What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

[ancientbuddhism]

If Buddha nature is defined as something that all beings have or some capacity that all beings have then what is wrong with Buddha nature is that it is just one more way of constructing a doctrine of self....Buddha nature seems to be a doctrine of self based on the illusion that there is a self which "has" something....if we think "I" "have" "it" then a doctrine of self has arisen three times in that one short sentence...there is no "I" and entities can not "have" anything and "it" implies an external self as something which can be "had"......That is what is wrong with Buddha nature....it is a doctrine of self....something the Buddha advised us very strongly to not indulge in....
chownah

Ahem. Not rejecting or accepting self is Buddha Nature my friend, but the cultivation is to get rid of defilement. Whatever you want to call it, Buddha Nature, Mind, Citta, Permanent, not a thing, etc. But without "it," you will not be able to cultivate. "It" is what you are cultivating for.

If you accept the concept of self, then behind it must be a "no-name "? Or should we not speak about "no-name" at all since "it" is not a thing and cannot be defined. But "it" must be permanent. What are you cultivating for if not "it"? And "who" is experiencing Nirvana after defilement is gone. If there is no "who," then two Arahants must not distinguishable. If there is no Buddha Nature, who is posting this?

Thanks for reading.

With reference to your original statement. You need to relearn what sakkāya diṭṭhi is.

[LastLegend]

If Buddha nature is defined as something that all beings have or some capacity that all beings have then what is wrong with Buddha nature is that it is just one more way of constructing a doctrine of self....Buddha nature seems to be a doctrine of self based on the illusion that there is a self which "has" something....if we think "I" "have" "it" then a doctrine of self has arisen three times in that one short sentence...there is no "I" and entities can not "have" anything and "it" implies an external self as something which can be "had"......That is what is wrong with Buddha nature....it is a doctrine of self....something the Buddha advised us very strongly to not indulge in....
chownah

Ahem. Not rejecting or accepting self is Buddha Nature my friend, but the cultivation is to get rid of defilement. Whatever you want to call it, Buddha Nature, Mind, Citta, Permanent, not a thing, etc. But without "it," you will not be able to cultivate. "It" is what you are cultivating for.

If you accept the concept of self, then behind it must be a "no-name "? Or should we not speak about "no-name" at all since "it" is not a thing and cannot be defined. But "it" must be permanent. What are you cultivating for if not "it"? And "who" is experiencing Nirvana after defilement is gone. If there is no "who," then two Arahants must not distinguishable. If there is no Buddha Nature, who is posting this?

Thanks for reading.

With reference to your original statement. You need to relearn what sakkāya diṭṭhi is.

No thanks. That is your job.

[tiltbillings]

With reference to your original statement. You need to relearn what sakkāya diṭṭhi is.

No thanks.

Wow!!! Willfull ignorance. You don't understand Buddha-nature from a Mahayana standpoint and you do not want to learn what the Buddha has to say about things.

[LastLegend]

With reference to your original statement. You need to relearn what sakkāya diṭṭhi is.

No thanks.

Wow!!! Willfull ignorance. You don't understand Buddha-nature from a Mahayana standpoint and you do not want to learn what the Buddha has to say about things.

I will now back out of this room. Thank you for concern.

[tiltbillings]

I will now back out of this room. Thank you for concern.

You do not need to back out of this room. You might stay around and try to learn something. Maybe you could explain your "No thanks" response; maybe you could ask for some clarification of what is meant?

[Kenshou]

To break my vows and reenter, this deserves repeating:

You need to relearn what sakkāya diṭṭhi is.

I think right here we have a case study of how it is that there can be something quite wrong with Buddha Nature: When it causes this sort of confusion.

[beeblebrox]

Just for convenience:

Sakkaya ditthi = identity view, one of the 10 fetters. It's an attempt to view a "self" as compared to the five aggregates, in the following ways: identical with them (form is self, consciousness is self, etc.); contained within them (self is found in form, self is found in consciousness, etc.); independent from them (self is beyond the form, self is beyond the consciousness, etc.); or owner of them (self owns the form, self owns the consciousness, etc).

I think that if the Dhamma is to be understood, and practiced to its fullest (all the way to liberation), the idea of "self" needs to be taken out of the equation completely, including the idea of "no self." It's really irrelevant to the practice (apart from conventional usage), and is a fetter.

