Buddha Nature ?

[jcsuperstar]

it's also similar to ajahn chah's poo roo "one who knows"

i think ajahn sujato makes an interesting observation about this though

phpBB .

[Paññāsikhara]

Just matching some of my morning reading:

From Paul Swanson, Foundations of T'ien-T'ai Philosophy: The Flowering of the Two Truths Theory in Chinese Buddhism.

p. 78:

4. The school which manifests reality. ... The "real" is identified with the tathagatagarbha ...

Later Hui-yuan loosely identifies this school ... their ultimate teaching ... is the doctrine of the dependent co-arising of reality.

p. 79:

6. Truly real existence. This refers to the tathagatagarbha as conditioned co-arising and includes both samsara and nirvana. Thus reality is identical with this phenomenal world of pratityasamutpada correctly perceived.

p. 153:

The supreme truth of the Middle Path is called the Middle

because it avoids the two extremes. To avoid the two extremes means: to avoid the extreme of yu [Hf: existence], the passionate views of ordinary men, and to avoid the extreme of emptiness [Hf: non-existence], the perception of no names and no marks by those in the two vehicles; to avoid the two extremes of the mundane truth and the real truth; to avoid the two extremes of the worldly truth and the supreme truth; to avoid all of these extremes. This is called non-duality. The reality of non-duality is called the Middle. ... This is the enlightened perception of all Buddhas and bodhisattvas ... therefore it is called the supreme truth of the Middle Path. It is also called the truth of one reality, and is also called emptiness, the Buddha-nature, the Dharma realm, thusness, and the Tathagatagarbha.

Just a note on this last one: "Dharma realm" is from "fa-jie", the translation for "dharma-dhatu", which is a synonym for dependent origination in the Agamas / Nikayas. "Thusness" is from "ru", ie. "tathata", which is also amongst those synonyms, too.

Now, despite there being some differences here between the position on Tathagatagarbha and classical Theravada, which I will not deny, I merely wish to point out that the position of Buddha Nature / Tathagatagarbha in these teachings from early Chinese Mahayana do not really match the basic Advaita Vedanta stuff referred to above. There is much closer affinity to the teachings of emptiness, dependent origination and so forth, such as lack of substantiality. (Actually, the standard Advaita Vedanta had yet to appear in India when the Chinese made this points.)

These aren't just Tiantai positions, but show some of the most important trends in pre-Tang China. This was the formative period for the slightly later hey-day. It takes another shift or two in China to get into more Huayan style theory, which is probably closer to a "dhatu-vada", as the modern Japanese scholastic movement called "Critical Buddhism" would call (criticize) it. They argue that this "dhatu-vada" is not the same as the "dharma-dhatu" as dependent origination in earlier teachings. Rather, it is a teaching of substantiality.

I'm quite open to discussion on some of these points, but I hope that people can maybe do some homework first. And please don't jump on a single word or two, because one needs to kind of see the bigger picture of these systems. A single word or two can be read in a number of ways.

[Paññāsikhara]

Please feel free to ignore my ungrounded opinions and generalisations. They are opinions. They are not scholarly essays.
I have no intention in a non scholarly discussion thread characterised pretty much by subjective opinions to attempt to present a coherent arguement. I am just shooting the breeze based on things experiential. If you find that useful. fine. If you dont.. fine.

Sure, thanks PeterB. I still appreciate your breeze that got shot! I did find it useful, because it gives me some insight into how these ideas are conveyed in Vajrayana and Zen teachings.

My post above from Swanson is hoping to go a small step further than my earlier one, which was also experiential. Hopefully a little more than just a subjective opinion, if that is indeed possible. If you have the time, I would appreciate your thoughts.

[tiltbillings]

:
Now, despite there being some differences here between the position on Tathagatagarbha and classical Theravada, which I will not deny, I merely wish to point out that the position of Buddha Nature / Tathagatagarbha in these teachings from early Chinese Mahayana do not really match the basic Advaita Vedanta stuff referred to above. There is much closer affinity to the teachings of emptiness, dependent origination and so forth, such as lack of substantiality. (Actually, the standard Advaita Vedanta had yet to appear in India when the Chinese made this points.)

Bhante, Outside the scholars who know this stuff and maybe the hardline Gelugs and maybe Dogen, buddha-nature rather devolved after that as a concept and in the usual parlance of some Buddhists today, Buddha-nature takes on a thingie nature, a sort of real thing that we really are. It is a doctrine – I said agreeing with Richard Hayes – we are better off without.

[christopher:::]

Related to Tilt's observations, there's a new thread Dhamma Reinvented: Big Mind, Buddha Nature, etc.. in the the Dhamic-Free-for-All forum. We can also revive Tathāgatagarbha & Buddha-dhatu (DFFA version) over there if the moderators feel this conversation is drifting too far out of the bounds of "Discovering Theravada"...

[PeterB]

Please feel free to ignore my ungrounded opinions and generalisations. They are opinions. They are not scholarly essays.
I have no intention in a non scholarly discussion thread characterised pretty much by subjective opinions to attempt to present a coherent arguement. I am just shooting the breeze based on things experiential. If you find that useful. fine. If you dont.. fine.

Sure, thanks PeterB. I still appreciate your breeze that got shot! I did find it useful, because it gives me some insight into how these ideas are conveyed in Vajrayana and Zen teachings.

