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 »

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
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
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post 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.
>> 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
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 »

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
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
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post 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.
>> 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
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 »

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?
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
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post 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.
>> 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
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 »

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?
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
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 »

and what are you "trying to be nice" about?
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
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post 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.
>> 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
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by tiltbillings »

ancientbuddhism wrote:and what are you "trying to be nice" about?
That I'll let you figure out yourself.
>> 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
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 »

tiltbillings wrote:
ancientbuddhism wrote:and what are you "trying to be nice" about?
That I'll let you figure out yourself.
I don’t see any violation of the forums TOS on my part. But since you have some issue, and given your general temperament, I am available to hash out whatever in a conference PM with you and another moderator (so that you be nice) anytime.
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
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by tiltbillings »

ancientbuddhism wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
ancientbuddhism wrote:and what are you "trying to be nice" about?
That I'll let you figure out yourself.
I don’t see any violation of the forums TOS on my part. But since you have some issue, and given your general temperament, I am available to hash out whatever in a conference PM with you and another moderator (so that you be nice) anytime.
I did not say there was violation of the TOS. You were simply being a bit rude in your comment to fragrant herbs.

So, you have anything further to say about this, PM it.
>> 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
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 »

Getting back to the topic...

It is understandable why the Buddha took issue with the Brahmanical viewpoint of ‘self’ and delineated an argument against it, and of self as of issue to the Buddha’s aims of contemplative effort where one will reify the sakkāya view of ‘I am’ whether there was a Vedic theory of self or not. And so in the second case the Buddha sets up the argument against this habit of reification with conditions, to show the process of how this misapprehension occurs, even though there is no self to be found (after all one cannot not have what was not there). All this is necessary because the Buddha is referring to an actual problem of misapprehension of the khandhas, a habit intrinsic to human nature.

It is also the nature of sakkāya-diṭṭhi to back-read a self into anything, including notions of awakening potential, nothing new going on here. For Theravāda to argue against mahāyānist buddha-nature makes as little sense as how the notion has been hijacked into Theravāda by individual teachers, if it is non-issue in the canon why work with it at all?
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 »

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?
I think this is a misunderstanding. The way I understand it (in Mahayana), the "Buddha Nature" is what's present in every person that enables him to find his way to liberation. (Just so long as he follows the same conditions that the Buddha did to reach his own liberation.)

Some people try to equate this with the "luminous citta" in Pāli... which I think is completely different. It really only means that the citta is easy to see (and develop) when it's free of defilements.

About the Buddha being either dead or alive... I don't think he's stuck by either of those. That is why he was able to point out the way to liberation, for us to follow.

:anjali:
LastLegend
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 7:17 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by LastLegend »

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.
Post Reply