I'm not suggesting that people (or their minds) do have a kind of nature, just that if someone did think like that, the sensible thing to do I don't think would be to try to discover some profound Buddha nature, but simply to watch what's actually there, and discern its nature.
And though nature is maybe not the best word, it could apply to qualities of the mind. Actually i was made to think along these lines after I heard Thanissaro Bhikkhu refer to luminosity of the mind as a "dimension" of the mind which can be discerned, as opposed to the mind's inherent nature, as someone in the audience suggested.
Buddha Nature ?
Re: Buddha Nature ?
I don't remember hearing any static - so you might want to download again or stream instead? (Usually I'd recommend downloading the mp3 vs. streaming though).christopher::: wrote: There was so much static though, anyone know of a clearer version of that talk, or was it a problem with my download, should i try again?
Domo arigato!
-M
Re: Buddha Nature ?
I did get a bit of static, but only towards the end, in the Q and A part.
- christopher:::
- Posts: 1327
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am
Re: Buddha Nature ?
I'll try to download it again.
Found this also:
Freedom from Buddha Nature
Brilliant observations. I agree with all the potential traps of the concept. This is very much related to a point i was trying to make (unsuccessfully) over at ZFI in a discussion i've now given up on...
The only thing i disagree on is that the concept should be thrown out. I think it can be reconceptualized. This is done all the time in the social sciences, why not in Mahayana Buddhism?
Found this also:
Freedom from Buddha Nature
Brilliant observations. I agree with all the potential traps of the concept. This is very much related to a point i was trying to make (unsuccessfully) over at ZFI in a discussion i've now given up on...
The only thing i disagree on is that the concept should be thrown out. I think it can be reconceptualized. This is done all the time in the social sciences, why not in Mahayana Buddhism?
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27858
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Buddha Nature ?
Greetings Chris:::,
Personally I prefer no definition for the term "Buddha nature"
Metta,
Retro.
I think it's already understood in different ways in Mahayana already. If you reconceptualize it, there'll just be yet one more definition.christopher::: wrote:The only thing i disagree on is that the concept should be thrown out. I think it can be reconceptualized. This is done all the time in the social sciences, why not in Mahayana Buddhism?
Personally I prefer no definition for the term "Buddha nature"
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."
- christopher:::
- Posts: 1327
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am
Re: Buddha Nature ?
Hi Paul..
You may be right. Just that this has come up in my field (education) with the concepts of "self esteem" and "intelligence"... They carry many of the same potential "dangers" as buddha nature, but are less troublesome when thought of in terms of human potential for skill development.
I dunno. I'd be interested in hearing the views of people like Ven. Huifeng, Shonin and Dan74 who have an appreciation of the strengths of both Mahayana & Theravadin wisdom.
You may be right. Just that this has come up in my field (education) with the concepts of "self esteem" and "intelligence"... They carry many of the same potential "dangers" as buddha nature, but are less troublesome when thought of in terms of human potential for skill development.
I dunno. I'd be interested in hearing the views of people like Ven. Huifeng, Shonin and Dan74 who have an appreciation of the strengths of both Mahayana & Theravadin wisdom.
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27858
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Buddha Nature ?
Greetings Chris:::,
Metta,
Retro.
Fair enough. Anything I say should be taken with the caveat that I don't see any need for the Mahayanisation of the Dhammavinaya. I don't see the need for any Theravadisation of it either, but that's another story.christopher::: wrote:I dunno. I'd be interested in hearing the views of people like Ven. Huifeng, Shonin and Dan74 who have an appreciation of the strengths of both Mahayana & Theravadin wisdom.
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."
- christopher:::
- Posts: 1327
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am
Re: Buddha Nature ?
Paul, i am not worried about the Dhammavinaya, at all, it's the implications of the issues raised here for Mahayana Buddhism that i'm much more concerned about...retrofuturist wrote:
Fair enough. Anything I say should be taken with the caveat that I don't see any need for the Mahayanisation of the Dhammavinaya. I don't see the need for any Theravadisation of it either, but that's another story.
