Buddha Nature ?

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby PeterB » Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:18 am

There is a possible difference right there Sonam. the Theravada does not see the Enlightenment of the Buddha as the same as the Enlightenment of an ordinary person.
The Buddha is Samasambuddhasa, the completely awakened one, teacher of Gods and men.
Only one of which arises in any given era.
Your point about Buddha Nature indicating anatman is illogical.
Anatta is a negative statement. A statement concerning the absence of a quality. Why would we need another term to indicate the absence of a quality ?
We dont unless we embark on a parallel discussion of the Mahayana view of Shunyata which is another complex of uncanonical speculations added on to the corpus of the Buddhas teachings centuries after the event.
After the collective lack of nerve which resulted in a retreat to vedantic thought brought to its logical conclusion by Nagarjuna.
PeterB
 
Posts: 3904
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:28 am

PeterB wrote:There is a possible difference right there Sonam. the Theravada does not see the Enlightenment of the Buddha as the same as the Enlightenment of an ordinary person.
Are you sure?
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: 18372
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Location: Turtle Island

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby PeterB » Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:36 am

Unless " who had reached the same state " refers to the state of a Samasambuddhasa, which clearly by implication is not only a difference in function..
PeterB
 
Posts: 3904
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby Sönam » Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:36 am

Ok Peter ... I see your (Theravadin) point of view, and as I say in my previous message I'm not going to argue more bacause "then I would certainly be pulled out as soon as my first sentence ... "
+ I suppose many of more educated than me and (maybe) you, have started this kind of endless discussion. I just note than absolutely "no" one has the potential of a Bouddha such as Shakyamouni and what ever one would act, even for eons, he will never reach that specific state ... therefore the "base" of Bouddha Shakyamouni is not the same "base" than our.

But then where all that started from for Buddha Shakyamouni ... eons ago ?

Sönam
no hope ... no fear
User avatar
Sönam
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 7:21 am
Location: France

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:40 am

PeterB wrote:Unless " who had reached the same state " refers to the state of a Samasambuddhasa, which clearly by implication is not only a difference in function..
The suttas, which are not always in absolute agreement with Theravadin doctrine, make it quite clear that the arahant's bodhi is no different from that of a Sammasambuddha.
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: 18372
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Location: Turtle Island

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby PeterB » Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:41 am

Certainly its a well worn path Sonam..
I am sure there are a whole galaxy of issues on which we can agree.
The subject of "Buddha Nature" on a Theravadin website is perhaps not the place to discover those points of agreement.. :smile:

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

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby PeterB » Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:48 am

tiltbillings wrote:
PeterB wrote:Unless " who had reached the same state " refers to the state of a Samasambuddhasa, which clearly by implication is not only a difference in function..
The suttas, which are not always in absolute agreement with Theravadin doctrine, make it quite clear that the arahant's bodhi is no different from that of a Sammasambuddha.

I may well be wrong Tilt ( not a rhetorical statement, I may WELL be wrong ) But my understanding is that the Arahant's Bodhi might be non different to that of the Sammasambuddha, but that the former arise only as a result of the latter.
Which I think Sonams most recent post is indicating.
PeterB
 
Posts: 3904
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:50 am

PeterB wrote:I may well be wrong Tilt ( not a rhetorical statement, I may WELL be wrong ) But my understanding is that the Arahant's Bodhi might be non different to that of the Sammasambuddha, but that the former arise only as a result of the latter.
That would be the radical story the suttas tell.
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: 18372
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Location: Turtle Island

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby Sönam » Wed Mar 24, 2010 11:01 am

PeterB wrote:Certainly its a well worn path Sonam..
I am sure there are a whole galaxy of issues on which we can agree.
The subject of "Buddha Nature" on a Theravadin website is perhaps not the place to discover those points of agreement.. :smile:

:anjali:


Yes ... the galaxy of the Dharma. And as you may now, vajrayana practitioners accept all the suttas teachings as valid, so we can agree on all. But what is more interesting, once we have accepted our definitive brotherhood, is the points where we may have slight differences. But I agree that Buddha Nature is not the best subject to start ... the infinite, divisibility of time would be a much easier subject for exemple. Image

_/|\_
Sönam
no hope ... no fear
User avatar
Sönam
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 7:21 am
Location: France

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby Paññāsikhara » Wed Mar 24, 2010 11:06 am

PeterB wrote:...
Your point about Buddha Nature indicating anatman is illogical.
Anatta is a negative statement. A statement concerning the absence of a quality. Why would we need another term to indicate the absence of a quality ?
...


Without even touching anything other than Pali suttas, I would simply point to the words: sunna, rittaka & tucchaka.

Anatta has the negative prefix "an-" (= "a-"), but none of these three, do. They certainly don't have to necessarily indicate a positive, reified, etc. meaning, and are not used as such.

It appears that the buddha didn't have much of a problem using terms like this to indicate an absence.
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 » Wed Mar 24, 2010 11:18 am

But thats the point isnt it Ven Huifeng ?
The Buddha used nuanced speech to indicate an absence of qualities assumed to have a positive existence in the religious culture in which he took birth.
There is it seems to me more than a matter of emphasis between the Canonical use of a term like "sunna" and the use of a highly developed set of concepts like " Shunyata"..culminating in the Vajrayana with 78 or 92 or 18 different types of "Emptiness..."
PeterB
 
Posts: 3904
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby Sönam » Wed Mar 24, 2010 11:24 am

happy to see you there Venerable Huifeng ...

