YOU CANNOT POST. OUR WEB HOSTING COMPANY DECIDED TO MOVE THE SERVER TO ANOTHER LOCATION. IN THE MEANTIME, YOU CAN VIEW THIS VERSION WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW POSTING AND WILL NOT SAVE ANYTHING YOU DO ONCE THE OTHER SERVER GOES ONLINE.

What is Wrong with Buddha Nature - Page 2 - Dhamma Wheel

What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths. What can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23012
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby tiltbillings » Thu Mar 17, 2011 10:27 am


User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23012
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby tiltbillings » Thu Mar 17, 2011 10:28 am


PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby PeterB » Thu Mar 17, 2011 10:30 am

The Critical Buddhist Movement is the most significant development in the Mahayana in modern times imo.
And offers REAL hope for Buddhist unity. Not an idea based on wishful thinking.

User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 5517
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby Aloka » Thu Mar 17, 2011 11:11 am


User avatar
Lazy_eye
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:23 pm
Location: Laurel, MD
Contact:

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby Lazy_eye » Thu Mar 17, 2011 11:39 am

I enjoyed Ven. Thanissaro's talk, but must take issue with some of his claims. His critique rests on three different presentations of the idea of "Buddha nature":

1) that we are already enlightened, so no need for practice,
2) that we all have the potential to become enlightened,
3) that buddha nature refers to some kind of "ground of being"; I guess he is referring to Mahayana dharmadatu.

But 1) sounds more like pop dharma than Mahayana; what legitimate teacher in any tradition would say that it's all right to go around sliming joggers in the park as an expression of "buddha nature" ?!?

His argument against 2) is weak, as Theravada also agrees that beings have the potential for enlightenment. Where did we get this potential? It was not transferred to us through the grace of God. Therefore it must be somehow innate.

As for 3) this is really a doctrinal difference over the nature of enlightenment, rather than "buddha nature" per se.

If the Venerable believes that Mahayana does not require effort and practice, perhaps he is not familiar with texts such as this:
http://www.kalavinka.org/book_excerpts/ ... _Intro.pdf

It seems to me a stronger argument against "buddha nature" is that, among some Mahayanists, it has been turned into a sort of ineffable, quasi-eternalistic spiritual essence. This is a problem which Stephen Batchelor discusses in his excellent talk "Buddha Nature, Mara Nature". (http://www.audiodharma.org/teacher/12/t ... part_1.mp3). As Batchelor suggests, translation problems from Sanskrit into Chinese may be partly to blame. However, he also points out that buddha nature does not have to be defined this way; it can be conceived more simply in terms of a capacity or potential for awakening.
Last edited by Lazy_eye on Thu Mar 17, 2011 12:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.

PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby PeterB » Thu Mar 17, 2011 11:45 am

The reality is if you frequent the pages of at least one Zen forum you will see that a full blown reification of Buddhadhatu is the default position. Your no's one and three are seen as mainstream Buddhism.
Practice becomes redefined as letting go of practice.

It is in fact a complete recasting of the Atman/ Brahman schemata.

The Theravada and Mahayana are not the same.
They have different means and different goals.

But no amount of saying so will make any difference to those who are emotionally invested in projecting commonality.

User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 3012
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby Dan74 » Thu Mar 17, 2011 12:02 pm

Might be worth checking this out if one is interested in getting some sort of a balanced picture:



_/|\_

PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby PeterB » Thu Mar 17, 2011 12:17 pm

A restatement of the same doctrine , a doctrine completely at odds with the Theravada view, is not a more balanced view from a Theravadin pov. Its just one more Mahayanist view.

Mahayanists agree with each other . Quelle suprise.

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23012
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby tiltbillings » Thu Mar 17, 2011 12:34 pm


User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 3012
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby Dan74 » Thu Mar 17, 2011 12:50 pm

Basically like Muller (in the essay above) clearly shows, the so-called Critical Buddhism movement rather than being a Mahayana movement is a bunch of Japanese academics engaged in second-rate scholarship based on their fundamental misunderstanding of key Mahayana doctrines. It may be applicable to segments of Japanese Buddhism that share the same misunderstanding but it's certainly not applicable to Mahayana as a whole.

In any case the links elucidate what is meant by a number of key Mahayana tenets like the Buddha Nature which are so often misunderstood here.

The point (to me) is not whether Theravada needs these teachings or not (that for each practitioner to decide on the basis of their practice) but to clarify what they actually point towards. The OP has implied that there is something wrong with Buddha Nature, so it might be worthwhile to understand what is actually meant by this term.
_/|\_

PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby PeterB » Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:05 pm

The need or otherwise of these doctrines as pertaining to the Theravada IS I would suggest rather important in the context of a Theravadin forum which addresses the " Dhamma Of The Theravada"...
As far as I am aware this is still a Theravadin forum.
I realise that of course in the Mahayana view of things that is unimportant as the Mahayana somehow trumps and subsumes the Theravada.

User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 3012
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby Dan74 » Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:07 pm

_/|\_

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23012
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby tiltbillings » Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:10 pm


User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 3012
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby Dan74 » Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:11 pm

Can you provide some further info?
_/|\_

PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby PeterB » Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:12 pm

Perhaps someone would care to post a source of support for the idea of Buddha Dhatu from a Theravadin teacher ( other than the schismatic Brahmavamso, or supposed quotes from Ajahn Chah clumsily edited by Jack Kornfield to have him say pretty much the opposite of his normal line )
Being that this is a Theravadin forum an' all.
Not too much to ask surely ?
Last edited by PeterB on Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby PeterB » Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:14 pm


User avatar
Lazy_eye
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:23 pm
Location: Laurel, MD
Contact:

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby Lazy_eye » Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:01 pm


PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby PeterB » Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:17 pm

I have no doubt that the good Bhikkhu is right and that it is a pernicious doctrine.
Happily not one that need detain Theravadin Buddhists except when it is periodically dragged in through the back door.


Goodness it must be a burden bringing the gospel of Buddhist ecumenicism to the benighted. Exausting I should think.

User avatar
kirk5a
Posts: 1959
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby kirk5a » Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:34 pm

I would just like to enter this for discussion, from Ajahn Maha Boowa. What can we say about this? Is what he is talking about different than "Buddha Nature"?
http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books ... Dhamma.pdf
p.38

"This is now the one who is absolutely certain, who discerns and perceives everything. The
kilesas can't destroy the citta. Though they may be capable of ruining many things and they
might afflict the citta with hardship and suffering, they can't possibly annihilate it. This nature
is unassailable, absolute and permanent. It cannot be annihilated. At most, it may appear
multifarious due to the things it comes into association and involvement with. Once cleansed,
this nature is complete, perfect and immaculately pure. Conventionally, it is called the
‘supreme fourth samana’. In ultimate terms, it is ‘the Arahatta Dhamma inside the citta’. This
citta is now wholly Dhamma. The citta is Dhamma; the Dhamma is citta."
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230

PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby PeterB » Thu Mar 17, 2011 3:02 pm

Yes.


Return to “Connections to Other Paths”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests

Google Saffron, Theravada Search Engine