I tried to raise some related points over at ZFI in the Is Zen in Danger of Losing Touch with Buddhism? thread, but botched the whole thing. Would not even consider raising this new topic over there, it would send some folks into a rage.
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27858
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Buddha Nature ?
Greetings Chris:::,
Fair enough, someone might retort "Who's Dhamma?" and "Who's Vinaya?" since there is no single uniform version of these things and perhaps never was, but most make little or no effort to identify what the Buddha taught, nor seemingly do they care about the deviations. There will be many justifications for these deviations... the enlightened discoveries of later monks, adaptation to local expectations and beliefs, respect for certain elders (who ironically aren't as "elder" as the Buddha himself), accusations about the failings of oral Dhamma transmission and so on. To some it's the rich tapestry of Buddhism... to others its testimony to the myriad ways people can go astray and lose the message of the Buddha in the process.
To me at least, what the institution of "Mahayana Buddhism" does is its own business, since it has already knowingly and intentionally deviated far from the Dhammavinaya of the Buddha and has little interest in the Nikayas or Agamas (which most closely represent the Buddha's actual teachings) and slanders them by classing them as of inherently lesser value than the Mahayana Sutras which are falsely attributed to the Buddha. Theravada has deviated too, so I'm not arguing one sect over another here... I'm just pointing out that any Dharma concept which was not established by the Buddha is sectarian by its very nature, and being sectarian it is a deviation from the Dhammavinaya... particularly if it cannot be resolved with or shown to be comparable what does exist in the Dhammavinaya. Thus, my belief there is no need for the "Buddha nature" concept. What a Mahayanist believes will of course be different as their belief structure is based on a different foundational platform.
Some would doubtless take exception to what I have said and call me intolerant or somesuch, so I want to make clear that what I say above isn't laced with hatred or animosity... it is necessary to be direct in order to speak clearly. It is so that you (and Aloka, who started this topic) can clearly understand the reasons why I think the term is sectarian, superfluous and is neither found in, nor corollary to the Pali Canon.
And just so you know I'm in good spirits about it, here's a group hug smilie!
Metta,
Retro.
All sects of Buddhism have deviated from the Dhamma-Vinaya of the Buddha. That is just how it is, and it's not an inherently value-laden comment either.christopher::: wrote:Paul, i am not worried about the Dhammavinaya, at all, it's the implications of the issues raised here for Mahayana Buddhism that i'm much more concerned about...
Fair enough, someone might retort "Who's Dhamma?" and "Who's Vinaya?" since there is no single uniform version of these things and perhaps never was, but most make little or no effort to identify what the Buddha taught, nor seemingly do they care about the deviations. There will be many justifications for these deviations... the enlightened discoveries of later monks, adaptation to local expectations and beliefs, respect for certain elders (who ironically aren't as "elder" as the Buddha himself), accusations about the failings of oral Dhamma transmission and so on. To some it's the rich tapestry of Buddhism... to others its testimony to the myriad ways people can go astray and lose the message of the Buddha in the process.
To me at least, what the institution of "Mahayana Buddhism" does is its own business, since it has already knowingly and intentionally deviated far from the Dhammavinaya of the Buddha and has little interest in the Nikayas or Agamas (which most closely represent the Buddha's actual teachings) and slanders them by classing them as of inherently lesser value than the Mahayana Sutras which are falsely attributed to the Buddha. Theravada has deviated too, so I'm not arguing one sect over another here... I'm just pointing out that any Dharma concept which was not established by the Buddha is sectarian by its very nature, and being sectarian it is a deviation from the Dhammavinaya... particularly if it cannot be resolved with or shown to be comparable what does exist in the Dhammavinaya. Thus, my belief there is no need for the "Buddha nature" concept. What a Mahayanist believes will of course be different as their belief structure is based on a different foundational platform.
