David's Book:Does a cloned animal have buddha-nature?

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

David's Book:Does a cloned animal have buddha-nature?

Postby yawares » Tue Sep 11, 2012 1:34 pm

Dear Members,

Does a cloned animal have buddha-nature?
[By Dr.David N. Snyder]


The third characteristic of existence is the doctrine of no-self. This is one of the most
controversial and misunderstood doctrines of the Buddha. I have prepared an explanation in this
section utilizing information from an ancient teaching on no-self along with information from the
new modern scientific procedure of cloning:
The famous zen koan (riddle), does a dog have buddha-nature? Answer: Mu (no). Zen
Buddhists and others interested in zen and koans have been working on this riddle for
centuries.


This koan is difficult because we do know that all living beings have buddha-nature, that is, the
capacity for insight and enlightenment. All living beings are sentient beings with consciousness
and experience pleasant and unpleasant emotions, feelings, and sensations.
This koan has no specific right answer, but can have many wrong answers. For example, if we
try to analyze the words, we might come up with something like, the dog is not yet human and
not ready for enlightenment and the answer is referring to his need for a future rebirth. This is
wrong! This koan, like other koans is trying to get the practitioner away from such analytical
thoughts and to spark an insight with an answer beyond the use of intellect, but rather a
direct experiential answer.


The point of the koan (and other koans) is to get us beyond dualistic thoughts. The Buddha‘s
teachings are full of stories and similes that attempt to get the listeners to see beyond
dualism. The Heart Sutra works to just that end of seeing beyond the opposites, beyond dualism:
Form is only emptiness, emptiness only form. Form is no other than emptiness,emptiness no other
than form. Feeling, thought, and choice, consciousness itself, are the same as this.


The Buddha‘s teachings on soul-theory and no-self are the same as this. The Buddha‘s teachings
were revolutionary on many issues, but not the least of which was the concept of no permanent
soul or no-self. The Buddha completely rejected the prevailing philosophy that each human
and/or animal had a permanent soul or self. To this day most religious traditions adhere to the
concept of a permanent soul.


The concept of no-self is difficult for many people to grasp, among Buddhists and non-Buddhists
alike. It is difficult because people feel that if they accept the notion of no-self then they are
adhering to an annihilationist view that they do not exist or will not exist beyond death. The
Buddha was not an annihilationist, nor was he an eternalist. The Buddha refused to say that we
exist after death or in nibbana and also refused to say that we do not exist after death or in
nibbana. The Buddha did not want to be confused or misinterpreted as an annihilationist, which
is why he refused to say flat-out that there is no self. Instead he preferred to word it the other
way by saying that the view that there is a permanent self is wrong.


―Venerable Ananda said to the Blessed One, Why is it, venerable sir, that when the Blessed One
was questioned by the wanderer Vacchagotta, he did not answer? The Buddha responds, If
Ananda, when I was asked by the wanderer Vacchagotta, Is there a self? I had answered, There
is a self, this would have been siding with those ascetics and Brahmins who are eternalists. And
if, when I was asked by him, Is there no self? I had answered, There is no self, this would have
been siding with those ascetics and Brahmins who are annhilationists.
If, Ananda, when I was asked by the wanderer Vacchagotta, Is there a self? I had answered,
There is a self, would this have been consistent on my part with the arising of the knowledge that
all phenomena are non-self? Ananda replied, No, venerable sir.


And if when I was asked by him, Is there no self? I had answered, There is no self, the wanderer
Vacchagotta, already confused, would have fallen into greater confusion, thinking, It seems that
the self I formerly had does not exist now. Samyutta Nikaya 44.10


The concept of each mind being like a drop of water entering a Divine ocean in nibbana is very
similar to pantheistic ideas and not exactly to the Buddhist view of nibbana, but it does provide a
―near definition for us until we actually see and experience the wisdom of enlightenment.
There is some wording similar to this given by the Buddha in similes in the discourses:

Bhikkhus, just as the river Ganges slants, slopes, and inclines toward the ocean, so too a
bhikkhu who develops and cultivates the Noble Eightfold Path slants, slopes, and inclines toward
Nibbana
.Samyutta Nikaya 45.97-102
:anjali:

And here in the following discourse there is a more direct correlation to the pantheistic concept:
Just as the river Ganges inclines toward the sea, flows towards the sea, and merges with the
sea, so too Master Gotama‘s assembly with its homeless ones and its householders inclines
toward Nibbana, and merges with Nibbana
.
Majjhima Nikaya 73.14
:namaste:

**********to be continued************

Colored by yawares
User avatar
yawares
 
Posts: 1532
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:23 pm

Re: David's Book:Does a cloned animal have buddha-nature?

Postby m0rl0ck » Tue Sep 11, 2012 2:16 pm

No a cloned animal does not have buddha nature. A cloned animal is buddha nature, just as is everything else that arises from emptiness, including the emptiness itself.

If you state it as a cloned animal having buddha nature you are supposing an independent entity that possesses some thing or quality called buddha-nature. Non-self means non-self all the way down.

EDIT: changed "not-self" to "non-self" because that seems more correct.
Last edited by m0rl0ck on Tue Sep 11, 2012 2:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
There is no comfort without pain; thus
we define salvation through suffering.
-- Cato
User avatar
m0rl0ck
 
Posts: 1021
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:51 am

Re: David's Book:Does a cloned animal have buddha-nature?

Postby DAWN » Tue Sep 11, 2012 2:24 pm

Can I say somethink heretical ?

A stone have the Buddha Nature, he is the Buddha Nature.

Thanks, i finished :namaste:
Last edited by DAWN on Tue Sep 11, 2012 2:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
User avatar
DAWN
 
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: David's Book:Does a cloned animal have buddha-nature?

Postby kirk5a » Tue Sep 11, 2012 2:25 pm

m0rl0ck wrote:No a cloned animal does not have buddha nature. A cloned animal is buddha nature, just as is everything else that arises from emptiness, including the emptiness itself.

If you state it as a cloned animal having buddha nature you are supposing an independent entity that possesses some thing or quality called buddha-nature. Not-self means not-self all the way down.

mm nice - I think you should take this answer to a Zen master. ;)
"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
User avatar
kirk5a
 
Posts: 1756
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: David's Book:Does a cloned animal have buddha-nature?

Postby m0rl0ck » Tue Sep 11, 2012 2:25 pm

DAWN wrote:Can I say somethink heretical ?

A stone have the Bhudda Nature, he is the Bhudda Nature.

Thanks, i finished :namaste:


Yes, i think one of the chan / zen teachers put it as even the blades of grass become enlightened.
There is no comfort without pain; thus
we define salvation through suffering.
-- Cato
User avatar
m0rl0ck
 
Posts: 1021
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:51 am


Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dan74, Digity, Hieros Gamos, Mr Man, Spiny Norman and 12 guests