Hi all,
I've studied both Mahayana (particulary the teachings of Thich Nhat Hanh and zen) and Theravada, and I definitely would consider myself more a follower of the Theravadin path (though I hate to label!)... so that being said...
I was confused to find that the concept of buddha-dhatu (buddha nature) is only recognized in Mahayana buddhism (according to Wikipedia, which is ever-so-reliable ) ... but that the word Tathāgatagarbha can be interchangeable. Is this correct? Would the idea of the "womb of the buddha" be equivalent to "buddha nature"?
I've always heard it referred to as buddha-dhatu so I just wanted to understanding it in relation to Theravada.
metta
-wc
Tathāgatagarbha & Buddha-dhatu (DFFA version)
- withoutcolour
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 7:53 pm
Tathāgatagarbha & Buddha-dhatu (DFFA version)
สัพเพ สัตตา สุขีตา โหนตุ
sabbe sattā sukhita hontu
sabbe sattā sukhita hontu
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Tathāgatagarbha & Buddha-dhatu
NOTE TO ALL:
This topic was split from the original one in Discovering Theravada
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=3289" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
... so that the discussion on the Mahayana understanding of these terms could be pursued further.
All posts relating to the scope of the Discovering Theravada forum have therefore been removed from this DFFA mirror topic.
Thanks for you understanding, and apologies for any inconvenience.
Metta,
Retro.
This topic was split from the original one in Discovering Theravada
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=3289" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
... so that the discussion on the Mahayana understanding of these terms could be pursued further.
All posts relating to the scope of the Discovering Theravada forum have therefore been removed from this DFFA mirror topic.
Thanks for you understanding, and apologies for any inconvenience.
Metta,
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: Tathāgatagarbha & Buddha-dhatu
Nor are they mentioned in any of the suttas.To the best of my knowledge, neither of these terms (nor what they point to) are recognised in Theravada.
The term "Buddha nature" is just one more example of nama-rupa for an inquiring mind to let go of. If you look at it in this way, you will be okay.
"The gift of truth exceeds all other gifts" — Dhammapada, v. 354 Craving XXIV
- withoutcolour
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 7:53 pm
Re: Tathāgatagarbha & Buddha-dhatu
So... then Theravada doesn't recognize the potential in all beings to awaken? Or would it be safer to say that neither Tathāgatagarbha nor buddha-dhatu are terms used in Theravada, but the potential for enlightenment in all beings exist?
สัพเพ สัตตา สุขีตา โหนตุ
sabbe sattā sukhita hontu
sabbe sattā sukhita hontu
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Tathāgatagarbha & Buddha-dhatu
Greetings withoutcolour,
As IanAnd said, "The term "Buddha nature" is just one more example of nama-rupa for an inquiring mind to let go of. If you look at it in this way, you will be okay."
Metta,
Retro.
The latter is most certainly the case!withoutcolour wrote:So... then Theravada doesn't recognize the potential in all beings to awaken? Or would it be safer to say that neither Tathāgatagarbha nor buddha-dhatu are terms used in Theravada, but the potential for enlightenment in all beings exist?
As IanAnd said, "The term "Buddha nature" is just one more example of nama-rupa for an inquiring mind to let go of. If you look at it in this way, you will be okay."
Metta,
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: Tathāgatagarbha & Buddha-dhatu
My understanding is that Buddha-nature is an ongoing subject of debate in Thai Buddhism, in the guise of an unconditioned or true Self. In 1939, the then Samgharaja published essays that advocated this concept and more recently a number of prominent Thais have taken this up again, particularly (but not only) the controversial Dhammakaya movement.
Cholvijarn's 2007 thesis Nibbana as Sef or Not Self: Some Contemporary Thai Discussions provides some info, but this is to show that it is not just a Mahayana issue.
_/|\_
Cholvijarn's 2007 thesis Nibbana as Sef or Not Self: Some Contemporary Thai Discussions provides some info, but this is to show that it is not just a Mahayana issue.
_/|\_
Last edited by Dan74 on Tue Jan 19, 2010 2:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
_/|\_
- withoutcolour
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 7:53 pm
Re: Tathāgatagarbha & Buddha-dhatu
OK, thank you guys.
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.
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.
สัพเพ สัตตา สุขีตา โหนตุ
sabbe sattā sukhita hontu
sabbe sattā sukhita hontu
Re: Tathāgatagarbha & Buddha-dhatu
Mahayana is an umbrella term for many different teachings, some fairly contradictory. Paul William's Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations may be helpful for you, although it doesn't do justice to the Far Eastern Buddhism (the author is a sanskrit specialist and well-versed in Tibetan texts, but not really in Chinese ones).
_/|\_
_/|\_
_/|\_
- withoutcolour
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 7:53 pm
Re: Tathāgatagarbha & Buddha-dhatu
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).Dan74 wrote:Mahayana is an umbrella term for many different teachings, some fairly contradictory. Paul William's Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations may be helpful for you, although it doesn't do justice to the Far Eastern Buddhism (the author is a sanskrit specialist and well-versed in Tibetan texts, but not really in Chinese ones).
_/|\_
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.
สัพเพ สัตตา สุขีตา โหนตุ
sabbe sattā sukhita hontu
sabbe sattā sukhita hontu
Re: Tathāgatagarbha & Buddha-dhatu
My understanding is that whichever school of Buddhism one affiliates with, the important thing is to be clear about the practice and what immediately relates to it and of course to have sincere motivation - Right View and Right Intention.
The basics are anyway the same - dependent origination, virtue, discipline, concentration, mindfulness and insight. They appear in various guises but in my experience they are definitely there.
