Page 13 of 14

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Posted: Thu May 26, 2011 1:46 am
by daverupa
beeblebrox wrote:Of course, I never wanted to imply that anatta was non-essential... just that when it's done its purpose, then that's the time to move on with the practice. It's only the beginning.
When the Dhamma has done its purpose, as you say, that is nibbana. Discarding Dhamma rafts such as anatta happens then, not before.

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Posted: Thu May 26, 2011 1:49 am
by Kenshou
beeblebrox wrote:If you're having some problems, where is that coming from? When this is figured out, let that go.
I don't have a problem with that as a general idea. You just were sounding a wee bit cryptic.

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Posted: Thu May 26, 2011 1:51 am
by beeblebrox
Kenshou wrote:I don't have a problem with that as a general idea. You just were sounding a wee bit cryptic.
I don't understand how I'm being cryptic... I guess I need to come up with more metaphors. :tongue: (Unless you're trying to see something that isn't just there.)

:anjali:

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Posted: Thu May 26, 2011 1:53 am
by Kenshou
beeblebrox wrote:I don't understand how I'm being cryptic...
It was mostly this:
The significance of this is much more than what some people on here seem to realize...

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Posted: Thu May 26, 2011 1:54 am
by beeblebrox
daverupa wrote: When the Dhamma has done its purpose, as you say, that is nibbana. Discarding Dhamma rafts such as anatta happens then, not before.
Again... I'm not saying that you discard it. It just becomes a second habit... like the batter with his "bat." If you're fixating on the bat all the time (or you're worrying that you've forgotten your bat), the practice will suffer.

:anjali:

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Posted: Thu May 26, 2011 1:57 am
by beeblebrox
Kenshou wrote:
beeblebrox wrote:I don't understand how I'm being cryptic...
It was mostly this:
The significance of this is much more than what some people on here seem to realize...
There is no meaning to it beyond that. It's true that some people on here try to view nibbana as something that it's not. Sorry if you saw something in it... that wasn't my intention.

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Posted: Thu May 26, 2011 2:01 am
by daverupa
beeblebrox wrote:
daverupa wrote: When the Dhamma has done its purpose, as you say, that is nibbana. Discarding Dhamma rafts such as anatta happens then, not before.
Again... I'm not saying that you discard it. It just becomes a second habit... like the batter with his "bat." If you're fixating on the bat all the time (or you're worrying that you've forgotten your bat), the practice will suffer.

:anjali:
The Buddha describes bhavana in terms of seeing the world as anatta, anicca, dukkha. So, the practice is contemplating anatta. That metaphor of the bat is basically saying that swinging a bat gets in the way of swinging a bat. It's ridiculous - anatta is not a-la-carte.

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Posted: Thu May 26, 2011 2:07 am
by beeblebrox
daverupa wrote: The Buddha describes bhavana in terms of seeing the world as anatta, anicca, dukkha. So, the practice is contemplating anatta. That metaphor of the bat is basically saying that swinging a bat gets in the way of swinging a bat. It's ridiculous - anatta is not a-la-carte.
That's not what I said with my metaphor. If you think about the bat, when you're supposed to focus on the ball, you'll be clumsy for sure. When it becomes a second habit, the bat is still there, along with the way you hold it, but you don't think about it... you're focused on the ball. This probably only makes sense if you've played baseball. Sorry if the metaphor seemed inappropriate.

:anjali:

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Posted: Thu May 26, 2011 2:16 am
by daverupa
Yet you fundamentally claimed that by focusing on anatta,
beeblebrox wrote:...the practice will suffer.
However, the Buddha describes bhavana in terms of seeing the world as anatta, anicca, dukkha. So seeing anatta for oneself is not in the way of the practice, it is part of the practice.

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Posted: Thu May 26, 2011 2:18 am
by beeblebrox
daverupa wrote:Yet you fundamentally claimed that by focusing on anatta,
beeblebrox wrote:...the practice will suffer.
Focusing on thinking about the anatta. That will get you nowhere. Try to focus on the craving, or clinging, or anything else in the paticca-samuppada instead.

Pay attention to how they play out, without bringing in any idea about the "self."

:anjali:

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Posted: Thu May 26, 2011 2:26 am
by Kenshou
Focusing on (developing insight into) anatta, as well as the other characteristics is as relevant to realizing nibbana as contemplating craving, clinging and paticcasamuppada.

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Posted: Thu May 26, 2011 2:31 am
by beeblebrox
Kenshou wrote:Focusing on (developing insight into) anatta, as well as the other characteristics is as relevant to realizing nibbana as contemplating craving, clinging and paticcasamuppada.
I was never arguing that.

:anjali:

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Posted: Thu May 26, 2011 2:39 am
by Kenshou
Oh, well it sounded like it.

Is it that you're arguing against merely thinking about these things as opposed to developing more experiential insight? I wouldn't disagree with that. Though coarser contemplation is probably going to be a natural prerequisite. But of course, isn't sufficient.

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Posted: Thu May 26, 2011 2:43 am
by beeblebrox
Something more appropriate for this thread... a quote by Dōgen:
To study the Way is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be enlightened by all things... [a few lines pointing out the anicca, dukkha, and not in the very least, anatta].
:anjali:

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Posted: Thu May 26, 2011 3:56 am
by alan
Why is that appropriate?
How can Dogen ever be relevant in a Therevada discussion?