What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

[Kusala]

Great Dhamma talk http://www.audiodharma.org/talks/audio_player/1390.html

[phil]

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]

According to the Theravada, do all beings have the potential to achieve enlightenment/arahantship (provided, of course, that they follow the Eightfold Path?)

[darvki]

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.

It has everything to do with liberation if one chooses to treat it as such. It's a poetic device that can be used to describe the inclusive and ever-available nature of Dhamma.

[mlswe]

According to the Theravada, do all beings have the potential to achieve enlightenment/arahantship (provided, of course, that they follow the Eightfold Path?)

Yes, unless one commits patricide, matricide, hurts a Buddha, causes schism in the holy order of monks, or kills an arahant

edit* if I have understood the matter correctly

[PeterB]

There is nothing wrong with Buddha Nature.
Just as there is nothing wrong with unicorns.
Its just that in nature they don't exist.

[Fede]

I've downloaded the talk, and will comment once I've listened to it in full.
he has a nice voice....

[Aloka]

There's also "Freedom from Buddha Nature"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/freedomfrombuddhanature.html

[PeterB]

There's also "Freedom from Buddha Nature"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/freedomfrombuddhanature.html

Excellent...the section on No Innate Nature is a particularly clear setting out of the Buddha's teaching as found in the Pali Canon, and a good indicator of why it might be more honest to talk about Buddhisms rather than Buddhism.

[darvki]

There's also "Freedom from Buddha Nature"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/freedomfrombuddhanature.html

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. Ironically, rejection of the term only seems necessary if one has made assumptions, in this case about its meaning. Some may refer to buddha nature as an innate quality, but no one ever rejects the mention of kamma or nibbana solely because some have embellished the meaning of those words into "cosmic justice system" and "permanent bliss-out" (although usually for thier Sanskrit cognates).

Yes, when it comes to the Buddhadhamma we try to look past metaphysics and ontology. However, that doesn't mean that words like "nature" have to become off-limits.

[tiltbillings]

There's also "Freedom from Buddha Nature"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/freedomfrombuddhanature.html

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.

But very frequently it gets used that way.

[tiltbillings]

The yearly arrival of a Buddha-nature thread:

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=3878

[Aloka]

.

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)

.

[Aloka]

The yearly arrival of a Buddha-nature thread:

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=3878

I started that one. lol !

[tiltbillings]

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)

Dogen did it better: Buddha-nature=impermanence.

[PeterB]

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]

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.

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.

[tiltbillings]

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..

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]

Undies resolutely unknotted Tilt......air is flowing freely around my khandas...

[PeterB]

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.

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.

I think its an excellent reason for discriminate, non indignant, rejection of the phrase after due consideration.