YOU CANNOT POST. OUR WEB HOSTING COMPANY DECIDED TO MOVE THE SERVER TO ANOTHER LOCATION. IN THE MEANTIME, YOU CAN VIEW THIS VERSION WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW POSTING AND WILL NOT SAVE ANYTHING YOU DO ONCE THE OTHER SERVER GOES ONLINE.

Buddha Nature ? - Page 3 - Dhamma Wheel

Buddha Nature ?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths. What can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
altar
Posts: 251
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 6:24 pm
Location: Great Barrington, MA

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby altar » Thu Mar 18, 2010 4:29 pm

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.

meindzai
Posts: 595
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:10 pm

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby meindzai » Thu Mar 18, 2010 4:52 pm


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

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby PeterB » Thu Mar 18, 2010 5:05 pm

I did get a bit of static, but only towards the end, in the Q and A part.

User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1326
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby christopher::: » Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:53 pm

I'll try to download it again.

Found this also:



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?

: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

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 17855
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby retrofuturist » Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:58 pm

"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead" - Thomas Paine

User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1326
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby christopher::: » Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:15 pm

Hi Paul..

You may be right. Just that this has come up in my field (education) with the concepts of "self esteem" and "intelligence"... They carry many of the same potential "dangers" as buddha nature, but are less troublesome when thought of in terms of human potential for skill development.

I dunno. I'd be interested in hearing the views of people like Ven. Huifeng, Shonin and Dan74 who have an appreciation of the strengths of both Mahayana & Theravadin wisdom.

:juggling:
"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

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 17855
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby retrofuturist » Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:27 pm

"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead" - Thomas Paine

User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1326
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby christopher::: » Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:34 pm

"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

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 17855
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby retrofuturist » Fri Mar 19, 2010 12:00 am

"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead" - Thomas Paine

User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1326
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby christopher::: » Fri Mar 19, 2010 12:47 am

I take no offense from your views, Paul.

There is no need for the concept in Theravadin Buddhism. There is no need for the concept in Dhamma practice. I don't disagree on that point. Perhaps it's a bit of a Zen thing though, words and concepts are always held at a bit of a distance. This becomes a problem when we ignore important concepts (especially in the core dhamma, as Buddha taught) or hold tight to unhelpful/incorrect views, such as what's been mentioned here.

The potential for change exists though, that's the thing, and with Zen especially situations/structures can sometimes change more easily because people begin with the understanding that concepts are limited.

I could be wrong, of course.

:thumbsup:
"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

User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1326
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby christopher::: » Fri Mar 19, 2010 1:26 am

"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

User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 5517
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby Aloka » Fri Mar 19, 2010 2:26 am


Paññāsikhara
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am
Contact:

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby Paññāsikhara » Fri Mar 19, 2010 2:42 am

I was asked to make a comment or two here:

From another thread:

------------------------------

At the risk of sounding repetitive, from what we know, only some but definitely not all Mahayana traditions, and even then with very different meanings.
And for many non-Mahayana traditions, we don't know if they had such an idea or not, to be honest.

Oops, sorry, mistake. Poking around the Chattha Sangayana Tipitaka, I found this in the "other" texts:

Dhātuvaṃso
...
(Nagare kapilavatthumhi sammādiṭṭhi bahujjano;
Tattha sārīrikaṃ thūpaṃ akāsi ratanāmayaṃ.

Nagare allake ramme buddhadhātu patiṭṭhiya;
Silāya muggavaṇṇāya thūpaṃ sadhātukaṃ akā.

Jano pāveyyaraṭṭhasmiṃ patiṭṭhiya sārīrikaṃ;
Silāya maṇivaṇṇāya pāveyyaṃ cetiyaṃ akā.
...
Tā dhātuyo ṭhapetvāna thero kassapasavhayo;
Rañño ajātasattussa adāsi dhātuyo tadā.

Gehe cūpakaraṇāni catusaṭṭhisatāni so;
Abbhantare ṭhapesi rājā sabbā tā buddhadhātuyo.

Karaṇḍāsīti saṃkiṇṇaṃ cetiyāsītilaṅkataṃ;
Gehe bahusamākiṇṇaṃ thūpārāmappamāṇakaṃ.

...

And also in the:
Apadāna-aṭṭhakathā
...
403. Katvāna agghiyaṃ tatthāti tasmiṃ cetiyapūjanaṭṭhāne tālapantīhi tālapāḷīhi cittitaṃ sobhitaṃ agghiyaṃ katvāna kāretvā ca sakaṃ cittaṃ attano cittaṃ pasādetvā cetiyaṃ pūjayuttamanti uttamaṃ buddhadhātunidhāpitaṃ cetiyaṃ pūjayinti sambandho.
...

So, actually, the Theravada literature does on a few very rare occasions, use the term "buddhadhātu".

------------------------
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: .

User avatar
bodom
Posts: 5713
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby bodom » Fri Mar 19, 2010 2:53 am

Could anyone translate this please?

:anjali:
To study is to know the texts,
To practice is to know your defilements,
To attain the goal is to know and let go.

- Ajahn Lee Dhammadharo


With mindfulness immersed in the body
well established, restrained
with regard to the six media of contact,
always centered, the monk
can know Unbinding for himself.

- Ud 3.5


https://www.dhammatalks.org/index.html
http://www.ajahnchah.org/

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 17855
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby retrofuturist » Fri Mar 19, 2010 3:13 am

"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead" - Thomas Paine

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

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby PeterB » Fri Mar 19, 2010 8:22 am

I guess that in order to "Discover" something , including the Theravada, it is necessary to pick that something out from what it is not. Which: leads to this discussion about a topic considered irrelevant at best in the Theravada in a subforum called " Discovering Theravada".... :smile:

To my own simple mind it became clear that the development of concepts like Buddha Dhatu as interpreted in the Mahayana consituted a stepping back from the utterly radical position that the Buddha took. A stepping back into something more comfortable..more familiar. In fact a stepping back to a re-casting of the Atta doctrine, which instead of being described interms of a individual " soul" was re defined as a portion of a glowing collective pudding. In other words its the Vedanta.
It seems to me that such a stepping back is the result in the face of the Buddhas uncompromising radicalism , of a failure of nerve.

User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1326
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby christopher::: » Fri Mar 19, 2010 8:52 am

"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

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23012
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby tiltbillings » Fri Mar 19, 2010 9:01 am


Paññāsikhara
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am
Contact:

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby Paññāsikhara » Fri Mar 19, 2010 9:18 am

As Paul has pointed out, it is about the Buddha's sarira and caityas.

Glad that somebody gave my earlier quote about "Rely on the meaning, not on the words."

I certainly hope that others also read my distinction between the two main interpretations of "buddha nature" (and synonyms), and that only one of them is akin to an "atman" at all. But, I've already tried to point this out in more online Forum threads than I care to remember, and something tells me that sometimes people just prefer to make a stab at things before getting a bigger picture.

Please excuse my foul mood.
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: .

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

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby PeterB » Fri Mar 19, 2010 9:40 am

The philosophical reality might be as you describe Ven Huifeng, that we are not talking about one simple model.
The pragmatic reality however in many Mahayana discussions and instructions, whether in the Vajrayana or Zen or whatnot ,is glowing individual pudding portions who slip into the Great Pudding somwhere down the line..


Return to “Connections to Other Paths”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests

Google Saffron, Theravada Search Engine