I actually started off in the Theravada T Mingyur, then after meeting Chogyam Trungpa spent many years in the Vajrayana befrore going back to the Theravada. I didnt experience confusion. Just a sense of the superfluous.
I dont regret my years in the Vajrayana. Neither do I think I learned anything of value I would not have learned if I had stayed in the Theravada.
Buddha Nature ?
- christopher:::
- Posts: 1327
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am
Re: Buddha Nature ?
Hopefully there was a connecting thread there with your dhamma practice year-to-year, Peter, not dependent on the group you belonged to or the conceptions held, no?
As Kim posted elsewhere:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Poin ... e_Mahayana" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
As Kim posted elsewhere:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Poin ... e_Mahayana" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I think the same kind of problems arise for Zen practitioners, and agree in terms of the optimal "cure"...TMingyur wrote:
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
"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 ?
When I hear "Lord" I think of Jesus. My favorite nickname for the Buddha is The Blessed One.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".
Re: Buddha Nature ?
When I hear The Blessed One I think of Jose Mourinho.
You avoid your least favourite epithet for the Buddha and i will avoid mine..
You avoid your least favourite epithet for the Buddha and i will avoid mine..
Re: Buddha Nature ?
The commonalities were the 4NT, The 8fp, Vipassana, Samatha ,DO etc. Which is why I said that I would not have missed anything ( other than an exposure to an extraordinary personality ) if I had stayed in the Theravada Chris.christopher::: wrote:Hopefully there was a connecting thread there with your dhamma practice year-to-year, Peter, not dependent on the group you belonged to or the conceptions held, no?
As Kim posted elsewhere:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Poin ... e_Mahayana" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I think the same kind of problems arise for Zen practitioners, and agree in terms of the optimal "cure"...TMingyur wrote:
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
Because those are of the essence.
"Buddha nature" Tulkus, even "Bodhicitta " as seen in TB, and the Bodhisattva vow, arent of the essence imo.
- christopher:::
- Posts: 1327
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am
Re: Buddha Nature ?
Well, yes, that's what i meant. Most importantly do you feel your practice suffered because of the "add ons" or was your "core" understanding of the dhamma strong enough that helpful things happened during those years?PeterB wrote: The commonalities were the 4NT, The 8fp, Vipassana, Samatha ,DO etc. Which is why I said that I would not have missed anything ( other than an exposure to an extraordinary personality ) if I had stayed in the Theravada Chris.
Because those are of the essence.
"Buddha nature" Tulkus, even "Bodhicitta " as seen in TB, and the Bodhisattva vow, arent of the essence imo.
I dunno. What concerns me the most is how quite a few Mahayana teachers and students seem to have lost track of some of the essential commonalities. Not all, probably not even the majority.
I'm just of the opinion that if a person combines both, belief in "buddha nature" or "bodhichitta" should not be a problem. It's when the core is ignored or treated as secondary that real difficulties start to manifest....
in my highly nonexpert layperson's opinion...
"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 ?
Did you listen to Thannisaro Bhikkhus talk Chris, in particular the obscuring of clarity that can occur when certain unCanonical concepts are given prominence ?
In my own case, and perhaps because I had spent a while in the Theravada before exploring the Vajrayana, I always took concepts like Buddha Nature and even ( sorry guys ) the Bodhisattva Vow with a very large pinch of salt.. certainly not as relating to literal events or processes.
Also I had a thorough grounding in Vipassana before encountering the Vajrayana . In fact because he knew my first Theravada teacher Dhiravamsa, from his time in London, Trungpa Rinpoche taught me a method that combined Vipassana and Samatha.
So really it was all about the experiential for me. I never really bought into the Mahayana/Vajrayana mythos.
In my own case, and perhaps because I had spent a while in the Theravada before exploring the Vajrayana, I always took concepts like Buddha Nature and even ( sorry guys ) the Bodhisattva Vow with a very large pinch of salt.. certainly not as relating to literal events or processes.
Also I had a thorough grounding in Vipassana before encountering the Vajrayana . In fact because he knew my first Theravada teacher Dhiravamsa, from his time in London, Trungpa Rinpoche taught me a method that combined Vipassana and Samatha.
So really it was all about the experiential for me. I never really bought into the Mahayana/Vajrayana mythos.
