Yes... what Ajahn Maha Boowa is saying is different from what other (Mayhayana) teachers are talking about when they use the words "Buddha Nature?"PeterB wrote:Yes.
How so?
Yes... what Ajahn Maha Boowa is saying is different from what other (Mayhayana) teachers are talking about when they use the words "Buddha Nature?"PeterB wrote:Yes.
So if someone talks about attaining a nature which is unassailable, absolute and permanent, then that's fine and not a pernicious doctrine. A nature which is the Dhamma.PeterB wrote:Yes its different. He is talking about attainment, not an a priori universal state.
Peter,PeterB wrote:I have no doubt that the good Bhikkhu is right and that it is a pernicious doctrine.
Happily not one that need detain Theravadin Buddhists except when it is periodically dragged in through the back door.
Goodness it must be a burden bringing the gospel of Buddhist ecumenicism to the benighted. Exausting I should think.
And is the attainment of freedom from such views a permanent state?PeterB wrote:If someone talks about attaining any permanent state, that is pernicious .
According to the Theravada.
What is attained is a freedom from such views.
I am asking questions about what you have said Peter. Answer or don't. Whether I'm bored or not is off-topic.PeterB wrote:Why are you asking questions that you probably know the answers to kirk5a ? Are you bored ?
Aloka wrote:More about the Tibetan Buddhist viewpoint....
From "Path to Buddhahood -teachings on Gampopa's Jewel Ornament of Liberation"by Ringu Tulku :
The text then goes on to say that the nature of both samsara and nirvana is shunyata and therefore the basic nature of all beings is also shunyata."Buddha Shakyamuni himself asserted the presence of buddha nature, and we have every reason to trust what he said, as he himself attained Buddhahood. Who better to tell us whether buddha nature exists or not? In the Samadhiraja Sutra the Buddha says, "The essence of Buddhahood pervades all beings." Likewise, the Mahaparinirvana Sutra says "All beings possess the nature of buddha or tathagatagarbha. " This same sutra goes on to explain that buddha nature is inherent in all beings as butter is inherent in milk. This assertion was not only made by Buddha himself but also by his successors, particularly those who founded and developed Mahayana Buddhism such as Asanga and Nagarjuna."
Good point.Lazy_eye wrote:So we don't necessarily need to frame this discussion in terms of Theravada vs. Mahayana. It could equally well (perhaps better) be framed in terms of "orthodox Theravada" vs. the more syncretic approach that we find among, say, the Insight Meditation Society folks.
IMO the question is not really helpful. What appears more appropriate is the question "What dangers may be involved with the concept 'Buddha Nature' ?"What is Wrong with Buddha Nature
TMingyur wrote:IMO the question is not really helpful. What appears more appropriate is the question "What dangers may be involved with the concept 'Buddha Nature' ?"What is Wrong with Buddha Nature
Kind regards
Then perhaps you could draw our attention to "buddha nature" in the tipitaka? I think that would greatly aid discussion.darvki wrote:Indeed, but this is not grounds for indiscriminantly rejecting use of the phrase.