You see no problems with this?baratgab wrote:If it is of any interest at all, one possible way of viewing Buddha Nature is that beings already have nibbana (or jhanas, for that matter); it is just covered with activity. This is in line with the path of letting go: we need less, rather than more; we need to lose, rather than to gain. If applied to the mental sphere, the end point is total detachment, anatta. I think I have heard this explanation from Ajahn Brahm (well, I'm just a parrot), who is very keen on reconciling traditions.
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings TMingyur,
What you say is true, but in the interests of keeping to the theme of "Discovering Theravada", we'll leave the Mahayana treatment of these terms to another time and another place.
Paññāsikhara wrote:(Don't you see some ironic parallels with the Hinayana vs Theravada issue on this?)
tiltbillings wrote:You see no problems with this?
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings bhante,Paññāsikhara wrote:(Don't you see some ironic parallels with the Hinayana vs Theravada issue on this?)
I do actually.
In fact, that's precisely why I think it's sufficient in the context of this sub-forum to say, "No, Theravada doesn't recognise this" (because if it's not true or relevant from the Theravada perspective, it is irrelevant to Theravada how others define it) and for that to be the end of the story - same logic as with the "Hinayana" issue. But often what I find sufficient, others find insufficient, and so be it.
Perhaps if Withoutcolour revisits this topic, she may comment on some outstanding angles she wishes to pursue in relation to the topic... and this may (or may not) include Mahayana definitions of these terms not used in the Pali Canon.
In keeping with the logic of SN 22.86 - Anuradha Sutta (which denies the application of the post-mortem tetralemma) "And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare..." the existence of some Buddha-element?
TMingyur wrote:What strikes me in this thread is that it is implied that "buddha nature" is unanimously accepted in all schools of Mahayana and that if the term as such is accepted then there would be one meaning that is unanimously implied by all schools of Mahayana.
This is definitely not so. E.g. Madhyamaka does not hold the Tathāgatagarbha view and some schools of Madhyamaka explicitely reject all interpretations of "buddha nature" that imply something other than a mere non-affirming negation (i.e. emptiness).
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Without Colour,
To the best of my knowledge, neither of these terms (nor what they point to) are recognised in Theravada.
Paññāsikhara wrote:All I can say, Paul, is that I feel that this sort of attitude and approach is not conducive to real understanding between different Buddhist groups.
withoutcolour wrote:Right now, I'm trying to sort out what's separating Theravadin and Mahayanan teachings, and figuring out which concepts belong to which. I really like Theravada for so many reasons, so that's what I'm attempting to categorize at the moment.
withoutcolour wrote:Well I suppose my point is that I'm attempting to weed out the Mahayana stuff that I had learned before and focus my efforts on Theravada. I'm not saying that one is better than the other or that Mahayana is inferior, I just really prefer the Theravadan teachings. I guess you could say that I finally chose a tradition (though I still have a very special place in my heart for the teachings of Thich Nhat Hanh and the Heart Sutra).
So I'm re-reading Bhikkhu Bodhi's In the Buddha's Words and spending some time on Accesstoinsight in an attempt to make sense of all this.
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings bhante,Paññāsikhara wrote:All I can say, Paul, is that I feel that this sort of attitude and approach is not conducive to real understanding between different Buddhist groups.
This subforum is called Discovering Theravada. Its sub-title is "A forum for beginners and members of other Buddhist traditions to ask questions about Theravada (The Way of the Elders)".
There are sub-forums here at Dhamma Wheel and other forums which are about "understanding between different Buddhist groups"... but this particular one is not one.
I apologise if that sounds abrupt, as it's not intended to be... I'm just trying to keep discussion in the different sub-forums related to their raison d'être.
withoutcolour wrote:... if that was confined strictly to the Mahayana traditions. ...
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 3 guests