What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby Kusala » Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:04 pm

Image

Homage to the Buddha
Thus indeed, is that Blessed One: He is the Holy One, fully enlightened, endowed with clear vision and virtuous conduct, sublime, the Knower of the worlds, the incomparable leader of men to be tamed, the teacher of gods and men, enlightened and blessed.

Homage to the Teachings
The Dhamma of the Blessed One is perfectly expounded; to be seen here and now; not delayed in
time; inviting one to come and see; onward leading (to Nibbana); to be known by the wise, each for himself.
User avatar
Kusala
 
Posts: 436
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:02 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby phil » Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:15 pm

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.
Kammalakkhano , bhikkhave, bālo, kammalakkhano pandito, apadānasobhanī paññāti
(The fool is characterized by his/her actions/the wise one is characterized by his/her actions/Wisdom shines forth in behaviour.)
(AN 3.2 Lakkhana Sutta)
User avatar
phil
 
Posts: 521
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:08 am
Location: Tokyo

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby Lazy_eye » Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:27 pm

According to the Theravada, do all beings have the potential to achieve enlightenment/arahantship (provided, of course, that they follow the Eightfold Path?)
User avatar
Lazy_eye
 
Posts: 808
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:23 pm
Location: Laurel, MD

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby darvki » Thu Mar 17, 2011 7:25 am

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.


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.
darvki
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2010 10:20 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby mlswe » Thu Mar 17, 2011 7:32 am

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?)


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
Last edited by mlswe on Sun Aug 28, 2011 7:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
mlswe
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 7:08 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby PeterB » Thu Mar 17, 2011 7:51 am

There is nothing wrong with Buddha Nature.
Just as there is nothing wrong with unicorns.
Its just that in nature they don't exist.
PeterB
 
Posts: 3904
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby Fede » Thu Mar 17, 2011 7:54 am

I've downloaded the talk, and will comment once I've listened to it in full.
he has a nice voice....
"Samsara: The human condition's heartbreaking inability to sustain contentment." Elizabeth Gilbert, 'Eat, Pray, Love'.

Simplify: 17 into 1 WILL go: Mindfulness!

Quieta movere magna merces videbatur. (Sallust, c.86-c.35 BC)
Translation: Just to stir things up seemed a good reward in itself. ;)

I am sooooo happy - How on earth could I be otherwise?! :D


http://www.armchairadvice.co.uk/relationships/forum/
User avatar
Fede
 
Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: The Heart of this "Green & Pleasant Land"...

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby Aloka » Thu Mar 17, 2011 8:55 am

User avatar
Aloka
 
Posts: 3567
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby PeterB » Thu Mar 17, 2011 9:00 am




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.
PeterB
 
Posts: 3904
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby darvki » Thu Mar 17, 2011 9:43 am



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.
darvki
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2010 10:20 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby tiltbillings » Thu Mar 17, 2011 9:51 am

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.
But very frequently it gets used that way.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19293
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby tiltbillings » Thu Mar 17, 2011 9:58 am

The yearly arrival of a Buddha-nature thread:

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=3878
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19293
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby Aloka » Thu Mar 17, 2011 10:01 am

.

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)

.
Last edited by Aloka on Thu Mar 17, 2011 10:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Aloka
 
Posts: 3567
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby Aloka » Thu Mar 17, 2011 10:04 am

tiltbillings wrote:The yearly arrival of a Buddha-nature thread:

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=3878



I started that one. lol !
User avatar
Aloka
 
Posts: 3567
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby tiltbillings » Thu Mar 17, 2011 10:05 am

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)
Dogen did it better: Buddha-nature=impermanence.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19293
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby PeterB » Thu Mar 17, 2011 10:15 am

And as usual it ended with two Mahayanists discussing it together...on this Theravadin website... :lol:
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 ? :smile:
Perhaps if we try a dozen more rearrangements of the deckchairs..
PeterB
 
Posts: 3904
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby darvki » Thu Mar 17, 2011 10:19 am

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.
darvki
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2010 10:20 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby tiltbillings » Thu Mar 17, 2011 10:20 am

PeterB wrote:And as usual it ended with two Mahayanists discussing it together...on this Theravadin website... :lol:
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 ? :smile:
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.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19293
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby PeterB » Thu Mar 17, 2011 10:23 am

Undies resolutely unknotted Tilt......air is flowing freely around my khandas... :smile:
PeterB
 
Posts: 3904
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby PeterB » Thu Mar 17, 2011 10:26 am

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.



I think its an excellent reason for discriminate, non indignant, rejection of the phrase after due consideration.
PeterB
 
Posts: 3904
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Next

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Lazy_eye, Slapsko and 6 guests