[daverupa]

I think that if the Dhamma is to be understood, and practiced to its fullest (all the way to liberation), the idea of "self" needs to be taken out of the equation completely, including the idea of "no self." It's really irrelevant to the practice (apart from conventional usage), and is a fetter.

So anatta is irrelevant? o.O;

[Kenshou]

I think this is like the raft simile. We use the concept of anatta to get us where we want to go, but after it's done it's job it doesn't need to be held onto anymore. I can't remember where but I believe it's said that the arahant doesn't cling to even such concepts as "viraga" or "nibbana". Of course for the majority of us this isn't something we need to worry about right now. And I'd figure that "releasing the raft" happens automatically anyway at the right time, but whatever.

[beeblebrox]

So anatta is irrelevant? o.O;

Apart from the conventional usage... I think yes. What the Buddha taught was neither annihilationism (killing the self is the goal), nor nihilism (no self, so no worries). Why?

[ground]

So anatta is irrelevant? o.O;

Apart from the conventional usage... I think yes. What the Buddha taught was neither annihilationism (killing the self is the goal), nor nihilism (no self, so no worries). Why?

I don't agree. IMO it is about validly cognizing the absence of what has been misperceived as being "more than" mere thought.

How to "kill" a thought? Cognize it as such and don't nurture it further.
Worries are secondary thoughts that follow in the wake of the primary one.

Kind regards

[ground]

Now if anything then this emptiness of "self" actually meaning emptiness of "I" and "mine" may be called "Buddha nature".

But then ... why introduce a new term if there is already a more specific one?

The reason is that "Buddha nature" can be applied to mean "more than" the "mere lack of", the mere emptiness ... it can be applied to imply pre-existing positive, i.e. affirmed, qualities.

And this is the reason why even among Mahayanists the term "Buddha nature" has been revealed by some to be "a means" for those inclined to soul theories. Now if this "means" may be called "skillful" or not is a point of dissent even among Mahayanists.


Kind regards

[beeblebrox]

So anatta is irrelevant? o.O;

Apart from the conventional usage... I think yes. What the Buddha taught was neither annihilationism (killing the self is the goal), nor nihilism (no self, so no worries). Why?

I don't agree. IMO it is about validly cognizing the absence of what has been misperceived as being "more than" mere thought.

Anatta is still viewing it through the lens of "self." I think that the Dhamma not being annihilationism nor nihilism is probably one of the difficult points for most people... sometimes this causes them to fall back on "self" yet again, such as Buddha-nature (at least some interpretation of it), or Self, with a big "S", but they should be careful not to.

The reason why it's neither "killing the self" (which includes the illusory self) nor "no self, so no worries," is because these don't end the suffering. The idea of a self is the delusion here... which includes the idea of "no self," because it's still based around the idea of a self. The Buddha himself even said that the ones who assert "no self" are close, but still not there.

[ancientbuddhism]

Just for convenience:

Sakkaya ditthi = identity view, one of the 10 fetters. It's an attempt to view a "self" as compared to the five aggregates, in the following ways: identical with them (form is self, consciousness is self, etc.); contained within them (self is found in form, self is found in consciousness, etc.); independent from them (self is beyond the form, self is beyond the consciousness, etc.); or owner of them (self owns the form, self owns the consciousness, etc).

I think that if the Dhamma is to be understood, and practiced to its fullest (all the way to liberation), the idea of "self" needs to be taken out of the equation completely, including the idea of "no self." It's really irrelevant to the practice (apart from conventional usage), and is a fetter.

Unfortunately this statement is irrelevant to the discussion (aside from being incorrect).

Sakkāya-diṭṭhi and all of the analysis the Buddha supplied with it was pointing to the principle of not-self as definitely relevant to practice! It is the problem which leads to dukkha.

The Buddha explains that Sakkāya-diṭṭhi is the taking-up (upādāya) of the khandhas as 'I am':

“It is by identification (upādāya) that there is ‘I am”, not without identification. It is by identification with material-form that there is ‘I am’, not without identification. It is by identification with sensations of feeling…; It is by identification with sense-perception …; It is by identification with volitional-cognition …; It is by identification with consciousness that there is ‘I am’, not without identification. - SN. 3.105 [SLTP]

Anatta is a realization of this habit, or as already stated in this thread:

TMingyur wrote: ‘…it (anatta) is about validly cognizing the absence of what has been misperceived as being "more than" mere thought.’