- christopher:::
- Posts: 1327
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am
Re: Buddha Nature ?
i hear ya...PeterB wrote:
So really it was all about the experiential for me. I never really bought into the Mahayana/Vajrayana mythos.
Thanks for reminding me to listen to Thannisaro Bhikkhu's talk, Peter... i had not before, but yes now i have listened to it. He's very very clear... I... have some minor disagreements... but for the most part the potential dangers with the concept are now much clearer.
Will take some more time to reflect on his talk before commenting again.
There was so much static though, anyone know of a clearer version of that talk, or was it a problem with my download, should i try again?
Domo arigato!
"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 ?
I'm not sure anyone's brought this up.
To say that all people have Buddha nature is a more qualified version of, that people all have the same nature (of some type or other). Or people have different natures, but individually there is some given nature to each of them (or their minds).
So, I won't divide in this kind of philosophical manner much further, but based on this line of division, it seems that a sensible thing to do, if you believed that there was some "nature of the mind," instead of looking for Buddha nature, one should just observe the mind and actions, and if some nature is discerned, then you know it, and if it's Buddha nature, then you know that, too.
To say that all people have Buddha nature is a more qualified version of, that people all have the same nature (of some type or other). Or people have different natures, but individually there is some given nature to each of them (or their minds).
So, I won't divide in this kind of philosophical manner much further, but based on this line of division, it seems that a sensible thing to do, if you believed that there was some "nature of the mind," instead of looking for Buddha nature, one should just observe the mind and actions, and if some nature is discerned, then you know it, and if it's Buddha nature, then you know that, too.
Re: Buddha Nature ?
I rather thought Altar that the Theravada view is that people do not have a "nature" but rather they are an ever- changing set of aggregates called the Khandas.
Re: Buddha Nature ?
I'm not suggesting that people (or their minds) do have a kind of nature, just that if someone did think like that, the sensible thing to do I don't think would be to try to discover some profound Buddha nature, but simply to watch what's actually there, and discern its nature.
And though nature is maybe not the best word, it could apply to qualities of the mind. Actually i was made to think along these lines after I heard Thanissaro Bhikkhu refer to luminosity of the mind as a "dimension" of the mind which can be discerned, as opposed to the mind's inherent nature, as someone in the audience suggested.
And though nature is maybe not the best word, it could apply to qualities of the mind. Actually i was made to think along these lines after I heard Thanissaro Bhikkhu refer to luminosity of the mind as a "dimension" of the mind which can be discerned, as opposed to the mind's inherent nature, as someone in the audience suggested.
Re: Buddha Nature ?
I don't remember hearing any static - so you might want to download again or stream instead? (Usually I'd recommend downloading the mp3 vs. streaming though).christopher::: wrote: There was so much static though, anyone know of a clearer version of that talk, or was it a problem with my download, should i try again?
Domo arigato!
-M
Re: Buddha Nature ?
I did get a bit of static, but only towards the end, in the Q and A part.
- christopher:::
- Posts: 1327
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am
Re: Buddha Nature ?
I'll try to download it again.
Found this also:
Freedom from Buddha Nature
Brilliant observations. I agree with all the potential traps of the concept. This is very much related to a point i was trying to make (unsuccessfully) over at ZFI in a discussion i've now given up on...
The only thing i disagree on is that the concept should be thrown out. I think it can be reconceptualized. This is done all the time in the social sciences, why not in Mahayana Buddhism?
Found this also:
Freedom from Buddha Nature
Brilliant observations. I agree with all the potential traps of the concept. This is very much related to a point i was trying to make (unsuccessfully) over at ZFI in a discussion i've now given up on...
The only thing i disagree on is that the concept should be thrown out. I think it can be reconceptualized. This is done all the time in the social sciences, why not in Mahayana Buddhism?
"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
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Buddha Nature ?
Greetings Chris:::,
Personally I prefer no definition for the term "Buddha nature"
Metta,
Retro.
I think it's already understood in different ways in Mahayana already. If you reconceptualize it, there'll just be yet one more definition.christopher::: wrote:The only thing i disagree on is that the concept should be thrown out. I think it can be reconceptualized. This is done all the time in the social sciences, why not in Mahayana Buddhism?
Personally I prefer no definition for the term "Buddha nature"
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."