Let me see if I follow you.retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Individual,
"Everything is shared" is something else altogether, and is totally inconsistent with...
AN 5.57: Upajjhatthana Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"'I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir'...
"[This is a fact that] one should reflect on often, whether one is a woman or a man, lay or ordained...
"Now, based on what line of reasoning should one often reflect... that 'I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir'? There are beings who conduct themselves in a bad way in body... in speech... and in mind. But when they often reflect on that fact, that bad conduct in body, speech, and mind will either be entirely abandoned or grow weaker...
"A disciple of the noble ones considers this: 'I am not the only one who is owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator; who — whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir. To the extent that there are beings — past and future, passing away and re-arising — all beings are the owner of their actions, heir to their actions, born of their actions, related through their actions, and live dependent on their actions. Whatever they do, for good or for evil, to that will they fall heir.' When he/she often reflects on this, the [factors of the] path take birth. He/she sticks with that path, develops it, cultivates it. As he/she sticks with that path, develops it and cultivates it, the fetters are abandoned, the obsessions destroyed."So long as it's not the basis for creating a proxy-atman....which could be called Buddha-nature, emptiness, and luminous, right?
Metta,
Retro.
"Everything is shared" is inconsistent with "I (atman) am the owner of my actions (kamma)" (AN 5.57)
But Buddha-nature, emptiness, and luminous mind is okay terminology, so long as it's not the basis for creating a proxy-atman.
That is... I say everything is shared, you insist on the Buddha's description of I being the owner of actions.
But then I say, "Buddha-nature, emptiness, and luminous mind is the true atman," and you say I cannot say this. And yet, if I asked you, "Who owns karma? Is there a self that collects karma?" you would say no.
An analogy... A group of monks decide to build a statue of the Buddha. One monk suggests they make it out of wood, but another monk suggests brass, another monk suggests silver, another suggests gold, and still, another suggests jade. And another says that making a statue is a waste of time. Then they argue over it. Eventually, they decide -- peacefully, amicably -- to go their own separate ways and each make their own Buddha statues, and let laypeople be the judge of which one is most beautiful and appropriate.
Yes, but "no nature" doesn't mean "nothing" or "non-existence." True nature is emptiness, which isn't simply nothingness, space, or non-existence.gabrielbranbury wrote:Isnt our "true nature" no nature. Or rather our true nature is conditioned arising. Buddhas arise in the world by knowing what cannot be known by any characteristics. The world can be known by limitless characteristics which are all conditionally arisen. They all have no self nature and that is their nature thus "Buddha Nature". I do see that this way of teaching is highly prone to problematic interpretations and in my opinion probably only suitable to those who have developed a strong faith in the Buddhas achievements If at all.
Metta
Gabriel