What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

[Aloka]

.

Not helpful to whom?

Certainly not helpful to me. I found it confusing when I was a Vajrayana practitioner, wondering if ''all sentient beings have Buddha Nature" how this could apply, for example, to slugs.

...and its irrelevant to my practice in the here and now.

Personally, it has never confused me, as a literal doctrine (which I do not subscribe to) or metaphor, and I do not find it irrelevant to my practice here and now. I think that it's perfectly helpful and if handled right does not have to cause additional delusion.

.

That's absolutely fine if its meaningful for you, Darvki. I was simply expressing one of the reasons why it used to puzzle me -and stating that it has no relevance in the here and now for me.... it wasn't a suggestion for anyone else.

Does it help me overcome Dukkha ? No it doesn't. Seeing all beings as if they were brothers and sisters has a lot more relevance for me.

Different strokes for different folks as they say, !

with metta,

Aloka

[darvki]

That's absolutely fine if its meaningful for you, Darvki. I was simply expressing one of the reasons why it used to puzzle me -and stating that it has no relevance in the here and now for me.... it wasn't a suggestion for anyone else.

Does it help me overcome Dukkha ? No it doesn't. Seeing all beings as if they were brothers and sisters has a lot more relevance for me.

Different strokes for different folks as they say, !

with metta,

Aloka

My apologies, Aloka. I thought the format of that reply might not be clear and I was right. It was more a reply to Dan74's comment to give a contrasting answer. There's various statements being thrown around about how buddha nature is "confusing" and "unhelpful", which are false absolute statements I would like to show as being such.

[Dan74]

I'm just reading an essay linked by bodom from the forest ajahns:
http://www.forestsangha.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=278%3Athe-island-an-anthology-of-the-buddhas-teachings-on-nibbna&catid=3%3Atalks-by-ajahn-pasanno&Itemid=25

And the following quote from Ajahn Sumedho caught my attention:

“After teaching in the West for a very short period of time, I began to see
that many people were disappointed both in materialism and theistic religions. To
them Buddhism had great appeal but, lacking any fundamental sense of, or faith in
the transcendent, the practice of Buddhism became almost a dry, technical
procedure – intellectually satisfying but strangely sterile as well.

“They had largely rejected the idea of an Ultimate Reality from their
thoughts as being intrinsically theistic nonsense so I realized that people needed
to be aware that there was also such a principle in the Buddha’s teachings, without
there being any hint of a creator God in the picture. In Thailand, because there is
already such a broad and strong basis of faith in these transcendent qualities, there
is no need to talk about Ultimate Reality, the Unconditioned and so forth – for
them it can be a distraction. Here, I saw that people needed something to look up
to – that’s why I talk about it all the time. It goes a long way to cultivating faith
and it gives a much more living and expansive quality to their spiritual life; there is
a natural joy when the heart opens to its true nature.”

Again, as is often the case, the Forest ajahns teach from experience using skillful means rather than expounding tenets of truth. So of course, "true nature" should not be taken as something out there to get hung up on. But nevertheless, it is used.

[alan]

Ok, nice point. We need to find something transcendent to give juice to the practice. Contemplation of the Buddha's awakening is a good place to start.

[fragrant herbs]

So since we do not have Buddha Nature, when we become enlightened and die, we are just dead? Is Buddha now dead? And what is reborn? What about Heaven or Hell?

[ancientbuddhism]

So since we do not have Buddha Nature, when we become enlightened and die, we are just dead? Is Buddha now dead? And what is reborn? What about Heaven or Hell?

you must be joking

[tiltbillings]

So since we do not have Buddha Nature, when we become enlightened and die, we are just dead? Is Buddha now dead? And what is reborn? What about Heaven or Hell?

you must be joking

She (or it may be he) is likely not joking. We all start from a place of not knowing much, needing thoughtful, considerate responses in the beginning.

[ancientbuddhism]

So since we do not have Buddha Nature, when we become enlightened and die, we are just dead? Is Buddha now dead? And what is reborn? What about Heaven or Hell?

you must be joking

She (or it may be he) is likely not joking. We all start from a place of not knowing much, needing thoughtful, considerate responses in the beginning.

you must be joking

[tiltbillings]

you must be joking

Geez, Ken, I am simply trying to be nice, which would not be a bad thing for you, either.

