What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby Kenshou » Fri May 20, 2011 2:23 am

LastLegend wrote:What are you cultivating for if not "it"?
The elimination of the asavas. Don't need the "it".
Kenshou
 
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:03 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby LastLegend » Fri May 20, 2011 2:24 am

Kenshou wrote:
LastLegend wrote:What are you cultivating for if not "it"?
The elimination of the asavas. Don't need the "it".


Fine, who is cultivating then?
LastLegend
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 7:17 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby Kenshou » Fri May 20, 2011 2:30 am

This conditioned process of mind and body practices for it's own sake.

Not trying to be holier-than-thou here, but your previous post seems to be positing some permanent thingie somewhere in there. Which, following anatta, is an unsustainable premise.
Kenshou
 
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:03 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby LastLegend » Fri May 20, 2011 2:33 am

Kenshou wrote:This conditioned process of mind and body practices for it's own sake.

Not trying to be holier-than-thou here, but your previous post seems to be positing some permanent thingie somewhere in there. Which, following anatta, is an unsustainable premise.


Well if there is no self, there must be "something" there that is permanent? Otherwise an Arahant can get defiled again.
LastLegend
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 7:17 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby Kenshou » Fri May 20, 2011 2:43 am

I would disagree. The process does continue onward, but there is nothing permanent discernible in it.

Otherwise an Arahant can get defiled again.
Not if the conditions for the defilements are removed. And though this removal may last the remainder of the arahant's life I think it's a stretch to argue that this absence is some kind of permanent phenomena and therefore there is a self in there somehow.
Kenshou
 
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:03 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby LastLegend » Fri May 20, 2011 2:51 am

I am just posting some questions for people to think about be it permanent, not permanent, Buddha Nature, or whatever, it must be "something" there whether people rejecting or accepting it. And that "something" is what experiencing phenomenon. So lets saying undefinable for now. Whether rejecting or accepting "it," I am sure will not affect people's practice at all.
LastLegend
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 7:17 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby Kenshou » Fri May 20, 2011 2:59 am

No hard feelings here, just having a discussion. But since anything else I might say in reply would be a repeat, I will back out of the room now.
Kenshou
 
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:03 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby LastLegend » Fri May 20, 2011 3:20 am

Mahayana describes emptiness-not permanent or impermanent, not eternal or eternal, not non-dualities or dualities....does not reject or accept, that's why it is called emptiness/Buddha Nature and dependently arising. When there is no ignorance, there is wisdom. When there is no wisdom, there is ignorance.
LastLegend
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 7:17 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby Dan74 » Fri May 20, 2011 3:29 am

LastLegend wrote:... it must be "something" there whether people rejecting or accepting it. And that "something" is what experiencing phenomenon.


Why does there have to be an experiencer? Maybe just experiencing? A process, an ever-changing flux, a doing without a doer.

Otherwise you are stuck with dualities - "experiencer (in-itself) having an experience." Not really a sustainable position (see Nagarjuna).
_/|\_
User avatar
Dan74
 
Posts: 2631
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby alan » Fri May 20, 2011 3:31 am

I'm sorry to inform you Mr. L., but your posts have shown no logical consistency or structure. At this point it is hereby requested that you make a statement of purpose.

In other words, what the heck are you trying to say, and why did you choose to say it here?
alan
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:14 am
Location: Miramar beach, Fl.

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby LastLegend » Fri May 20, 2011 3:43 am

Dan74 wrote:
LastLegend wrote:... it must be "something" there whether people rejecting or accepting it. And that "something" is what experiencing phenomenon.


Why does there have to be an experiencer? Maybe just experiencing? A process, an ever-changing flux, a doing without a doer.

Otherwise you are stuck with dualities - "experiencer (in-itself) having an experience." Not really a sustainable position (see Nagarjuna).


Emptiness-not rejecting or accepting self. Not rejecting or accepting is wholesome. Division or creation is what created self versus others. Why is there an experiencer? Well right now I am the experiencer talking to you. But then again not rejecting or accepting the experiencer because the experiencer would be self. That is why it's called emptiness.