Some would doubtless take exception to what I have said and call me intolerant or somesuch, so I want to make clear that what I say above isn't laced with hatred or animosity... it is necessary to be direct in order to speak clearly. It is so that you (and Aloka, who started this topic) can clearly understand the reasons why I think the term is sectarian, superfluous and is neither found in, nor corollary to the Pali Canon.
And just so you know I'm in good spirits about it, here's a group hug smilie!
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."
- christopher:::
- Posts: 1327
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am
Re: Buddha Nature ?
I take no offense from your views, Paul.
There is no need for the concept in Theravadin Buddhism. There is no need for the concept in Dhamma practice. I don't disagree on that point. Perhaps it's a bit of a Zen thing though, words and concepts are always held at a bit of a distance. This becomes a problem when we ignore important concepts (especially in the core dhamma, as Buddha taught) or hold tight to unhelpful/incorrect views, such as what's been mentioned here.
The potential for change exists though, that's the thing, and with Zen especially situations/structures can sometimes change more easily because people begin with the understanding that concepts are limited.
I could be wrong, of course.
There is no need for the concept in Theravadin Buddhism. There is no need for the concept in Dhamma practice. I don't disagree on that point. Perhaps it's a bit of a Zen thing though, words and concepts are always held at a bit of a distance. This becomes a problem when we ignore important concepts (especially in the core dhamma, as Buddha taught) or hold tight to unhelpful/incorrect views, such as what's been mentioned here.
The potential for change exists though, that's the thing, and with Zen especially situations/structures can sometimes change more easily because people begin with the understanding that concepts are limited.
I could be wrong, of course.
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
- christopher:::
- Posts: 1327
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am
Re: Buddha Nature ?
Downloaded a second time, the problem is still there, ocassional static and instability in the recording from about 28:00...
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
Re: Buddha Nature ?
Hi Retro,retrofuturist wrote:
...Some would doubtless take exception to what I have said and call me intolerant or somesuch, so I want to make clear that what I say above isn't laced with hatred or animosity... it is necessary to be direct in order to speak clearly. It is so that you (and Aloka, who started this topic) can clearly understand the reasons why I think the term is sectarian, superfluous and is neither found in, nor corollary to the Pali Canon.
And just so you know I'm in good spirits about it, here's a group hug smilie!
Metta,
Retro.
I was curious to see if there were any connections with the term 'Buddha Nature' and Theravada, hence my opening post. I was simply attempting to understand some of the differences and similarities between the traditions.
I didn't find you comments offensive - and just to clarify - my current interest is with Theravada rather than Mahayana.
Kind regards,
Aloka
-
- Posts: 980
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am
- Contact:
Re: Buddha Nature ?
I was asked to make a comment or two here:
From another thread:
------------------------------
At the risk of sounding repetitive, from what we know, only some but definitely not all Mahayana traditions, and even then with very different meanings.
And for many non-Mahayana traditions, we don't know if they had such an idea or not, to be honest.
Oops, sorry, mistake. Poking around the Chattha Sangayana Tipitaka, I found this in the "other" texts:
Dhātuvaṃso
...
(Nagare kapilavatthumhi sammādiṭṭhi bahujjano;
Tattha sārīrikaṃ thūpaṃ akāsi ratanāmayaṃ.
Nagare allake ramme buddhadhātu patiṭṭhiya;
Silāya muggavaṇṇāya thūpaṃ sadhātukaṃ akā.
Jano pāveyyaraṭṭhasmiṃ patiṭṭhiya sārīrikaṃ;
Silāya maṇivaṇṇāya pāveyyaṃ cetiyaṃ akā.
...
Tā dhātuyo ṭhapetvāna thero kassapasavhayo;
Rañño ajātasattussa adāsi dhātuyo tadā.
