What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby ancientbuddhism » Fri May 20, 2011 1:45 pm

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.
Anuvicca papañca nāmarūpaṃ
ajjhattaṃ bahiddhā ca rogamūlaṃ,
sabbarogamūlabandhanā pamutto
anuvidito tādi pavuccate tathattā
.

“Having known the naming of objects,
With its proliferation, its root in illness – within and without;
One is released from bondage to the root of all illness.
And thus is called the Knowing One – the Such.

– Sn. 3.6 (Sabhiyasuttaṃ)

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

A Handful of Leaves
User avatar
ancientbuddhism
 
Posts: 677
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:53 pm
Location: Cyberia

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby LastLegend » Fri May 20, 2011 3:14 pm

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.
LastLegend
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 7:17 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby tiltbillings » Fri May 20, 2011 3:19 pm

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.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19901
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby LastLegend » Fri May 20, 2011 3:20 pm

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.
LastLegend
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 7:17 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby tiltbillings » Fri May 20, 2011 3:27 pm

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?
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19901
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby Kenshou » Fri May 20, 2011 3:55 pm

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.
Kenshou
 
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:03 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby beeblebrox » Fri May 20, 2011 4:09 pm

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:
User avatar
beeblebrox
 
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby daverupa » Fri May 20, 2011 8:31 pm

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]
User avatar
daverupa
 
Posts: 4357
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby Kenshou » Fri May 20, 2011 8:46 pm

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.
Kenshou
 
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:03 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby beeblebrox » Fri May 20, 2011 8:47 pm

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

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby ground » Sat May 21, 2011 6:48 am

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: 2592
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby ground » Sat May 21, 2011 7:03 am

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
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 2592
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby beeblebrox » Sat May 21, 2011 4:07 pm

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

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby ancientbuddhism » Sat May 21, 2011 6:12 pm

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.
Anuvicca papañca nāmarūpaṃ
ajjhattaṃ bahiddhā ca rogamūlaṃ,
sabbarogamūlabandhanā pamutto
anuvidito tādi pavuccate tathattā
.

“Having known the naming of objects,
With its proliferation, its root in illness – within and without;
One is released from bondage to the root of all illness.
And thus is called the Knowing One – the Such.

– Sn. 3.6 (Sabhiyasuttaṃ)

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

A Handful of Leaves
User avatar
ancientbuddhism
 
Posts: 677
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:53 pm
Location: Cyberia

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby beeblebrox » Sat May 21, 2011 7:01 pm

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:
User avatar
beeblebrox
 
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby ancientbuddhism » Sun May 22, 2011 2:42 pm

beeblebrox wrote: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:


By this reasoning why not take taṇhā and the entire pathway to dukkha out of the equation? …since this is interrupting your meditation.

Even better still, why don't we just reduce anatta to a strategy and just talk ourselves out of dukkha.
Anuvicca papañca nāmarūpaṃ
ajjhattaṃ bahiddhā ca rogamūlaṃ,
sabbarogamūlabandhanā pamutto
anuvidito tādi pavuccate tathattā
.

“Having known the naming of objects,
With its proliferation, its root in illness – within and without;
One is released from bondage to the root of all illness.
And thus is called the Knowing One – the Such.

– Sn. 3.6 (Sabhiyasuttaṃ)

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

A Handful of Leaves
User avatar
ancientbuddhism
 
Posts: 677
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:53 pm
Location: Cyberia

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby kirk5a » Sun May 22, 2011 2:50 pm

beeblebrox wrote: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

self-grasping, which ends the
suffering, for once.
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
User avatar
kirk5a
 
Posts: 1794
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby acinteyyo » Sun May 22, 2011 3:36 pm

LastLegend wrote:Well if there is no self, there must be "something" there that is permanent? Otherwise an Arahant can get defiled again.

Actually it's the absence of "something" which is permanent which is why an arahant can't get defiled again.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Pubbe cāhaṃ bhikkhave, etarahi ca dukkhañceva paññāpemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhaṃ. (M.22)
Api cāhaṃ, āvuso, imasmiṃyeva byāmamatte kaḷevare, sasaññimhi samanake lokañca paññāpemi lokasamudayañca lokanirodhañca lokanirodhagāminiñca paṭipadan. (AN4.45)

:anjali:
User avatar
acinteyyo
 
Posts: 1055
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Neuburg/Donau, Germany

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby ground » Sun May 22, 2011 4:41 pm

beeblebrox wrote:
TMingyur wrote:
beeblebrox wrote:
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:


Hmh .... either we don't agree or we are talking at cross purposes.

Be that as it may. Obviously you have an issue with the term "anatta" which I do not understand ...


kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 2592
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Postby beeblebrox » Sun May 22, 2011 7:37 pm

ancientbuddhism wrote:By this reasoning why not take taṇhā and the entire pathway to dukkha out of the equation? …since this is interrupting your meditation.

Even better still, why don't we just reduce anatta to a strategy and just talk ourselves out of dukkha.


I think you (and TMingyur) missed this... "apart from the conventional usage."

Try to think of it in this way:

Person #1 keeps on saying this for each of the aggregates, "This is not god. This is not god. This is not god... this is not god... this also is not god." (Like a broken record.)

Person #2 replies, "OK... now that we figured that out... why not just dump 'god,' so that we might study these aggregates for what they really are?"

Person #1 says, "No way! Saying that these are 'not god' is a crucial part of the practice..."


The only problem is... "god" is the delusion here. As long as this person #1 continues his "not god" thing, this idea of "god" will continue, forever. We can't do away with "god" or else we won't be able to say, "not god." The person #1 is basically insisting on viewing this practice through the lens of a delusion, and doesn't seem to know it.

This "atheist" can't seem to shake off the "god" thing... why not? It's like a bad comedy, with super-glue...

The point of this practice is that when you finally see something as a delusion, you let that fall away... and you do not pick it up again, ever... after this, "god" becomes an irrelevant part of the practice. There's a complete ending of that very delusion... and therefore, you don't have to be bothered with it, again.

When I was growing up (since I was little), I was always mystified why people would ask me whether I thought that "God" existed or not. I always said, "I don't know." I didn't understand why people would never seem to accept this answer... they wanted me to make up an answer about this, one way or other. What for?

When the idea of "self" becomes irrelevant (i.e., when you stop trying to use the idea of a "self" to view things)... what reason could there possibly be to continue with the use of "anatta"? Other than that there is still the idea of a "self" lingering? That, is why one shouldn't try to make up a self... just for the sake of using "anatta."

:anjali:
User avatar
beeblebrox
 
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests