buddha nature...

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: buddha nature...

Post by beeblebrox »

alan... wrote: as far as i know, in mahayana, if you become a fully realized buddha you become immortal essentially and can come and go between your "buddha land" and samsara as you please. examples are dizang, amitabha and kuan yin. they are immortal (at least until all of samsara has become buddhas anyway) and answer prayers and help people.
Hi Alan,

In my opinion, that is a misinterpretation of these teachings.
in theravada there are no immortal buddhas floating around helping people and answering prayers. so it's like discovering an eternal being within you and becoming that being. as opposed to the theravada realization of having no eternal self.
In Theravada it's the same, believe it or not... one glaring example is the Dhammakaya sect. They're not small either, but very big. If I understand what they teach correctly, they believe that Nibbana is the eternal self, or Atta.

In Theravada, there's the "unborn," the "deathless element," etc. When a person interprets these in a certain way, do you think that's the fault of the teaching, or the person's interpretation?

For example, Ven. Thanissaro criticizes the Buddha nature I think as an exercise in eternalism (something or other). To me, that is just what he read into it, possibly based on his hidden attachment... it has nothing to do with what I understand as Buddha nature.

Whatever bias a person might have, I think that is what he will read into the teachings, regardless. That's why the Dhamma is very subtle... even when it's glaringly obvious.

:anjali:
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4528
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: buddha nature...

Post by Dan74 »

alan... wrote:
Mr Man wrote:
The meaning of "Soul", as I understand it, goes beyond just a sense of being and is used to describe some kind of "metaphysical reality". I haven't had much contact with Mahayana but I thought buddha nature was just a way of talking (a tool).
as far as i know, in mahayana, if you become a fully realized buddha you become immortal essentially and can come and go between your "buddha land" and samsara as you please. examples are dizang, amitabha and kuan yin. they are immortal (at least until all of samsara has become buddhas anyway) and answer prayers and help people. in theravada there are no immortal buddhas floating around helping people and answering prayers. so it's like discovering an eternal being within you and becoming that being. as opposed to the theravada realization of having no eternal self.

you can split hairs and say that once samsara is empty everything disappears into nirvana or something so buddha nature is not a self, but until then being an immortal being is as close to a soul/self as you can get without coming out and saying it.
I think this is a very naive take on the teachings. Have a look at Cheng Chien Bhikshu's introduction to Manifestation of the Tathagata (excepts from the Flower Ornament Scripture).
_/|\_
alan...
Posts: 824
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:37 pm

Re: buddha nature...

Post by alan... »

beeblebrox wrote:
alan... wrote: as far as i know, in mahayana, if you become a fully realized buddha you become immortal essentially and can come and go between your "buddha land" and samsara as you please. examples are dizang, amitabha and kuan yin. they are immortal (at least until all of samsara has become buddhas anyway) and answer prayers and help people.
Hi Alan,

In my opinion, that is a misinterpretation of these teachings.
in theravada there are no immortal buddhas floating around helping people and answering prayers. so it's like discovering an eternal being within you and becoming that being. as opposed to the theravada realization of having no eternal self.
In Theravada it's the same, believe it or not... one glaring example is the Dhammakaya sect. They're not small either, but very big. If I understand what they teach correctly, they believe that Nibbana is the eternal self, or Atta.

In Theravada, there's the "unborn," the "deathless element," etc. When a person interprets these in a certain way, do you think that's the fault of the teaching, or the person's interpretation?

For example, Ven. Thanissaro criticizes the Buddha nature I think as an exercise in eternalism (something or other). To me, that is just what he read into it, possibly based on his hidden attachment... it has nothing to do with what I understand as Buddha nature.

Whatever bias a person might have, I think that is what he will read into the teachings, regardless. That's why the Dhamma is very subtle... even when it's glaringly obvious.

:anjali:
there are a thousand different views here. "mahayana" covers a TON of ground. your view surely is perfect for your school or whatever, but mine is certainly found within the mahayana. otherwise how do we explain dizang, kuan yin, amitabha, and so on?

regardless of what the theravada believe, they don't teach that there are personal entities who are immortal and help people and call them "buddhas", that's not how buddha is defined in theravada. at least to my knowledge.

EDIT: apparently the lay folk in some theravada countries believe in the bodhisattvas the same as mahayana folk do. however as far as scripture and most official schools stances on the topic, the above should still be correct.
Last edited by alan... on Wed Mar 06, 2013 11:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.
alan...
Posts: 824
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:37 pm

Re: buddha nature...

