What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
ancientbuddhism
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:53 pm
Location: Cyberia

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by ancientbuddhism »

LastLegend wrote:
chownah wrote:If Buddha nature is defined as something that all beings have or some capacity that all beings have then what is wrong with Buddha nature is that it is just one more way of constructing a doctrine of self....Buddha nature seems to be a doctrine of self based on the illusion that there is a self which "has" something....if we think "I" "have" "it" then a doctrine of self has arisen three times in that one short sentence...there is no "I" and entities can not "have" anything and "it" implies an external self as something which can be "had"......That is what is wrong with Buddha nature....it is a doctrine of self....something the Buddha advised us very strongly to not indulge in....
chownah
Ahem. Not rejecting or accepting self is Buddha Nature my friend, but the cultivation is to get rid of defilement. Whatever you want to call it, Buddha Nature, Mind, Citta, Permanent, not a thing, etc. But without "it," you will not be able to cultivate. "It" is what you are cultivating for.

If you accept the concept of self, then behind it must be a "no-name "? Or should we not speak about "no-name" at all since "it" is not a thing and cannot be defined. But "it" must be permanent. What are you cultivating for if not "it"? And "who" is experiencing Nirvana after defilement is gone. If there is no "who," then two Arahants must not distinguishable. If there is no Buddha Nature, who is posting this?

Thanks for reading.
With reference to your original statement. You need to relearn what sakkāya diṭṭhi is.
I say, beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes.” – Henry David Thoreau, Walden, 1854

Secure your own mask before assisting others. – NORTHWEST AIRLINES (Pre-Flight Instruction)

A Handful of Leaves
LastLegend
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 7:17 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by LastLegend »

ancientbuddhism wrote:
LastLegend wrote:
chownah wrote:If Buddha nature is defined as something that all beings have or some capacity that all beings have then what is wrong with Buddha nature is that it is just one more way of constructing a doctrine of self....Buddha nature seems to be a doctrine of self based on the illusion that there is a self which "has" something....if we think "I" "have" "it" then a doctrine of self has arisen three times in that one short sentence...there is no "I" and entities can not "have" anything and "it" implies an external self as something which can be "had"......That is what is wrong with Buddha nature....it is a doctrine of self....something the Buddha advised us very strongly to not indulge in....
chownah
Ahem. Not rejecting or accepting self is Buddha Nature my friend, but the cultivation is to get rid of defilement. Whatever you want to call it, Buddha Nature, Mind, Citta, Permanent, not a thing, etc. But without "it," you will not be able to cultivate. "It" is what you are cultivating for.

If you accept the concept of self, then behind it must be a "no-name "? Or should we not speak about "no-name" at all since "it" is not a thing and cannot be defined. But "it" must be permanent. What are you cultivating for if not "it"? And "who" is experiencing Nirvana after defilement is gone. If there is no "who," then two Arahants must not distinguishable. If there is no Buddha Nature, who is posting this?

Thanks for reading.
With reference to your original statement. You need to relearn what sakkāya diṭṭhi is.
No thanks. That is your job.
Last edited by LastLegend on Fri May 20, 2011 3:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by tiltbillings »

LastLegend wrote:
ancientbuddhism wrote: With reference to your original statement. You need to relearn what sakkāya diṭṭhi is.
No thanks.
Wow!!! Willfull ignorance. You don't understand Buddha-nature from a Mahayana standpoint and you do not want to learn what the Buddha has to say about things.
>> 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
LastLegend
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 7:17 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by LastLegend »

tiltbillings wrote:
LastLegend wrote:
ancientbuddhism wrote: With reference to your original statement. You need to relearn what sakkāya diṭṭhi is.
No thanks.
Wow!!! Willfull ignorance. You don't understand Buddha-nature from a Mahayana standpoint and you do not want to learn what the Buddha has to say about things.
I will now back out of this room. Thank you for concern.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by tiltbillings »

LastLegend wrote: I will now back out of this room. Thank you for concern.
You do not need to back out of this room. You might stay around and try to learn something. Maybe you could explain your "No thanks" response; maybe you could ask for some clarification of what is meant?
>> 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
Kenshou
Posts: 1030
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:03 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by Kenshou »

To break my vows and reenter, this deserves repeating:
You need to relearn what sakkāya diṭṭhi is.
I think right here we have a case study of how it is that there can be something quite wrong with Buddha Nature: When it causes this sort of confusion.
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by beeblebrox »

Just for convenience:

Sakkaya ditthi = identity view, one of the 10 fetters. It's an attempt to view a "self" as compared to the five aggregates, in the following ways: identical with them (form is self, consciousness is self, etc.); contained within them (self is found in form, self is found in consciousness, etc.); independent from them (self is beyond the form, self is beyond the consciousness, etc.); or owner of them (self owns the form, self owns the consciousness, etc).

I think that if the Dhamma is to be understood, and practiced to its fullest (all the way to liberation), the idea of "self" needs to be taken out of the equation completely, including the idea of "no self." It's really irrelevant to the practice (apart from conventional usage), and is a fetter.

:anjali:
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by daverupa »

beeblebrox wrote:I think that if the Dhamma is to be understood, and practiced to its fullest (all the way to liberation), the idea of "self" needs to be taken out of the equation completely, including the idea of "no self." It's really irrelevant to the practice (apart from conventional usage), and is a fetter.

