Page 7 of 14

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 9:35 am
by Aloka
darvki wrote:.
Aloka wrote:
Dan74 wrote:Not helpful to whom?
Certainly not helpful to me. I found it confusing when I was a Vajrayana practitioner, wondering if ''all sentient beings have Buddha Nature" how this could apply, for example, to slugs.

...and its irrelevant to my practice in the here and now.
Personally, it has never confused me, as a literal doctrine (which I do not subscribe to) or metaphor, and I do not find it irrelevant to my practice here and now. I think that it's perfectly helpful and if handled right does not have to cause additional delusion.

.
That's absolutely fine if its meaningful for you, Darvki. I was simply expressing one of the reasons why it used to puzzle me -and stating that it has no relevance in the here and now for me.... it wasn't a suggestion for anyone else.

Does it help me overcome Dukkha ? No it doesn't. Seeing all beings as if they were brothers and sisters has a lot more relevance for me.

Different strokes for different folks as they say, !

with metta,

Aloka :)

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 11:38 am
by darvki
Aloka wrote:That's absolutely fine if its meaningful for you, Darvki. I was simply expressing one of the reasons why it used to puzzle me -and stating that it has no relevance in the here and now for me.... it wasn't a suggestion for anyone else.

Does it help me overcome Dukkha ? No it doesn't. Seeing all beings as if they were brothers and sisters has a lot more relevance for me.

Different strokes for different folks as they say, !

with metta,

Aloka :)
My apologies, Aloka. I thought the format of that reply might not be clear and I was right. It was more a reply to Dan74's comment to give a contrasting answer. There's various statements being thrown around about how buddha nature is "confusing" and "unhelpful", which are false absolute statements I would like to show as being such.

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:51 am
by Dan74
I'm just reading an essay linked by bodom from the forest ajahns:
http://www.forestsangha.org/index.php?o ... &Itemid=25

And the following quote from Ajahn Sumedho caught my attention:
“After teaching in the West for a very short period of time, I began to see
that many people were disappointed both in materialism and theistic religions. To
them Buddhism had great appeal but, lacking any fundamental sense of, or faith in
the transcendent, the practice of Buddhism became almost a dry, technical
procedure – intellectually satisfying but strangely sterile as well.

“They had largely rejected the idea of an Ultimate Reality from their
thoughts as being intrinsically theistic nonsense so I realized that people needed
to be aware that there was also such a principle in the Buddha’s teachings, without
there being any hint of a creator God in the picture. In Thailand, because there is
already such a broad and strong basis of faith in these transcendent qualities, there
is no need to talk about Ultimate Reality, the Unconditioned and so forth – for
them it can be a distraction. Here, I saw that people needed something to look up
to – that’s why I talk about it all the time. It goes a long way to cultivating faith
and it gives a much more living and expansive quality to their spiritual life; there is
a natural joy when the heart opens to its true nature.”
Again, as is often the case, the Forest ajahns teach from experience using skillful means rather than expounding tenets of truth. So of course, "true nature" should not be taken as something out there to get hung up on. But nevertheless, it is used.

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 3:08 am
by alan
Ok, nice point. We need to find something transcendent to give juice to the practice. Contemplation of the Buddha's awakening is a good place to start.

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Posted: Thu May 19, 2011 11:26 am
by fragrant herbs
So since we do not have Buddha Nature, when we become enlightened and die, we are just dead? Is Buddha now dead? And what is reborn? What about Heaven or Hell?

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Posted: Thu May 19, 2011 4:00 pm
by ancientbuddhism
fragrant herbs wrote:So since we do not have Buddha Nature, when we become enlightened and die, we are just dead? Is Buddha now dead? And what is reborn? What about Heaven or Hell?
you must be joking

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Posted: Thu May 19, 2011 4:23 pm
by tiltbillings
ancientbuddhism wrote:
fragrant herbs wrote:So since we do not have Buddha Nature, when we become enlightened and die, we are just dead? Is Buddha now dead? And what is reborn? What about Heaven or Hell?
you must be joking
She (or it may be he) is likely not joking. We all start from a place of not knowing much, needing thoughtful, considerate responses in the beginning.

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Posted: Thu May 19, 2011 4:27 pm
by ancientbuddhism
tiltbillings wrote:
ancientbuddhism wrote:
fragrant herbs wrote:So since we do not have Buddha Nature, when we become enlightened and die, we are just dead? Is Buddha now dead? And what is reborn? What about Heaven or Hell?
you must be joking
She (or it may be he) is likely not joking. We all start from a place of not knowing much, needing thoughtful, considerate responses in the beginning.
you must be joking

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Posted: Thu May 19, 2011 4:33 pm
by tiltbillings
ancientbuddhism wrote: you must be joking
Geez, Ken, I am simply trying to be nice, which would not be a bad thing for you, either.

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Posted: Thu May 19, 2011 4:35 pm
by ancientbuddhism
tiltbillings wrote:
ancientbuddhism wrote: you must be joking
Geez, Ken, I am simply trying to be nice, which would not be a bad thing for you, either.
who are you talking to?

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Posted: Thu May 19, 2011 4:37 pm
by tiltbillings
ancientbuddhism wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
ancientbuddhism wrote: you must be joking
Geez, Ken, I am simply trying to be nice, which would not be a bad thing for you, either.
who are you talking to?
You.

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Posted: Thu May 19, 2011 4:52 pm
by ancientbuddhism
tiltbillings wrote:Geez, Ken, I am simply trying to be nice, which would not be a bad thing for you, either.
who are you talking to?
You.
You reference a name, not mine. Who are you talking to?

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Posted: Thu May 19, 2011 5:02 pm
by ancientbuddhism
and what are you "trying to be nice" about?

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Posted: Thu May 19, 2011 5:06 pm
by tiltbillings
ancientbuddhism wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Geez, Ken, I am simply trying to be nice, which would not be a bad thing for you, either.
who are you talking to?
You.
You reference a name, not mine. Who are you talking to?
The avatar and the nom de computer is a striking coindecedence, strongly suggesting someone else, but apparently not you.

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Posted: Thu May 19, 2011 5:07 pm
by tiltbillings
ancientbuddhism wrote:and what are you "trying to be nice" about?
That I'll let you figure out yourself.