Buddha Nature ?

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby christopher::: » Fri Mar 19, 2010 9:55 am

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
User avatar
christopher:::
 
Posts: 1319
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby Paññāsikhara » Fri Mar 19, 2010 10:11 am

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

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby PeterB » Fri Mar 19, 2010 11:07 am

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.
PeterB
 
Posts: 3904
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby Aloka » Fri Mar 19, 2010 5:18 pm

.

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



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



Image
User avatar
Aloka
 
Posts: 3576
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby PeterB » Fri Mar 19, 2010 7:03 pm

Consider it done Aloka.. :smile:
PeterB
 
Posts: 3904
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby mikenz66 » Fri Mar 19, 2010 7:08 pm

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
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10229
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby christopher::: » Fri Mar 19, 2010 11:05 pm

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
christopher:::
 
Posts: 1319
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby tiltbillings » Fri Mar 19, 2010 11:58 pm

Ken Wilbur? No thank you, especially in this section.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19312
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby meindzai » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:10 am

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/

"most comprehensive philosophical thinker of our times"

http://www.oprah.com/oprahradio/Philosopher-Ken-Wilber

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

-M
meindzai
 
Posts: 589
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:10 pm

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby tiltbillings » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:20 am

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/

"most comprehensive philosophical thinker of our times"

http://www.oprah.com/oprahradio/Philosopher-Ken-Wilber

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

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19312
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby christopher::: » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:27 am

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
User avatar
christopher:::
 
Posts: 1319
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby Paññāsikhara » Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:28 am

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/

"most comprehensive philosophical thinker of our times"

http://www.oprah.com/oprahradio/Philosopher-Ken-Wilber

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

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby christopher::: » Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:11 am

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
christopher:::
 
Posts: 1319
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby tiltbillings » Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:20 am

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

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19312
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby PeterB » Sat Mar 20, 2010 8:02 am

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/

"most comprehensive philosophical thinker of our times"

http://www.oprah.com/oprahradio/Philosopher-Ken-Wilber

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.
PeterB
 
Posts: 3904
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby ground » Sat Mar 20, 2010 10:14 am

This discussion appears to be a discussion about the different skilfulness of different metaphors. If party A utters what they perceive to be a metaphor party B may infer party A's affirmation of a "reality" which they (party B) themselves believe to be a mere fabrication. However to infer affirmation of "reality" from utterance of a metaphor is not valid because the nature of metaphors is indefinite.

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 2592
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby PeterB » Sat Mar 20, 2010 10:20 am

I dont think that the Mahayana see Buddha Dhatu as a metaphor. In fact I think they see it as the criterion of objective reality.
PeterB
 
Posts: 3904
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby ground » Sat Mar 20, 2010 10:22 am

PeterB wrote:I dont think ...

That's the issue.

PeterB wrote:that the Mahayana see ...

That's the other issue.

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 2592
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby tiltbillings » Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:12 am

TMingyur wrote:
PeterB wrote:I dont think ...

That's the issue.

PeterB wrote:that the Mahayana see ...

That's the other issue.

Kind regards

Mod: If there is a point to be made about the point made, please address that. Taking a poke at the individual adds nothing of the value to a discussion.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19312
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby ground » Sat Mar 20, 2010 3:42 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
TMingyur wrote:
PeterB wrote:I dont think ...

That's the issue.

PeterB wrote:that the Mahayana see ...

That's the other issue.

Kind regards

Mod: If there is a point to be made about the point made, please address that. Taking a poke at the individual adds nothing of the value to a discussion.


The issues here are:

1. Opinion ... which is by nature ungrounded if reasons are not provided that necessitate a conclusion that is identical with the opinion voiced ("I think that")
2. Generalization ... even if there is/are one or more example/s of a member of a class that is/are concordant with the opinion voiced this does neither necessitate nor validate the generalization across all members of the class. Class name being here "Mahayana" and members of "Mahayana" the different traditions.

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 2592
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bhikkhu Pesala, palchi, Unrul3r and 14 guests