Gehe cūpakaraṇāni catusaṭṭhisatāni so;
Abbhantare ṭhapesi rājā sabbā tā buddhadhātuyo.
Karaṇḍāsīti saṃkiṇṇaṃ cetiyāsītilaṅkataṃ;
Gehe bahusamākiṇṇaṃ thūpārāmappamāṇakaṃ.
...
And also in the:
Apadāna-aṭṭhakathā
...
403. Katvāna agghiyaṃ tatthāti tasmiṃ cetiyapūjanaṭṭhāne tālapantīhi tālapāḷīhi cittitaṃ sobhitaṃ agghiyaṃ katvāna kāretvā ca sakaṃ cittaṃ attano cittaṃ pasādetvā cetiyaṃ pūjayuttamanti uttamaṃ buddhadhātunidhāpitaṃ cetiyaṃ pūjayinti sambandho.
...
So, actually, the Theravada literature does on a few very rare occasions, use the term "buddhadhātu".
------------------------
From another thread:
------------------------------
At the risk of sounding repetitive, from what we know, only some but definitely not all Mahayana traditions, and even then with very different meanings.
And for many non-Mahayana traditions, we don't know if they had such an idea or not, to be honest.
Oops, sorry, mistake. Poking around the Chattha Sangayana Tipitaka, I found this in the "other" texts:
Dhātuvaṃso
...
(Nagare kapilavatthumhi sammādiṭṭhi bahujjano;
Tattha sārīrikaṃ thūpaṃ akāsi ratanāmayaṃ.
Nagare allake ramme buddhadhātu patiṭṭhiya;
Silāya muggavaṇṇāya thūpaṃ sadhātukaṃ akā.
Jano pāveyyaraṭṭhasmiṃ patiṭṭhiya sārīrikaṃ;
Silāya maṇivaṇṇāya pāveyyaṃ cetiyaṃ akā.
...
Tā dhātuyo ṭhapetvāna thero kassapasavhayo;
Rañño ajātasattussa adāsi dhātuyo tadā.
Gehe cūpakaraṇāni catusaṭṭhisatāni so;
Abbhantare ṭhapesi rājā sabbā tā buddhadhātuyo.
Karaṇḍāsīti saṃkiṇṇaṃ cetiyāsītilaṅkataṃ;
Gehe bahusamākiṇṇaṃ thūpārāmappamāṇakaṃ.
...
And also in the:
Apadāna-aṭṭhakathā
...
403. Katvāna agghiyaṃ tatthāti tasmiṃ cetiyapūjanaṭṭhāne tālapantīhi tālapāḷīhi cittitaṃ sobhitaṃ agghiyaṃ katvāna kāretvā ca sakaṃ cittaṃ attano cittaṃ pasādetvā cetiyaṃ pūjayuttamanti uttamaṃ buddhadhātunidhāpitaṃ cetiyaṃ pūjayinti sambandho.
...
So, actually, the Theravada literature does on a few very rare occasions, use the term "buddhadhātu".
------------------------
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
Re: Buddha Nature ?
Could anyone translate this please?
Liberation is the inevitable fruit of the path and is bound to blossom forth when there is steady and persistent practice. The only requirements for reaching the final goal are two: to start and to continue. If these requirements are met there is no doubt the goal will be attained. This is the Dhamma, the undeviating law.
- BB
- BB
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27858
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Buddha Nature ?
Greetings Bodom,
If that's what Sārira-dhātu means, there's a decent chance Buddha-dhātu refers to the Buddha's relics.
Metta,
Retro.
That would be useful, as it could well be referring to Buddha relics for all we know.bodom wrote:Could anyone translate this please?
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C4%81rira-dh%C4%81tu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;"Sārira-dhātu (Pali), is the special bodily relics found amongst the bone remains after the cremation of Buddha and most Arahant. "
If that's what Sārira-dhātu means, there's a decent chance Buddha-dhātu refers to the Buddha's relics.
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."