Theravada and Buddha nature

A forum for beginners and members of other Buddhist traditions to ask questions about Theravāda (The Way of the Elders). Responses require moderator approval before they are visible in order to double-check alignment to Theravāda orthodoxy.
Arjan Dirkse
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:58 pm

Theravada and Buddha nature

Post by Arjan Dirkse »

Hello,

I am interested in exploring Theravada...

I was wondering about a few things, is Nagarjuna and the Mulamadhyakakarika (one of my favorite books) considered part of Theravada? Or is that only Mahayana? Are there things in there that Theravada disagree with? And also "Buddha nature", do Theravadins believe that everybody has Buddha nature?

I would appreciate any reading tips...so far the only Theravada book I have read is "In the Buddha's Words" by Bhikkhu Bodhi, and I really liked it.

Thanks.
User avatar
LonesomeYogurt
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
Location: America

Re: Theravada and Buddha nature

Post by LonesomeYogurt »

Nāgārjuna is definitely a Mahayana figure, but most of what he had to say is still very relevant to Theravada practice.

As for Buddha-nature, you might be interested in this essay by Thanisarro Bhikkhu. In short though, there is no concept of Buddha Nature in Theravada.
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.

Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.

His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta

Stuff I write about things.
User avatar
m0rl0ck
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Theravada and Buddha nature

Post by m0rl0ck »

LonesomeYogurt wrote:Nāgārjuna is definitely a Mahayana figure, but most of what he had to say is still very relevant to Theravada practice.

As for Buddha-nature, you might be interested in this essay by Thanisarro Bhikkhu. In short though, there is no concept of Buddha Nature in Theravada.
Actually that isnt a great explanation of the idea of buddha nature. The author sets up a straw man "buddha nature" to compare it to "the peace that's not fabricated at all.", which might itself be a good explanation of buddha nature. If you want the straight dope on buddha nature, my advice would be to look for mahayana sources.
“The truth knocks on the door and you say, "Go away, I'm looking for the truth," and so it goes away. Puzzling.” ― Robert M. Pirsig
befriend
Posts: 2284
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:39 am

Re: Theravada and Buddha nature

Post by befriend »

not true, ajahn chah says in Chapter 1 in food for the heart "about this mind in truth there is nothing really wrong with it. it is intrinsically pure. Within itself it is already peaceful. if the mind is not peaceful these days its because it follows moods."
Take care of mindfulness and mindfulness will take care of you.
User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8503
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: Theravada and Buddha nature

Post by cooran »

Hello all,

A couple of previous threads on Buddha nature:

What is wrong with Buddha Nature?
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=7716" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Buddha nature
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=11429" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

with metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Theravada and Buddha nature

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Arjan,
Arjan Dirkse wrote:I am interested in exploring Theravada...

I was wondering about a few things, is Nagarjuna and the Mulamadhyakakarika (one of my favorite books) considered part of Theravada? Or is that only Mahayana? Are there things in there that Theravada disagree with?
Given your questions, I'd suggest reading...

The Heretic Sage
http://theravadin.wordpress.com/2010/10 ... etic-sage/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

... to find out what Venerable Nanananda makes of Nagarjuna and some of the challenges to that Nagarjuna poses to classical Theravada orthodoxy.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
LonesomeYogurt
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
Location: America

Re: Theravada and Buddha nature

Post by LonesomeYogurt »

m0rl0ck wrote:Actually that isnt a great explanation of the idea of buddha nature. The author sets up a straw man "buddha nature" to compare it to "the peace that's not fabricated at all.", which might itself be a good explanation of buddha nature. If you want the straight dope on buddha nature, my advice would be to look for mahayana sources.
Well it depends how you define Buddha Nature; if it is just a poetic way of describing the ability of all beings to achieve Nibbana, as some Mahayana sources make it out to be, then obviously no Buddhist school refutes that. But if you make it out to be an ontologically real, essential base of being like many other schools do, then it is at odds with the Buddha's teachings. In order to really discuss this, we need to have a better definition of exactly what kind of Buddha Nature we're talking about here.
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.

Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.

His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta

Stuff I write about things.
dhammapal
Posts: 2646
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:23 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Theravada and Buddha nature

Post by dhammapal »

Hi,

Hanzze posted Maha Ghosananda's book on the Mahayana forum. It is very interfaith. I think that Cambodia is Theravada.

Thanissaro Bhikkhu points out that the expert on Buddha Nature would have been the historical Buddha and he didn't mention it in the Pali Canon.

With metta / dhammapal.
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4529
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Theravada and Buddha nature

Post by Dan74 »

LonesomeYogurt wrote:
m0rl0ck wrote:Actually that isnt a great explanation of the idea of buddha nature. The author sets up a straw man "buddha nature" to compare it to "the peace that's not fabricated at all.", which might itself be a good explanation of buddha nature. If you want the straight dope on buddha nature, my advice would be to look for mahayana sources.
Well it depends how you define Buddha Nature; if it is just a poetic way of describing the ability of all beings to achieve Nibbana, as some Mahayana sources make it out to be, then obviously no Buddhist school refutes that. But if you make it out to be an ontologically real, essential base of being like many other schools do, then it is at odds with the Buddha's teachings. In order to really discuss this, we need to have a better definition of exactly what kind of Buddha Nature we're talking about here.
I don't think these are the two possibilities, LY.

