Paññāsikhara wrote: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.
Thanks for joining us, Venerable. I hope that mood will pass before too long...
PeterB wrote: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..
Perhaps yes, but it's important to remember that both the portions and the Great Pudding are inherently empty of pudding-thing-ness...