Page 10 of 14

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Posted: Fri May 20, 2011 1:45 pm
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.

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Posted: Fri May 20, 2011 3:14 pm
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.

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Posted: Fri May 20, 2011 3:19 pm
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.

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Posted: Fri May 20, 2011 3:20 pm
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.

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Posted: Fri May 20, 2011 3:27 pm
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?

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Posted: Fri May 20, 2011 3:55 pm
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.

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Posted: Fri May 20, 2011 4:09 pm
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:

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Posted: Fri May 20, 2011 8:31 pm
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;

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Posted: Fri May 20, 2011 8:46 pm
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.

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Posted: Fri May 20, 2011 8:47 pm
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:

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Posted: Sat May 21, 2011 6:48 am
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

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Posted: Sat May 21, 2011 7:03 am
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

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Posted: Sat May 21, 2011 4:07 pm
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:

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Posted: Sat May 21, 2011 6:12 pm
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.

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Posted: Sat May 21, 2011 7:01 pm
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: