Buddha Nature ?

[Yogicfire]

Something quite interesting that I am looking at now:

"Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?" SN 44.10

Some commentators are suggesting that this is a clear sign that it is incorrect to say that there is a self, just as much as it is incorrect to say that there is no self, thus we should understand that the Buddha is talking about not-self rather than the two extremes.... Any thoughts?

[Kenshou]

Some commentators are suggesting that this is a clear sign that it is incorrect to say that there is a self, just as much as it is incorrect to say that there is no self, thus we should understand that the Buddha is talking about not-self rather than the two extremes.... Any thoughts?

That's exactly the point, actually. We hear about not-self the most because it's useful in releasing clinging, but as you notice not-self isn't the same as no-self. Which also doesn't imply that there is a self, either.

[BubbaBuddhist]

If those analogies help then feel free...I am afraid they dont do much for me.

I think trying to mix Yanas is likely ( to borrow analogy from the visual arts ) likely to end up with neither blue nor yellow but khaki..everything all muddied up.

Hee hee, Pete, maybe even like Camo...lost in the background:



The festering carcass of J

[Yogicfire]

Some commentators are suggesting that this is a clear sign that it is incorrect to say that there is a self, just as much as it is incorrect to say that there is no self, thus we should understand that the Buddha is talking about not-self rather than the two extremes.... Any thoughts?

That's exactly the point, actually. We hear about not-self the most because it's useful in releasing clinging, but as you notice not-self isn't the same as no-self. Which also doesn't imply that there is a self, either.

Right, but Buddha nature isn't a self either. I would have to say from reading these kinds of passages that not-self would be most applicable to Buddha nature rather than self or no self..... This is what I am suggesting.

As the Buddha said, to suggest that there is no self whatsoever is annihilationism, while to suggest that there is a self is eternalism.

[tiltbillings]

Right, but Buddha nature isn't a self either. I would have to say from reading these kinds of passages that not-self would be most applicable to Buddha nature rather than self or no self..... This is what I am suggesting.

Why burden ourselves with an unnecessary and unnecessarily vague doctrine?

[jcsuperstar]

Buddha nature is a problem even within Mahayana and there have been many debates redefinitions etc of the topic, the Japanese critical Buddhism movement has taken up this issue.
if it is a problem for the schools that it is a somewhat central issue to, then why should Theravada even take up the issue?

when i was practicing in the Soto school of zen we were not taught that everything has Buddha nature but rather everything is Buddha nature, which changes the game completely if you think about it.

[PeterB]

Yes The Japanese Critical Buddhism movement is interesting. It amounts to a kind of Reformation within the Mahayana taking a steady look at the accretions that have developed onto the body of the Buddhas teaching. They are very interesting on the subject of Buddha Nature. Within JCB there is a view that it is a restatement in Buddhist terms of the Atta doctrine.

[christopher:::]

Just a quick 2 cents to throw in...

When Buddha Nature is conceptualized as a potential for liberation, for cultivating factors of awakening, that exists within all sentient beings, then i don't think it creates major problems. This is how many "sincere" Tibetan & Zen Buddhist practitioners think about it, in my opinion. They recognize that this potential for liberation will not develop until one puts the dharma into practice.

On the other hand, when Buddha Nature is conceived as something eternal and indestructable, atman-like, something we all "have" already and simply need to uncover or acknowledge in order to awaken, such a belief can become a massive act of self-deception. People start to think of themselves as Buddhas, faultless, already pure, when they still have so many fetters and unwholesome mind patterns to unravel.

The first way of thinking about Buddha Nature is not nearly as problematic as the second, imo.

[tiltbillings]

When Buddha Nature is conceptualized as a . . . .

It is still an unnecessary dotcrine.

[Dan74]

When Buddha Nature is conceptualized as a . . . .

It is still an unnecessary dotcrine.

To my way of seeing, no more unnecessary than Nibbana, and with the same potential for reification, grasping, etc.

_/|\_

[christopher:::]

When Buddha Nature is conceptualized as a . . . .

It is still an unnecessary doctrine.

I think that depends on context, and on which version a person is holding on to... Buddha was known to say different things to different people depending on context, and on that person's situation, personality, no?

For Buddhist laypersons grieving the death of a loved one it may serve a useful purpose to think of one's dead mother or infant as having Buddha Nature, enlightenment potential. Such an idea may have helped millions to let go of their clinging or regret and work thru their grief.

That's just one example of the possible "helpfulness" and utility of the idea.



Baby Buddha Statues in Japan

[Dan74]

I am not sure if you are speaking from your knowledge of Eastern culture, Chris, but it doesn't really make sense to me that it would alleviate grief. I'd grieve even more knowing that that potential was there but was never truly developed (as it is in most cases).

There is a Mahayana teaching that everyone is moving towards enlightenment at the pace they are capable of. This might help. But I may be misunderstanding.

To me, the teachings on Buddha Nature are an encouragement that it is possible to attain enlightenment (because I already have it, as it were), to seek nowhere else and to let go of what is false and unwholesome, rather than accrue more. It is also a pointer not to set up false dualities and learn to see the perfect aspect of everything including myself.

The concept of Buddha nature is often used interchangeably with Nibbana (Nirvana) which is hardly ever mentioned in Zen. Mind you Buddha nature is not mentioned all that often since not even a dog has it...

_/|\_

[christopher:::]

I am not sure if you are speaking from your knowledge of Eastern culture, Chris, but it doesn't really make sense to me that it would alleviate grief. I'd grieve even more knowing that that potential was there but was never truly developed (as it is in most cases).

There is a Mahayana teaching that everyone is moving towards enlightenment at the pace they are capable of. This might help. But I may be misunderstanding.

Hi Dan. Many Mahayana Buddhists I've talked to here believe that loved ones will become Buddhas at some point, in the Pure Lands or future life.