Buddha Nature ?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Post by Aloka »

.

Thanks for the interesting replies everyone. The reason why I asked is because after several years as a Vajrayana practitioner and knowing hardly anything at all about any other tradition,I have more recently been investigating Theravada .I find myself particularly comfortable with the teachings of the Thai Forest tradition (I started with Ajahn Chah) I'm also reading the Pali Canon Suttas whenever time permits.


Kind regards,

Aloka.
Last edited by Aloka on Sun Jul 09, 2017 5:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Post by ground »

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 191#p50191" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=3455" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Kind regards
Stephen
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:22 pm
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Contact:

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Post by Stephen »

If by "Buddha nature" you mean the potential to reach the same awakening, Nibbana, then naturally it need not be pointed out anywhere in the suttas because it is the entire point of the Buddhist teachings to reach this state of enlightenment.

I'd try not to call the Buddha "Lord", as it makes it seem like he's being worshiped or thought of as some kind of deity by anyone who doesn't understand Buddhism fully (which is a lot of people in the West). Perhaps better to say either Buddha, Master, Teacher or Tathagata (as he referred to himself, also meaning Teacher). Anything but "Lord". ;)
The "self", which is a construct of the mind, is non-self. It is not us, and we are not it. This self blinds us to reality; it is our Mara, our Satan, our Hades. Cast it out and behold the path to freedom.
(Visit http://www.BodhiBox.com for a free Buddhist e-mail account, while you're still attached to the 'net...)
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Post by Aloka »

Stephen wrote: I'd try not to call the Buddha "Lord", as it makes it seem like he's being worshiped or thought of as some kind of deity by anyone who doesn't understand Buddhism fully (which is a lot of people in the West). Perhaps better to say either Buddha, Master, Teacher or Tathagata (as he referred to himself, also meaning Teacher). Anything but "Lord". ;)

I'm quite comfortable saying 'Lord',thanks, Stephen.

I wouldn't like to speculate about how many other people understand Buddhism in the west because I'm dealing with my own practice at the moment.

Thank you for your concern. .

Kind regards,

Aloka
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Post by christopher::: »

Hi all.
PeterB wrote:
....Did you listen to the talk by Thanissaro Bhikkhu that Meindzai posted ?
Among other things he discuusses the fact that concepts like Buddha Nature actually harms the ability to understand the Theravadin view. This is not simply a question of purity of tradition.
The concept of Buddha Nature prevents an understanding of what constitutes reality according to the Theravada. Have a listen to the good Bhikkhu.
No, I haven't listened to the talk posted yet, Peter, but am currently very much appreciating Bikkhu's "Wings to Awakening." I will check it out.
meindzai wrote:I'd say if you firmly plant yourself in the Mahayana context, you'll have a better time if you have some foundational study in the Pali canon. Otherwise Buddha nature does seem to become exactly the kind of eternalist teaching the Buddha constantly warned about. In Theravada it is pretty heavily drilled into one that "all dhammas are not self" including Nibanna. (With which Buddha nature is equated).

However if you stay in a Theravada context I would say that it's not beneficial to bring the teaching into the fold and try to make it fit.

As for music analogies, I tend to equate Theravada with classical and Mahayana with Jazz. Lots more improvising going on in Jazz, but the best jazz players (at least my favorites) have at least some classical training. :)

-M
We all may find different analogies to be useful, or not, but what you said (in bold) is the main point i was trying to emphasize...
However if you stay in a Theravada context I would say that it's not beneficial to bring the teaching into the fold and try to make it fit.
Perhaps this is so. I should listen to Thanissaro Bhikkhu's talk before commenting further.

:anjali:
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
meindzai
Posts: 595
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:10 pm

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Post by meindzai »

Stephen wrote:If by "Buddha nature" you mean the potential to reach the same awakening, Nibbana, then naturally it need not be pointed out anywhere in the suttas because it is the entire point of the Buddhist teachings to reach this state of enlightenment.

I'd try not to call the Buddha "Lord", as it makes it seem like he's being worshiped or thought of as some kind of deity by anyone who doesn't understand Buddhism fully (which is a lot of people in the West). Perhaps better to say either Buddha, Master, Teacher or Tathagata (as he referred to himself, also meaning Teacher). Anything but "Lord". ;)
Stephen,

"Lord," is just an honorific, like "sir." It does not denote anything supernatural. You're getting your definition from the Christian usage most likely.