What I am trying to say is that philosophical speculation or matters relating to higher levels of attainment are best left alone, at least until they are relevant to practice.
I am not sure if what you are "weeding out" falls into this category, if not - my apologies for rambling.
_/|\_
The basics are anyway the same - dependent origination, virtue, discipline, concentration, mindfulness and insight. They appear in various guises but in my experience they are definitely there.
What I am trying to say is that philosophical speculation or matters relating to higher levels of attainment are best left alone, at least until they are relevant to practice.
I am not sure if what you are "weeding out" falls into this category, if not - my apologies for rambling.
_/|\_
_/|\_
Re: Tathāgatagarbha & Buddha-dhatu
As has been said there is no recognition of such concepts in the Theravada. Not because of an oversight or omission but because it is considered that the Buddha held nothing back, he taught with open hands. My own view having spent many years involved with the Vajrayana , is that there are no higher or secret teachings, its all there in the Pitakas. No mystery, no special transmission. Just hard work and the joy that brings.withoutcolour wrote:Hi all,
I've studied both Mahayana (particulary the teachings of Thich Nhat Hanh and zen) and Theravada, and I definitely would consider myself more a follower of the Theravadin path (though I hate to label!)... so that being said...
I was confused to find that the concept of buddha-dhatu (buddha nature) is only recognized in Mahayana buddhism (according to Wikipedia, which is ever-so-reliable ) ... but that the word Tathāgatagarbha can be interchangeable. Is this correct? Would the idea of the "womb of the buddha" be equivalent to "buddha nature"?
I've always heard it referred to as buddha-dhatu so I just wanted to understanding it in relation to Theravada.
metta
-wc
Re: Tathāgatagarbha & Buddha-dhatu
Thanissaro Bhikkhu's talk on this issue is good, from a Theravada perspective. Title is "What is Wrong with Buddha Nature"
http://www.audiodharma.org/talks/ThanissaroBhikkhu.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I'd say that the concept itself isn't "wrong," though it's not a part of the Canon, therefore we would say it wasn't taught by the Buddha. But even the concept itself has a few different dimensions. If you just think of it as Nibanna then there's no problem. If it's simply the innate capacity to awaken, I think we all have that potential - but maybe it's going to take you a lifetime and me an Aeon or two (thousand...billion).
If you say we all are already awakened, of course that's a problem, because you can't be awakened and still have the kilesas (defilements). So that doesn't work from a Theravada POV.
Calling it a true self or any other kind of self is a problem because the Buddha advised against pretty much any form of self identification you can come up with - even grand noble ones like a cosmic self, true self, one with the universe, etc.
Mahayana has ways of addressing these issues with it's own kind of logic, but they just don't work in Theravada. The Theravada ideal is arahantship, and not Buddhadhood. Since a Buddha is self awakened, a Buddha can't be a person who is currently studying the teachings of the Buddha of the current period, so none of us can be Buddhas as long as we are studying the teachings of the Buddha!
-M
http://www.audiodharma.org/talks/ThanissaroBhikkhu.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I'd say that the concept itself isn't "wrong," though it's not a part of the Canon, therefore we would say it wasn't taught by the Buddha. But even the concept itself has a few different dimensions. If you just think of it as Nibanna then there's no problem. If it's simply the innate capacity to awaken, I think we all have that potential - but maybe it's going to take you a lifetime and me an Aeon or two (thousand...billion).
If you say we all are already awakened, of course that's a problem, because you can't be awakened and still have the kilesas (defilements). So that doesn't work from a Theravada POV.
Calling it a true self or any other kind of self is a problem because the Buddha advised against pretty much any form of self identification you can come up with - even grand noble ones like a cosmic self, true self, one with the universe, etc.
Mahayana has ways of addressing these issues with it's own kind of logic, but they just don't work in Theravada. The Theravada ideal is arahantship, and not Buddhadhood. Since a Buddha is self awakened, a Buddha can't be a person who is currently studying the teachings of the Buddha of the current period, so none of us can be Buddhas as long as we are studying the teachings of the Buddha!
-M
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Tathāgatagarbha & Buddha-dhatu
None of us likely can be sammasambuddha, but buddha we can be.meindzai wrote: Since a Buddha is self awakened, a Buddha can't be a person who is currently studying the teachings of the Buddha of the current period, so none of us can be Buddhas as long as we are studying the teachings of the Buddha!
-M
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: Tathāgatagarbha & Buddha-dhatu
An important, in fact I would vital, distinction.tiltbillings wrote:None of us likely can be sammasambuddha, but buddha we can be.meindzai wrote: Since a Buddha is self awakened, a Buddha can't be a person who is currently studying the teachings of the Buddha of the current period, so none of us can be Buddhas as long as we are studying the teachings of the Buddha!
-M
-
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 8:37 am
Re: Tathāgatagarbha & Buddha-dhatu
The problem with Buddha nature is that it might invoke the idea of "Buddha soul" or underlying hidden ultimate reality beneath Samara, similar to the Brahman & Maya theory in the Vedas. Then that will be a problem as it stands against the doctrine of Anatta.withoutcolour wrote:Hi all,
I was confused to find that the concept of buddha-dhatu (buddha nature) is only recognized in Mahayana buddhism (according to Wikipedia, which is ever-so-reliable ) ... but that the word Tathāgatagarbha can be interchangeable. Is this correct? Would the idea of the "womb of the buddha" be equivalent to "buddha nature"?
Personally, I see anatta and other two marks of existence as being a self sufficient mean to Satipatthana. Why include an extra dimensional level of complexity and mental attachment?