[ancientbuddhism]

you must be joking

Geez, Ken, I am simply trying to be nice, which would not be a bad thing for you, either.

who are you talking to?

[tiltbillings]

you must be joking

Geez, Ken, I am simply trying to be nice, which would not be a bad thing for you, either.

who are you talking to?

You.

[ancientbuddhism]

Geez, Ken, I am simply trying to be nice, which would not be a bad thing for you, either.

who are you talking to?

You.

You reference a name, not mine. Who are you talking to?

[ancientbuddhism]

and what are you "trying to be nice" about?

[tiltbillings]

Geez, Ken, I am simply trying to be nice, which would not be a bad thing for you, either.

who are you talking to?

You.

You reference a name, not mine. Who are you talking to?

The avatar and the nom de computer is a striking coindecedence, strongly suggesting someone else, but apparently not you.

[tiltbillings]

and what are you "trying to be nice" about?

That I'll let you figure out yourself.

[ancientbuddhism]

and what are you "trying to be nice" about?

That I'll let you figure out yourself.

I don’t see any violation of the forums TOS on my part. But since you have some issue, and given your general temperament, I am available to hash out whatever in a conference PM with you and another moderator (so that you be nice) anytime.

[tiltbillings]

and what are you "trying to be nice" about?

That I'll let you figure out yourself.

I don’t see any violation of the forums TOS on my part. But since you have some issue, and given your general temperament, I am available to hash out whatever in a conference PM with you and another moderator (so that you be nice) anytime.

I did not say there was violation of the TOS. You were simply being a bit rude in your comment to fragrant herbs.

So, you have anything further to say about this, PM it.

[ancientbuddhism]

Getting back to the topic...

It is understandable why the Buddha took issue with the Brahmanical viewpoint of ‘self’ and delineated an argument against it, and of self as of issue to the Buddha’s aims of contemplative effort where one will reify the sakkāya view of ‘I am’ whether there was a Vedic theory of self or not. And so in the second case the Buddha sets up the argument against this habit of reification with conditions, to show the process of how this misapprehension occurs, even though there is no self to be found (after all one cannot not have what was not there). All this is necessary because the Buddha is referring to an actual problem of misapprehension of the khandhas, a habit intrinsic to human nature.

It is also the nature of sakkāya-diṭṭhi to back-read a self into anything, including notions of awakening potential, nothing new going on here. For Theravāda to argue against mahāyānist buddha-nature makes as little sense as how the notion has been hijacked into Theravāda by individual teachers, if it is non-issue in the canon why work with it at all?

[beeblebrox]

So since we do not have Buddha Nature, when we become enlightened and die, we are just dead? Is Buddha now dead? And what is reborn? What about Heaven or Hell?

I think this is a misunderstanding. The way I understand it (in Mahayana), the "Buddha Nature" is what's present in every person that enables him to find his way to liberation. (Just so long as he follows the same conditions that the Buddha did to reach his own liberation.)

Some people try to equate this with the "luminous citta" in Pāli... which I think is completely different. It really only means that the citta is easy to see (and develop) when it's free of defilements.

About the Buddha being either dead or alive... I don't think he's stuck by either of those. That is why he was able to point out the way to liberation, for us to follow.

[LastLegend]

If Buddha nature is defined as something that all beings have or some capacity that all beings have then what is wrong with Buddha nature is that it is just one more way of constructing a doctrine of self....Buddha nature seems to be a doctrine of self based on the illusion that there is a self which "has" something....if we think "I" "have" "it" then a doctrine of self has arisen three times in that one short sentence...there is no "I" and entities can not "have" anything and "it" implies an external self as something which can be "had"......That is what is wrong with Buddha nature....it is a doctrine of self....something the Buddha advised us very strongly to not indulge in....
chownah

Ahem. Not rejecting or accepting self is Buddha Nature my friend, but the cultivation is to get rid of defilement. Whatever you want to call it, Buddha Nature, Mind, Citta, Permanent, not a thing, etc. But without "it," you will not be able to cultivate. "It" is what you are cultivating for.

If you accept the concept of self, then behind it must be a "no-name "? Or should we not speak about "no-name" at all since "it" is not a thing and cannot be defined. But "it" must be permanent. What are you cultivating for if not "it"? And "who" is experiencing Nirvana after defilement is gone. If there is no "who," then two Arahants must not distinguishable. If there is no Buddha Nature, who is posting this?

Thanks for reading.