.
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.
Buddha Nature ?
Re: Buddha Nature ?
Last edited by Aloka on Sun Jul 09, 2017 5:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Buddha Nature ?
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
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=3455" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Kind regards
Re: Buddha Nature ?
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".
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...)
(Visit http://www.BodhiBox.com for a free Buddhist e-mail account, while you're still attached to the 'net...)
Re: Buddha Nature ?
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
- christopher:::
- Posts: 1327
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am
Re: Buddha Nature ?
Hi all.
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.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.
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...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
Perhaps this is so. I should listen to Thanissaro Bhikkhu's talk before commenting further.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 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
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
Re: Buddha Nature ?
Stephen,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".
"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
Re: Buddha Nature ?
I agree. Those who automatically associate "lord" with "God" might like to think:Aloka wrote: I'm quite comfortable saying 'Lord',thanks, Stephen.
"lord" as in "lord of the rings"...
In fact, there are seven definitions of "lord" given here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lord before God is even mentioned...
Metta
Mike
Re: Buddha Nature ?
AlokaAloka 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,...
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
Re: Buddha Nature ?
I am quite happy with " Lord Buddha " too.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
Lets not be nervous of honourifics.
Re: Buddha Nature ?
Hi,TMingyur wrote:AlokaAloka 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,...
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
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
Re: Buddha Nature ?
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...
As a concept it seemd to raise more problems than it solved.
The fact that it is uncanonical is also of some importance...
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Buddha Nature ?
Greetings,
Metta,
Retro.
Yes. Doubly so given we're in the Discovering Theravada forum!PeterB wrote:The fact that it is uncanonical is also of some importance...
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: Buddha Nature ?
Well then I guess yours is Karma Kagyu.Aloka wrote:Hi,TMingyur wrote:AlokaAloka 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,...
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
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
Re: Buddha Nature ?
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.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...
If one jumps into Vajrayana right away, what do you expect other than confusion?
Kind regards