Buddha Nature ?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Post Reply
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Post by christopher::: »

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...

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

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Post by Paññāsikhara »

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..
Hi PeterB,
All the teachings I have received about anything to do with "buddha nature" could probably be split about 50/50 either way. Not all of them are about pudding, by any means. So, I personally wouldn't go for a "pragmatic reality" over "philosophical reality", as my pragmatic experience is the same as the philosophical. Maybe what you refer to in Vajrayana and Zen is the later stuff, but these two groups are by no means the totality of Mahayana, unfortunately. Maybe - some teachers from these two traditions may also use that explanation because it has parallels in Western religious thought - maybe. Although they happen to be the two most popular one's in English language Buddhism.
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.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Post by PeterB »

christopher::: wrote:
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...

:anjali:
I think its a bit more radical than that Chris, I think neither the individual portions or The Great Pudding correspond to any actual reality at all.
Things arise dependantly.
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Post by Aloka »

.

.
PeterB wrote:...... the Great Pudding

Er.... can I have custard with mine, please ?



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

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Post by PeterB »

Consider it done Aloka.. :smile:
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Post by mikenz66 »

I find this thread interesting because many of the people at my local "insight" group are into this pudding thing - feeling "connected", saving the planet, etc.

Perhaps at the next discussion I'll tell them that they are in danger of "stepping back from the utterly radical position that the Buddha took" (thanks Peter).

I just have to figure out how to quickly add that they should be working to help others and the planet. But out of compassion. If they think they can actually fix themselves, others, or the planet, they haven't been paying attention...

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

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Post by christopher::: »

Post moved to One Dharma? discussion....

:toilet: :jedi:
Last edited by christopher::: on Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
"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: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Post by tiltbillings »

Ken Wilbur? No thank you, especially in this section.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
meindzai
Posts: 595
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:10 pm

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Post by meindzai »

Fundamental authentic trans-personal self? LOL

Lemme guess, he has a bunch of books, he's a "brilliant thinker", and his books are recommended by Oprah..

{googles}

http://wilber.shambhala.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"most comprehensive philosophical thinker of our times"

http://www.oprah.com/oprahradio/Philosopher-Ken-Wilber" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh man, I didn't really think i was going to be so horribly right...

-M
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Post by tiltbillings »

meindzai wrote:Fundamental authentic trans-personal self? LOL

Lemme guess, he has a bunch of books, he's a "brilliant thinker", and his books are recommended by Oprah..

{googles}

http://wilber.shambhala.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"most comprehensive philosophical thinker of our times"

http://www.oprah.com/oprahradio/Philosopher-Ken-Wilber" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh man, I didn't really think i was going to be so horribly right...

-M
And all accorduing to him. He has a sort of Mahayana bias, and no understanding of the Theravada (which is hinayana) that I have seen in anything I have read by him. "I am." Really.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Post by christopher::: »

tiltbillings wrote:Ken Wilbur? No thank you, especially in this section.
I hear ya. Post edited....

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

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Post by Paññāsikhara »

tiltbillings wrote:
meindzai wrote:Fundamental authentic trans-personal self? LOL

Lemme guess, he has a bunch of books, he's a "brilliant thinker", and his books are recommended by Oprah..

{googles}

http://wilber.shambhala.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"most comprehensive philosophical thinker of our times"

http://www.oprah.com/oprahradio/Philosopher-Ken-Wilber" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh man, I didn't really think i was going to be so horribly right...

-M
And all accorduing to him. He has a sort of Mahayana bias, and no understanding of the Theravada (which is hinayana) that I have seen in anything I have read by him. "I am." Really.
:offtopic:

I'd say "Vendanta bias". Most Mahayanists would really keep well away from what he teaches, I think.
He used to support "Da Free John" <shudder> and people like Mr Zen Big Mind <shudder>. I don't know what to call that.
:focus:
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.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Post by christopher::: »

Paññāsikhara wrote:
I'd say "Vendanta bias". Most Mahayanists would really keep well away from what he teaches, I think.
He used to support "Da Free John" <shudder> and people like Mr Zen Big Mind <shudder>. I don't know what to call that.
You mean Mr. Zen Big Mind Genpo Roshi?

We are indeed veering waaaaaaaay out of "Discovering Theravada" bounds here....
christopher::: wrote:Genpo Roshi & Ken Wilber posts moved to One Dharma discussion....
: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
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Post by tiltbillings »

Paññāsikhara wrote: [Speaking of Ken Wilbur] I'd say "Vendanta bias". Most Mahayanists would really keep well away from what he teaches, I think.
He used to support "Da Free John" <shudder> and people like Mr Zen Big Mind <shudder>. I don't know what to call that.
:focus:
Agreed.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Post by PeterB »

tiltbillings wrote:
meindzai wrote:Fundamental authentic trans-personal self? LOL

Lemme guess, he has a bunch of books, he's a "brilliant thinker", and his books are recommended by Oprah..

{googles}

http://wilber.shambhala.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"most comprehensive philosophical thinker of our times"

http://www.oprah.com/oprahradio/Philosopher-Ken-Wilber" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh man, I didn't really think i was going to be so horribly right...

-M
And all accorduing to him. He has a sort of Mahayana bias, and no understanding of the Theravada (which is hinayana) that I have seen in anything I have read by him. "I am." Really.
I cant resist retelling the story of being in a bookshop with a friend when he picked up a book called " I Am That" I think it is a populist vedantic tome. Wilbur would love it.
" I Am That" he said in mock portentious tones , and added " all that and a bag of chips"..before returning the book to its slot.
Post Reply