Peter, in Vajrayana there is "only" one emptiness ... I would be curious to consult the sources you use to state that. By definition emptiness is non dual ...

Sönam
no hope ... no fear
User avatar
Sönam
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 7:21 am
Location: France

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby retrofuturist » Wed Mar 24, 2010 11:57 am

Greetings,

I've got nothing to say other than to send a hi to Sönam.

:hello:

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14524
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby Paññāsikhara » Wed Mar 24, 2010 12:41 pm

Emphasis added by me:

PeterB wrote:But thats the point isnt it Ven Huifeng ?
The Buddha used nuanced speech to indicate an absence of qualities assumed to have a positive existence in the religious culture in which he took birth.
There is it seems to me more than a matter of emphasis between the Canonical use of a term like "sunna" and the use of a highly developed set of concepts like " Shunyata"..culminating in the Vajrayana with 78 or 92 or 18 different types of "Emptiness..."


Hi PeterB,

Could you please point out where the terms "sunna", "rikkata" and "tucchaka" are "qualities assumed to have a positive existence in the religious culture in which he took birth"? Because I've had a brief look before in the Vedas and Upanisads, but I haven't been able to find any. If you could point that out, I'd really appreciate it! (Apart from having to rewrite some parts of my dissertation! :lol: )

In fact, as far as I see, these are always just straight out terms indicating some sort of absence (in a general sense). So, how is this "the point"? How is the Buddha's use of these terms such "nuanced speech"?
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 Paññāsikhara » Wed Mar 24, 2010 12:45 pm

Sönam wrote:happy to see you there Venerable Huifeng ...

Peter, in Vajrayana there is "only" one emptiness ... I would be curious to consult the sources you use to state that. By definition emptiness is non dual ...

Sönam


Hello Sonam in France! :anjali:

(I think he may be referring to lists of sunyata found in Mahayana sutras, but don't know about the Vajrayana part.)
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 » Wed Mar 24, 2010 12:56 pm

I was actually referring Ven Huifeng to attending teachings ( when in my protracted Vajrayana phase, from which I have made a full recovery :) ) titled things like " The Nine Types Of Emptiness"..

But once more the whole discussion is miring me in a pool of ennui, and reminding me of my reasons for seeking out a Theravada forum in the first place.. :anjali:
PeterB
 
Posts: 3904
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby Sönam » Wed Mar 24, 2010 1:27 pm

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

I've got nothing to say other than to send a hi to Sönam.

:hello:

Metta,
Retro. :)


Hello Retro ... nice to see known faces.

:hug:
Sönam
no hope ... no fear
User avatar
Sönam
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 7:21 am
Location: France

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby Sönam » Wed Mar 24, 2010 1:32 pm

PeterB wrote:I was actually referring Ven Huifeng to attending teachings ( when in my protracted Vajrayana phase, from which I have made a full recovery :) ) titled things like " The Nine Types Of Emptiness"..

But once more the whole discussion is miring me in a pool of ennui, and reminding me of my reasons for seeking out a Theravada forum in the first place.. :anjali:


Ok ... I noted the "ennui". No need to answer then ! regarding Vajrayana there is no and there could be no many emptiness. It would be a non-sens (it's not the right place but I would be curious to understand how mahayana justify "many' emptiness ... because if there is more than one it is not empty !

May you all be happy ... and away from ennui ! :popcorn:

Sönam
no hope ... no fear
User avatar
Sönam
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 7:21 am
Location: France

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby PeterB » Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:43 pm

My interest was piqued suffiently to arouse me from my ennui and to find my notes from the teachings I attended.
They were by Khenpo Tsultrim Gyatso Rinpoche and were titled " The Twenty Kinds Of Emptiness".
PeterB
 
Posts: 3904
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Buddha Nature ?

Postby Sönam » Wed Mar 24, 2010 3:04 pm

PeterB wrote:My interest was piqued suffiently to arouse me from my ennui and to find my notes from the teachings I attended.
They were by Khenpo Tsultrim Gyatso Rinpoche and were titled " The Twenty Kinds Of Emptiness".


Thank you for the interest. To answer correctly I shall see the texte ... and I do not know how Tsultrim Gyatso Rinpoché could have approached it to express it that way (with respect, there could also be the eventuality that you have misinterpreted the teaching ... which could have motivated your abandonment of vajrayana - there I'm joking ! :smile: ). Because in Vajrayana, even in Dzogchen where sometime it seems to contradict de vajra teachings, there is no possibility to understand shunyata as being multiple. What can happen, is that the flourishing Tibetan language have given many name to Emptiness ... but not multiple, I definitely guaranteed you the impossibility of that.


Sönam
(But I will try to found the concerned original teaching)
no hope ... no fear
User avatar
Sönam
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 7:21 am
Location: France

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Khalil Bodhi, Shaswata_Panja, Unrul3r and 10 guests