen did it better: Buddha-nature=impermanence.
Don't get your undies in a knot here. From my standpoint, buddha-nature is a problematic concept, no matter how well-meaning its inception may have been. Ven T's talk is excellent.PeterB wrote:And as usual it ended with two Mahayanists discussing it together...on this Theravadin website...
Which due to a liberal regime they are of course entitled to do...although the importance or non importance of Buddhadhatu in the Theravada, in fact its explicit rejection, was nicely ignored.. as per.
I mean it must be there somewhere in the canon....mustn't it ?
Perhaps if we try a dozen more rearrangements of the deckchairs..
darvki wrote:tiltbillings wrote:But very frequently it gets used that way.
Indeed, but this is not grounds for indiscriminantly rejecting use of the phrase. I've been surprised how the mere mention of it, without any clear indication that it refers to literalist tathagatagarbha doctrine, can elicit very indignant and/or dismissive reactions.tiltbillings wrote:Dogen did it better: Buddha-nature=impermanence.
Thank you for mentioning that. I was going to bring it up myself if no one else did. The impermanent and dependently arisen nature of things allows awakening to be possible.
By the way, none of these statements are aimed at you specifically, Tilt. They're for the general public.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 10 guests