Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

the idea supposedly could have roots in a quote from the anguttara nikaya 1.49-52:

"Luminous, monks, is the mind.[1] And it is defiled by incoming defilements." {I,v,9}

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements." {I,v,10}

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements. The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn't discern that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — there is no development of the mind." {I,vi,1}

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — there is development of the mind." {I,vi,2}"*


that being said, buddha nature is what allows the idea of instant awakening in other traditions. that if you are already technically a buddha, you can just see it all at once and be enlightened. does this idea have any validity in theravada or would this kind of thing be considered generally impossible? is there any other equivalency of buddha nature in theravada?

*
"Pabhassara Sutta: Luminous" (AN 1.49-52), translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight, 17 April 2011, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; . Retrieved on 28 February 2013.

Buddhanature was, in its original, impulse an expression of emptiness of the mind of any self-existent beingness. It is was a way of expressing the potential for awakening. A Pali text that is far closer to what buddhanature is about than those you quoted is:

• Samyutta Nikaya III 144; CDB 954: "Bhikkhus [monks, the Buddha said, holding a small lump of dung on his palm], there is not even this much of individual existence [attabhava] that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and that will remain the same just like eternity itself. If there was this much individual existence that was permanent , stable, eternal, not subject to change, this living the of the holy for the complete destruction of suffering could not be discerned."

Hello Alan,

Buddhanature has been discussed previously:

http://Www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=3878" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and there are a number of other threads also which may be of assistance if a search is done.

With metta
Chris

tiltbillings wrote:Buddhanature was, in its original, impulse an expression of emptiness of the mind of any self-existent beingness. It is was a way of expressing the potential for awakening. A Pali text that is far closer to what buddhanature is about than those you quoted is:

• Samyutta Nikaya III 144; CDB 954: "Bhikkhus [monks, the Buddha said, holding a small lump of dung on his palm], there is not even this much of individual existence [attabhava] that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and that will remain the same just like eternity itself. If there was this much individual existence that was permanent , stable, eternal, not subject to change, this living the of the holy for the complete destruction of suffering could not be discerned."

interesting. i see what you're saying. in some schools this is how they define it. i've seen mahayana schools that lean more toward an unchanging entity as this "buddha nature" which sounds a lot like a self as well.

cooran wrote:Hello Alan,

Buddhanature has been discussed previously:

http://Www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=3878" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and there are a number of other threads also which may be of assistance if a search is done.

With metta
Chris

thanks i'll look into that.

Actually, in practice, it is the buddhist variant of "soul"

ground wrote:Actually, in practice, it is the buddhist variant of "soul"

Only if that is what you want it to be.

Mr Man wrote:

ground wrote:Actually, in practice, it is the buddhist variant of "soul"

Only if that is what you want it to be.

It is not depedent on the concept "Buddha nature is soul [or this or that]" or similar. Mere affirmation "I have buddha nature" entails that it is a variant of "soul" in that the affirmation entails the same effects like "I have a soul".

ground wrote:

Mr Man wrote:

ground wrote:Actually, in practice, it is the buddhist variant of "soul"

Only if that is what you want it to be.

It is not depedent on the concept "Buddha nature is soul [or this or that]" or similar. Mere affirmation "I have buddha nature" entails that it is a variant of "soul" in that the affirmation entails the same effects like "I have a soul".

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).

The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra:

• O Mahāmati, with a view to casting aside the heterodox theory, you must treat the tathāgatagarbha as not self.

Mr Man wrote: I haven't had much contact with Mahayana but I thought buddha nature was just a way of talking (a tool).

How buddha-nature/tathagatagarbha is used in the Mahayana varies greatly over time, place and school.

For your edification:

-- The tathagatagarbha [buddha-nature] is not just any emptiness,
however. Rather it is specifically emptiness of inherent existence when
applied to a sentient being's mind, his (her) mental continuum. ... When
the mind is defiled in the unenlightened state this emptiness is called
tathagatagarbha. When the mind has become pure through following the
path and attaining Buddhahood so emptiness is referred to in the dGe
lugs tradition as the Buddha's Essence Body (_svabhavikakaya_). The
Buddha's pure mind in that state is his Gnosis or Wisdom Body
(_jnanakaya_), while the two taken together, the Buddha's mind as a
flow empty of inherent existence, is what the tradition calls the
_dharmakaya._ ... This also means that the tathagatagarbha itself is
strictly the fundamental cause of Buddhahood, and is no way identical
with the result, _dharmakaya_ or Essence Body as the case may be,
except in the sense that both defiled mind and Buddha's mind are empty
of inherent existence. ...which is to say that even the _dharmakaya_,
and, of course, emptiness itself, are all empty of inherent existence.
They are not 'truly established', there is no Absolute in the sense of an
ultimate really existing entity. --- Paul Williams MAHAYANA
BUDDHISM, pub by Routledge. Pg 106-7.

Thanks Ñāṇa and tiltbillings

I guess how "soul" is used also varies greatly. Are they a good match?

Mr Man wrote:Thanks Ñāṇa and tiltbillings

I guess how "soul" is used also varies greatly. Are they a good match?

Actually, not. Even in the prolix and highly technical blurb I just quoted about, "soul" -- with its connations of self indentity and unchangingness -- would not be appropriate.

Now, of course, things are never, ever simple. The term buddhanature, as it is often used by Western Buddhists, often suggest a soulness, but then so does nibbana, as it is often used by some Theravadins, even here. Language can be a problem.

ground wrote:Actually, in practice, it is the buddhist variant of "soul"

that's what i thought.

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.