Post by alan... »

Dan74 wrote:
alan... wrote:
Mr Man wrote:
The meaning of "Soul", as I understand it, goes beyond just a sense of being and is used to describe some kind of "metaphysical reality". I haven't had much contact with Mahayana but I thought buddha nature was just a way of talking (a tool).
as far as i know, in mahayana, if you become a fully realized buddha you become immortal essentially and can come and go between your "buddha land" and samsara as you please. examples are dizang, amitabha and kuan yin. they are immortal (at least until all of samsara has become buddhas anyway) and answer prayers and help people. in theravada there are no immortal buddhas floating around helping people and answering prayers. so it's like discovering an eternal being within you and becoming that being. as opposed to the theravada realization of having no eternal self.

you can split hairs and say that once samsara is empty everything disappears into nirvana or something so buddha nature is not a self, but until then being an immortal being is as close to a soul/self as you can get without coming out and saying it.
I think this is a very naive take on the teachings. Have a look at Cheng Chien Bhikshu's introduction to Manifestation of the Tathagata (excepts from the Flower Ornament Scripture).
in some mahayana teachings, scriptures and schools this is roughly how it is believed to be. how else could kuan yin, dizang, amitabha and all the rest exist? simply the possibility of being able to become what they are is very similar to many ideas surrounding the concept of an eternal soul. if there were no buddha nature how could they leave samsara to become immortal beings that help man kind? with buddha nature they can do what they do.

deep down we are all buddhas, if kuan yin, dizang, and amitabha are "buddhas", then a "buddha" is someone with the option to live as an immortal being who comes and goes between their own eternal paradise and samsara to help people. if we all have this immortal "buddha" within us then it's nearly identical to a soul. i think it's naive that you don't understand this because you are ignoring the vastness of mahayana teachings and assuming only your school, sect or personal definitions are correct and mine are wrong. in fact mahayana teachings are so broad and cover so much ground that the odds of you being right entirely with no room for my interpretation is next to zero, that is unless you are the foremost scholar on mahayana buddhism and have read every single scripture out there, and know every position and interpretation of every school, in which case i'm likely quite the fool :tongue: .

in the end, your school teaches what it does, that is correct in their circle. my view is taught within mahayana as well, so i am correct as well.
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: buddha nature...

Post by Kim OHara »

Hi, Alan,
I think you need to keep at the very forefront of your mind something Tilt said a while ago:
tiltbillings wrote:How buddha-nature/tathagatagarbha is used in the Mahayana varies greatly over time, place and school.
I would add "and level of knowledge" to what Tilt said, too.
I think that at the lay (dare I say "folk"?) level in many traditionally-Buddhist countries, buddha-nature is understood in a way quite close to the Christian "soul", and Buddha and bodhisattvas (mainly in mahayana but Kuan Yin has quite a following in Thailand) are understood and worshipped in a way quite close to the Christian God and (Catholic) saints - as benevolent immortal beings who can grant in the real world the prayers of their petitioners.

As for school A being "right" and school B being "wrong" ... that's much too big a question for me but I think it's most likely that most schools are partly right.

:namaste:
Kim
alan...
Posts: 824
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:37 pm

Re: buddha nature...

Post by alan... »

Kim O'Hara wrote:Hi, Alan,
I think you need to keep at the very forefront of your mind something Tilt said a while ago:
tiltbillings wrote:How buddha-nature/tathagatagarbha is used in the Mahayana varies greatly over time, place and school.
I would add "and level of knowledge" to what Tilt said, too.
I think that at the lay (dare I say "folk"?) level in many traditionally-Buddhist countries, buddha-nature is understood in a way quite close to the Christian "soul", and Buddha and bodhisattvas (mainly in mahayana but Kuan Yin has quite a following in Thailand) are understood and worshipped in a way quite close to the Christian God and (Catholic) saints - as benevolent immortal beings who can grant in the real world the prayers of their petitioners.

As for school A being "right" and school B being "wrong" ... that's much too big a question for me but I think it's most likely that most schools are partly right.

:namaste:
Kim
Couldn't agree more! The beliefs are all over the place.
Awakening
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 4:11 am

Re: buddha nature...

Post by Awakening »

A better translation might be that the mind is "illuminating", not luminous. The term "luminous" makes it sound like something which is light, rather than which sheds light upon, for most people. That said, it is that very illuminating property that makes possible Buddhahood, therein the "illuminating" mind is the same as buddha-nature.
alan...
Posts: 824
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:37 pm

Re: buddha nature...

Post by alan... »

Awakening wrote:A better translation might be that the mind is "illuminating", not luminous. The term "luminous" makes it sound like something which is light, rather than which sheds light upon, for most people. That said, it is that very illuminating property that makes possible Buddhahood, therein the "illuminating" mind is the same as buddha-nature.
interesting point. thank you.
Post Reply