The most common Mahayana view is that Buddha Nature is our fundamental state which is obscured by ignorance/delusion/defilements.

By fundamental state I don't mean a self or a thing, but rather simply how it is when the stranglehold on delusion is loosened, it is glimpsed. The Tibetans call it "rigpa" I think and similarly to Zen, it is subsequently stabilised, extended and deepened. So that it pervades every aspect of our lives.
_/|\_
User avatar
LonesomeYogurt
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
Location: America

Re: Theravada and Buddha nature

Post by LonesomeYogurt »

Dan74 wrote:The most common Mahayana view is that Buddha Nature is our fundamental state which is obscured by ignorance/delusion/defilements.
But is this fundamental state a poetic rendering of the emptiness that allows beings to reach enlightenment, or is it a literal "true self" or base of existence? The question is important, especially if we're going to talk about the Buddha Nature's relation to Theravada.
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.

Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.

His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta

Stuff I write about things.
User avatar
Kusala
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:02 am

Re: Theravada and Buddha nature

Post by Kusala »

Arjan Dirkse wrote:Hello,

I am interested in exploring Theravada...

I was wondering about a few things, is Nagarjuna and the Mulamadhyakakarika (one of my favorite books) considered part of Theravada? Or is that only Mahayana? Are there things in there that Theravada disagree with? And also "Buddha nature", do Theravadins believe that everybody has Buddha nature?

I would appreciate any reading tips...so far the only Theravada book I have read is "In the Buddha's Words" by Bhikkhu Bodhi, and I really liked it.

Thanks.
As far as I understand, Buddha Nature is a later development...
"He, the Blessed One, is indeed the Noble Lord, the Perfectly Enlightened One;
He is impeccable in conduct and understanding, the Serene One, the Knower of the Worlds;
He trains perfectly those who wish to be trained; he is Teacher of gods and men; he is Awake and Holy. "

--------------------------------------------
"The Dhamma is well-expounded by the Blessed One,
Apparent here and now, timeless, encouraging investigation,
Leading to liberation, to be experienced individually by the wise. "
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Theravada and Buddha nature

Post by daverupa »

Kusala wrote:As far as I understand, Buddha Nature is a later development...
Yes.
  • "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]
Arjan Dirkse
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:58 pm

Re: Theravada and Buddha nature

Post by Arjan Dirkse »

Thanks for all the answers.
santa100
Posts: 6814
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Theravada and Buddha nature

Post by santa100 »

From AN 1.49-52 ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ):
Luminous, monks, is the mind.[1] And it is defiled by incoming defilements. Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements.
From the Theravada context, Ven. Thanissaro commented:
"The luminous mind is the mind that the meditator is trying to develop. To perceive its luminosity means understanding that defilements such as greed, aversion, or delusion are not intrinsic to its nature, are not a necessary part of awareness. Without this understanding, it would be impossible to practice. With this understanding, however, one can make an effort to cut away existing defilements, leaving the mind in the stage that MN 24 calls "purity in terms of mind."
And also Ven. Nanananda's comment (from "Concept and Reality in Early Buddhist Thought - 1971" ):
"Moreover, the reference to a mind intrinsically pure is not to be confused with the idea of an
absolute entity, like a soul, already embedded in every being. The luminosity of the mind is a
potentiality which becomes a reality only when the necessary conditions are fulfilled. These conditions are collectively called bhāvanā, a word which even literally suggests growth. It is significant that this Aṅguttara passage referred to above, is in point of fact, an exhortation stressing the
importance of bhāvanā (development of mind). Thus, according to the Pāli Nikāyas, one has to
“grow” into the luminosity of the mind. It is not something pre-existing in some metaphysical
sense, ready to be traced metaphysically to the seed of the plant. It has to blossom forth in order
to be a lotus."
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4529
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Theravada and Buddha nature

Post by Dan74 »

LonesomeYogurt wrote:
Dan74 wrote:The most common Mahayana view is that Buddha Nature is our fundamental state which is obscured by ignorance/delusion/defilements.
But is this fundamental state a poetic rendering of the emptiness that allows beings to reach enlightenment, or is it a literal "true self" or base of existence? The question is important, especially if we're going to talk about the Buddha Nature's relation to Theravada.
Maybe neither!

Sure some Mahayana teachers say that talk of Buddha nature is a crutch. And Nagarjuna makes a very compelling case for all concepts to be very provisional and only useful as far as they point our the way the liberation, but empty of any inherent validity. So this puts a great big WARNING! on the label.

Then all dualities like "existence and its base" or "having or attaining this base" cannot be maintained.

In the end Buddha Nature and its associated teachings to me simply point out that nibbana is not "out there" but right here. It's an inspirational teaching to encourage us to stop reaching out. To trust what is right here and take a very very close look. As far as I can make out.
_/|\_
Post Reply