:anjali:
So anatta is irrelevant? o.O;
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
Kenshou
Posts: 1030
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:03 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by Kenshou »

I think this is like the raft simile. We use the concept of anatta to get us where we want to go, but after it's done it's job it doesn't need to be held onto anymore. I can't remember where but I believe it's said that the arahant doesn't cling to even such concepts as "viraga" or "nibbana". Of course for the majority of us this isn't something we need to worry about right now. And I'd figure that "releasing the raft" happens automatically anyway at the right time, but whatever.
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by beeblebrox »

daverupa wrote:So anatta is irrelevant? o.O;
Apart from the conventional usage... I think yes. What the Buddha taught was neither annihilationism (killing the self is the goal), nor nihilism (no self, so no worries). Why?

:anjali:
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by ground »

beeblebrox wrote:
daverupa wrote:So anatta is irrelevant? o.O;
Apart from the conventional usage... I think yes. What the Buddha taught was neither annihilationism (killing the self is the goal), nor nihilism (no self, so no worries). Why?
I don't agree. IMO it is about validly cognizing the absence of what has been misperceived as being "more than" mere thought.

How to "kill" a thought? Cognize it as such and don't nurture it further.
Worries are secondary thoughts that follow in the wake of the primary one.

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by ground »

Now if anything then this emptiness of "self" actually meaning emptiness of "I" and "mine" may be called "Buddha nature".

But then ... why introduce a new term if there is already a more specific one?

The reason is that "Buddha nature" can be applied to mean "more than" the "mere lack of", the mere emptiness ... it can be applied to imply pre-existing positive, i.e. affirmed, qualities.

And this is the reason why even among Mahayanists the term "Buddha nature" has been revealed by some to be "a means" for those inclined to soul theories. Now if this "means" may be called "skillful" or not is a point of dissent even among Mahayanists.


Kind regards
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by beeblebrox »

TMingyur wrote:
beeblebrox wrote:
daverupa wrote:So anatta is irrelevant? o.O;
Apart from the conventional usage... I think yes. What the Buddha taught was neither annihilationism (killing the self is the goal), nor nihilism (no self, so no worries). Why?
I don't agree. IMO it is about validly cognizing the absence of what has been misperceived as being "more than" mere thought.
Anatta is still viewing it through the lens of "self." I think that the Dhamma not being annihilationism nor nihilism is probably one of the difficult points for most people... sometimes this causes them to fall back on "self" yet again, such as Buddha-nature (at least some interpretation of it), or Self, with a big "S", but they should be careful not to.

The reason why it's neither "killing the self" (which includes the illusory self) nor "no self, so no worries," is because these don't end the suffering. The idea of a self is the delusion here... which includes the idea of "no self," because it's still based around the idea of a self. The Buddha himself even said that the ones who assert "no self" are close, but still not there.

:anjali:
User avatar
ancientbuddhism
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:53 pm
Location: Cyberia

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by ancientbuddhism »

beeblebrox wrote:Just for convenience:

Sakkaya ditthi = identity view, one of the 10 fetters. It's an attempt to view a "self" as compared to the five aggregates, in the following ways: identical with them (form is self, consciousness is self, etc.); contained within them (self is found in form, self is found in consciousness, etc.); independent from them (self is beyond the form, self is beyond the consciousness, etc.); or owner of them (self owns the form, self owns the consciousness, etc).

I think that if the Dhamma is to be understood, and practiced to its fullest (all the way to liberation), the idea of "self" needs to be taken out of the equation completely, including the idea of "no self." It's really irrelevant to the practice (apart from conventional usage), and is a fetter.
Unfortunately this statement is irrelevant to the discussion (aside from being incorrect).

Sakkāya-diṭṭhi and all of the analysis the Buddha supplied with it was pointing to the principle of not-self as definitely relevant to practice! It is the problem which leads to dukkha.

The Buddha explains that Sakkāya-diṭṭhi is the taking-up (upādāya) of the khandhas as 'I am':

“It is by identification (upādāya) that there is ‘I am”, not without identification. It is by identification with material-form that there is ‘I am’, not without identification. It is by identification with sensations of feeling…; It is by identification with sense-perception …; It is by identification with volitional-cognition …; It is by identification with consciousness that there is ‘I am’, not without identification. - SN. 3.105 [SLTP]

Anatta is a realization of this habit, or as already stated in this thread:
TMingyur wrote: ‘…it (anatta) is about validly cognizing the absence of what has been misperceived as being "more than" mere thought.’
Back to the topic:

The notion of buddha-nature is fitting for the Buddha’s criticism under the sakkāya-diṭṭhi and anatta analysis, where it is pointing to the misapprehension of the khandhas and anything within their reach as beset with the ‘underlying notion of I-making and mine-making’ (ahaṃkāramamaṃkāramānānusayā); which is the tendency to reify anything as substantial, including this much later fad of buddha-nature awakening potential.
I say, beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes.” – Henry David Thoreau, Walden, 1854

Secure your own mask before assisting others. – NORTHWEST AIRLINES (Pre-Flight Instruction)

A Handful of Leaves
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by beeblebrox »

When you say "not self," what idea are you using? What are you comparing it against? Once this idea is taken out of the equation... there is only the arising and falling away.

That is not the end, though. We still have to use this "insight" as something to end the suffering, for once.

:anjali:
Post Reply