Back to the topic:

The notion of buddha-nature is fitting for the Buddha’s criticism under the sakkāya-diṭṭhi and anatta analysis, where it is pointing to the misapprehension of the khandhas and anything within their reach as beset with the ‘underlying notion of I-making and mine-making’ (ahaṃkāramamaṃkāramānānusayā); which is the tendency to reify anything as substantial, including this much later fad of buddha-nature awakening potential.

[beeblebrox]

When you say "not self," what idea are you using? What are you comparing it against? Once this idea is taken out of the equation... there is only the arising and falling away.

That is not the end, though. We still have to use this "insight" as something to end the suffering, for once.

[ancientbuddhism]

When you say "not self," what idea are you using? What are you comparing it against? Once this idea is taken out of the equation... there is only the arising and falling away.

That is not the end, though. We still have to use this "insight" as something to end the suffering, for once.

By this reasoning why not take taṇhā and the entire pathway to dukkha out of the equation? …since this is interrupting your meditation.

Even better still, why don't we just reduce anatta to a strategy and just talk ourselves out of dukkha.

[kirk5a]

When you say "not self," what idea are you using? What are you comparing it against? Once this idea is taken out of the equation... there is only the arising and falling away.

That is not the end, though. We still have to use this "insight" as something to end the

self-grasping, which ends the

suffering, for once.

[acinteyyo]

Well if there is no self, there must be "something" there that is permanent? Otherwise an Arahant can get defiled again.

Actually it's the absence of "something" which is permanent which is why an arahant can't get defiled again.

best wishes, acinteyyo

[ground]

Apart from the conventional usage... I think yes. What the Buddha taught was neither annihilationism (killing the self is the goal), nor nihilism (no self, so no worries). Why?

I don't agree. IMO it is about validly cognizing the absence of what has been misperceived as being "more than" mere thought.

Anatta is still viewing it through the lens of "self." I think that the Dhamma not being annihilationism nor nihilism is probably one of the difficult points for most people... sometimes this causes them to fall back on "self" yet again, such as Buddha-nature (at least some interpretation of it), or Self, with a big "S", but they should be careful not to.

The reason why it's neither "killing the self" (which includes the illusory self) nor "no self, so no worries," is because these don't end the suffering. The idea of a self is the delusion here... which includes the idea of "no self," because it's still based around the idea of a self. The Buddha himself even said that the ones who assert "no self" are close, but still not there.

Hmh .... either we don't agree or we are talking at cross purposes.

Be that as it may. Obviously you have an issue with the term "anatta" which I do not understand ...


kind regards

[beeblebrox]

By this reasoning why not take taṇhā and the entire pathway to dukkha out of the equation? …since this is interrupting your meditation.

Even better still, why don't we just reduce anatta to a strategy and just talk ourselves out of dukkha.

I think you (and TMingyur) missed this... "apart from the conventional usage."

Try to think of it in this way:

Person #1 keeps on saying this for each of the aggregates, "This is not god. This is not god. This is not god... this is not god... this also is not god." (Like a broken record.)

Person #2 replies, "OK... now that we figured that out... why not just dump 'god,' so that we might study these aggregates for what they really are?"

Person #1 says, "No way! Saying that these are 'not god' is a crucial part of the practice..."

The only problem is... "god" is the delusion here. As long as this person #1 continues his "not god" thing, this idea of "god" will continue, forever. We can't do away with "god" or else we won't be able to say, "not god." The person #1 is basically insisting on viewing this practice through the lens of a delusion, and doesn't seem to know it.

This "atheist" can't seem to shake off the "god" thing... why not? It's like a bad comedy, with super-glue...

The point of this practice is that when you finally see something as a delusion, you let that fall away... and you do not pick it up again, ever... after this, "god" becomes an irrelevant part of the practice. There's a complete ending of that very delusion... and therefore, you don't have to be bothered with it, again.

When I was growing up (since I was little), I was always mystified why people would ask me whether I thought that "God" existed or not. I always said, "I don't know." I didn't understand why people would never seem to accept this answer... they wanted me to make up an answer about this, one way or other. What for?

When the idea of "self" becomes irrelevant (i.e., when you stop trying to use the idea of a "self" to view things)... what reason could there possibly be to continue with the use of "anatta"? Other than that there is still the idea of a "self" lingering? That, is why one shouldn't try to make up a self... just for the sake of using "anatta."