-M
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Post by mikenz66 »

Aloka wrote: I'm quite comfortable saying 'Lord',thanks, Stephen.
I agree. Those who automatically associate "lord" with "God" might like to think:
"lord" as in "lord of the rings"... :tongue:

In fact, there are seven definitions of "lord" given here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lord before God is even mentioned...

Metta
Mike
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Post by ground »

Aloka wrote:.The reason why I asked is because after many years as a Vajrayana practitioner and knowing hardly anything at all about any other tradition,...
Aloka

may I ask what tradition you have been following?
I am asking because not all Mahayana tradition are so focused on "Buddha nature" teachings which may be the wrong impression caused by this thread.


Kind regards
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Post by PeterB »

Aloka wrote:
Stephen wrote: I'd try not to call the Buddha "Lord", as it makes it seem like he's being worshiped or thought of as some kind of deity by anyone who doesn't understand Buddhism fully (which is a lot of people in the West). Perhaps better to say either Buddha, Master, Teacher or Tathagata (as he referred to himself, also meaning Teacher). Anything but "Lord". ;)

I'm quite comfortable saying 'Lord',thanks, Stephen.

I wouldn't like to speculate about how many other people understand Buddhism in the west because I'm dealing with my own practice at the moment.

Thank you for your concern. .

Kind regards,

Aloka
I am quite happy with " Lord Buddha " too.
Lets not be nervous of honourifics.
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Post by Aloka »

TMingyur wrote:
Aloka wrote:.The reason why I asked is because after many years as a Vajrayana practitioner and knowing hardly anything at all about any other tradition,...
Aloka

may I ask what tradition you have been following?
I am asking because not all Mahayana tradition are so focused on "Buddha nature" teachings which may be the wrong impression caused by this thread.


Kind regards
Hi,

I already stated the tradition - Vajrayana (Tibetan) - and I don't want to start getting into a discussion about it because its not appropriate to the forum - suffice to say that Buddha Nature was mentioned a lot by some teachers (offline)

I don't think I've given the wrong impression .I'm speaking not from internet readings, but from extensive personal experience over a number of years. I don't intend going into any further personal details though - ok ?


All the best,

Aloka
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Post by PeterB »

I dont want to be contentious just for the sake of it, but one of the reasons I drew away from the Vajrayana after investing a lot of time and energy in its practice, is because of a growing sense of unreality around the whole issue of Buddha Nature.
As a concept it seemd to raise more problems than it solved.
The fact that it is uncanonical is also of some importance... :smile:
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
PeterB wrote:The fact that it is uncanonical is also of some importance... :smile:
Yes. Doubly so given we're in the Discovering Theravada forum!

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."
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Post by PeterB »

Quite so.... :smile:
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Post by ground »

Aloka wrote:
TMingyur wrote:
Aloka wrote:.The reason why I asked is because after many years as a Vajrayana practitioner and knowing hardly anything at all about any other tradition,...
Aloka

may I ask what tradition you have been following?
I am asking because not all Mahayana tradition are so focused on "Buddha nature" teachings which may be the wrong impression caused by this thread.


Kind regards
Hi,

I already stated the tradition - Vajrayana (Tibetan) - and I don't want to start getting into a discussion about it because its not appropriate to the forum - suffice to say that Buddha Nature was mentioned a lot by some teachers (offline)

I don't think I've given the wrong impression .I'm speaking not from internet readings, but from extensive personal experience over a number of years. I don't intend going into any further personal details though - ok ?


All the best,

Aloka
Well then I guess yours is Karma Kagyu. ;)

:focus:
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Post by ground »

PeterB wrote:I dont want to be contentious just for the sake of it, but one of the reasons I drew away from the Vajrayana after investing a lot of time and energy in its practice, is because of a growing sense of unreality around the whole issue of Buddha Nature.
As a concept it seemd to raise more problems than it solved.
The fact that it is uncanonical is also of some importance... :smile:
This can be avoided if one follows the advice of teachers that teach to first focus on the path common to Mahayana and non-Mahayana.
If one jumps into Vajrayana right away, what do you expect other than confusion?

Kind regards
Post Reply