What about suffering? It is caused by grasping to attachments since it has been a habitual thing for eons.
Last edited by LastLegend on Fri May 20, 2011 3:47 am, edited 2 times in total.
LastLegend
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 7:17 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby LastLegend » Fri May 20, 2011 3:45 am

alan wrote:I'm sorry to inform you Mr. L., but your posts have shown no logical consistency or structure. At this point it is hereby requested that you make a statement of purpose.

In other words, what the heck are you trying to say, and why did you choose to say it here?


It's called Dhammic free-for-all, and this topic is about Buddha Nature and I am here to share my view about it. You have the choice to accept or reject as it is not Theravada.

As for structure, what the heck structure do you expect from me, officer? You are funny. If you do not understand what I am saying, please ignore. I don't think I have to adhere to your expectation of structure.

I am not here to create troubles if that's what you think.

Thanks for reading.
Last edited by LastLegend on Fri May 20, 2011 3:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
LastLegend
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 7:17 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby Dan74 » Fri May 20, 2011 3:52 am

LastLegend wrote:
Dan74 wrote:
LastLegend wrote:... it must be "something" there whether people rejecting or accepting it. And that "something" is what experiencing phenomenon.


Why does there have to be an experiencer? Maybe just experiencing? A process, an ever-changing flux, a doing without a doer.

Otherwise you are stuck with dualities - "experiencer (in-itself) having an experience." Not really a sustainable position (see Nagarjuna).


Emptiness-not rejecting or accepting self. Not rejecting or accepting is wholesome. Division or creation is what created self versus others. Why is there an experiencer? Well right now I am the experiencer talking to you. But then again not rejecting or accepting the experiencer because the experiencer would be self. That is why it's called emptiness.

What about suffering? It is caused by grasping to attachments since it has been a habitual thing for eons.


Hmm... so what is this "experiencer"?

And how can there be "no accepting or rejecting" when you have postulated a notion of experiencer, are you not accepting it? Have you not made a choice to go with this notion?
_/|\_
User avatar
Dan74
 
Posts: 2631
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby LastLegend » Fri May 20, 2011 3:58 am

Dan74 wrote:And how can there be "no accepting or rejecting" when you have postulated a notion of experiencer, are you not accepting it? Have you not made a choice to go with this notion?


I am the experiencer who is typing right now, but would this not implying there is a self? But how can there NOT be a self when there is an experiencer, for example typing this to you right now? That is why it is not rejecting or accepting; it's wholesome as it is. So the cultivation is to get rid of grasping on to attachments or defilements.
LastLegend
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 7:17 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby Dan74 » Fri May 20, 2011 4:06 am

Perhaps it is best to first clarify what this "experiencer" is beyond a bunch of notions (insight).
_/|\_
User avatar
Dan74
 
Posts: 2631
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby LastLegend » Fri May 20, 2011 4:10 am

Dan74 wrote:Perhaps it is best to first clarify what this "experiencer" is beyond a bunch of notions (insight).


Would that not fall into the creation of a self if I were to do so when Theravada people deliberately reject the concepts of Buddha Nature and such. But apparently there is an experiencer who is typing to you right now.
LastLegend
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 7:17 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby Dan74 » Fri May 20, 2011 4:20 am

"Apparently" it is not always as it appears.

Why not investigate? Theravadins are all for investigation, I am sure.
_/|\_
User avatar
Dan74
 
Posts: 2631
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby alan » Fri May 20, 2011 4:23 am

LL,
You are officially reprimanded on two counts.
One, not knowing that of which you speak.
Two, being a person with no sense of humor or awareness.
I punish you to being banished until further notice.
alan
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:14 am
Location: Miramar beach, Fl.

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby LastLegend » Fri May 20, 2011 4:25 am

I am sure they are, but I was just avoiding the confusion in what I was trying to say.

And there are some Dhamma police here.
LastLegend
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 7:17 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby LastLegend » Fri May 20, 2011 4:25 am

alan wrote:LL,
You are officially reprimanded on two counts.
One, not knowing that of which you speak.
Two, being a person with no sense of humor or awareness.
I punish you to being banished until further notice.


I don't know what you are saying either...it's all good man. But let's stay on topic friend.
LastLegend
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 7:17 am

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: David N. Snyder, Khalil Bodhi, VinceField and 10 guests