My post above from Swanson is hoping to go a small step further than my earlier one, which was also experiential. Hopefully a little more than just a subjective opinion, if that is indeed possible. If you have the time, I would appreciate your thoughts.

Can I come back to you on that ven Huifeng ?

[PeterB]

Related to Tilt's observations, there's a new thread Dhamma Reinvented: Big Mind, Buddha Nature, etc.. in the the Dhamic-Free-for-All forum. We can also revive Tathāgatagarbha & Buddha-dhatu (DFFA version) over there if the moderators feel this conversation is drifting too far out of the bounds of "Discovering Theravada"...

Thanks for the heads up Chris, I will avoid those straight away.. While staggering under the ennui....
Such thread always make me think of Cooran's sig. " The problem is you think you have time"

If concepts like Buddha Nature are useful to you Chris, incorporate them into your practise. If not, dont.
I think in this short life we need to poo or get off the pot.

[christopher:::]

If concepts like Buddha Nature are useful to you Chris, incorporate them into your practise. If not, dont. I think in this short life we need to poo or get off the pot.

That works. Though sometimes we need friends to turn on the light for us, to realize there had never been a pot there, you'd been pissing on the kitchen floor.

The concept of buddha nature had indeed seemed useful, up until very recently. Thanks again for nudging me to check out Thanissaro Bikkhu...

[Paññāsikhara]

While actually looking for something quite different, I managed to stumble over this, by Prof Jamie Hubbard.
TATHĀGATAGARBHA, EMPTINESS, AND MONISM
Shows up, for example, a range of different takes on whether there is much in the way of "thing-ness" there. And, even when there is, to what extent and whether or not it is similar to the Upanisads (for instance).
One can cut to the chase scene at pg. 11.

[christopher:::]

Looks really interesting. Thanks for that, Venerable Huifeng.

[meindzai]

it's also similar to ajahn chah's poo roo "one who knows"

i think ajahn sujato makes an interesting observation about this though

I think so too. I think a lot of Ajahns tend to talk about things in a practical way to guide students, but they can get turned into the Great Capitalized Doctrine Thingy. However I think statements like "the citta is never born and never dies" (quoted previusly) are pretty unambiguous and inconsistent with Theravada.

-M

[meindzai]

BTW, did I hear him right in there somewhere saying that Thailand was primarily Mahayana before being mainly Theravada?

-M

[PeterB]

Please feel free to ignore my ungrounded opinions and generalisations. They are opinions. They are not scholarly essays.
I have no intention in a non scholarly discussion thread characterised pretty much by subjective opinions to attempt to present a coherent arguement. I am just shooting the breeze based on things experiential. If you find that useful. fine. If you dont.. fine.

Sure, thanks PeterB. I still appreciate your breeze that got shot! I did find it useful, because it gives me some insight into how these ideas are conveyed in Vajrayana and Zen teachings.

My post above from Swanson is hoping to go a small step further than my earlier one, which was also experiential. Hopefully a little more than just a subjective opinion, if that is indeed possible. If you have the time, I would appreciate your thoughts.

As i understand it Sawnson is in response to Prof Shiro Matsumoto whose argument goes;
Paticca-Samupadda is the sole source of existence.
The Tathagatagharba doctrine is dhatu vada.
Dhatu vada is the antithesis of Paticca -Samuppada.
Dhatu vada is therefore precisely the target of the Buddhas critisism.
Japanese Buddhism ( and by extension the |Mahayana )therefore needs reformation.
I think the good prof might be on to something. I am not convinced that Swanson makes any impact on Matsumotos thesis.

[PeterB]

it's also similar to ajahn chah's poo roo "one who knows"

i think ajahn sujato makes an interesting observation about this though

I think so too. I think a lot of Ajahns tend to talk about things in a practical way to guide students, but they can get turned into the Great Capitalized Doctrine Thingy. However I think statements like "the citta is never born and never dies" (quoted previusly) are pretty unambiguous and inconsistent with Theravada.

-M

Absolutely.
There is a kind of "contaminated Theravada " which has been influenced by certain aspects of the Vedanta both by at times sharing a common geographical location and indirectly more recently, by exposure to certain Mahayanist ideas characterised in part by Professor Matsumoto's coining, " dhatu-vada" , to describe ideas which I think can be shown to derive or at least to be honed by, later developments in the Vedas.
One of the curious results of this is to transfer certain imagined qualities of "atman" and transfer these qualities to citta. We see the direct influence of this transfer in Christopher:::'s reference to "luminous mInd".
And it is clearly prevelant enough for Thanissaro Bhikkhu to devote a section of his talk to this phenomenon.
The reality is that in Theravada thought citta has no more intrinsic "sacredness" or solidity than rupa or vedana etc. Citta arises with vinnana.
The khandas arise in accord with conditions. They cease with the cessation of those conditions.

[tiltbillings]

There is a kind of "contaminated Theravada " which has been influenced by certain aspects of the Vedanta both by at times sharing a common geographical location and indirectly more recently, by exposure to certain Mahayanist ideas characterised in part by Professor Matsumoto's coining, " dhatu-vada" ....

One of the recent sources of Mahayana ideas was Buddhadasa, with his translations of the Platform Sutra and bit of the Lankavatara into Thai decades ago. If my memory serves me well, as early as the 1930's.