What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by PeterB »

And as usual it ended with two Mahayanists discussing it together...on this Theravadin website... :lol:
Which due to a liberal regime they are of course entitled to do...although the importance or non importance of Buddhadhatu in the Theravada, in fact its explicit rejection, was nicely ignored.. as per.

I mean it must be there somewhere in the canon....mustn't it ? :smile:
Perhaps if we try a dozen more rearrangements of the deckchairs..
darvki
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2010 10:20 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by darvki »

tiltbillings wrote:But very frequently it gets used that way.
Indeed, but this is not grounds for indiscriminantly rejecting use of the phrase. I've been surprised how the mere mention of it, without any clear indication that it refers to literalist tathagatagarbha doctrine, can elicit very indignant and/or dismissive reactions.
tiltbillings wrote:Dogen did it better: Buddha-nature=impermanence.
Thank you for mentioning that. I was going to bring it up myself if no one else did. The impermanent and dependently arisen nature of things allows awakening to be possible.

By the way, none of these statements are aimed at you specifically, Tilt. They're for the general public.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by tiltbillings »

PeterB wrote:And as usual it ended with two Mahayanists discussing it together...on this Theravadin website... :lol:
Which due to a liberal regime they are of course entitled to do...although the importance or non importance of Buddhadhatu in the Theravada, in fact its explicit rejection, was nicely ignored.. as per.

I mean it must be there somewhere in the canon....mustn't it ? :smile:
Perhaps if we try a dozen more rearrangements of the deckchairs..
Don't get your undies in a knot here. From my standpoint, buddha-nature is a problematic concept, no matter how well-meaning its inception may have been. Ven T's talk is excellent.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by PeterB »

Undies resolutely unknotted Tilt......air is flowing freely around my khandas... :smile:
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by PeterB »

darvki wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:But very frequently it gets used that way.
Indeed, but this is not grounds for indiscriminantly rejecting use of the phrase. I've been surprised how the mere mention of it, without any clear indication that it refers to literalist tathagatagarbha doctrine, can elicit very indignant and/or dismissive reactions.
tiltbillings wrote:Dogen did it better: Buddha-nature=impermanence.
Thank you for mentioning that. I was going to bring it up myself if no one else did. The impermanent and dependently arisen nature of things allows awakening to be possible.

By the way, none of these statements are aimed at you specifically, Tilt. They're for the general public.

I think its an excellent reason for discriminate, non indignant, rejection of the phrase after due consideration.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by tiltbillings »

darvki wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:But very frequently it gets used that way.
Indeed, but this is not grounds for indiscriminantly rejecting use of the phrase. I've been surprised how the mere mention of it, without any clear indication that it refers to literalist tathagatagarbha doctrine, can elicit very indignant and/or dismissive reactions.
You might want to do a little research on the Critical Buddhism movement in Japan.
tiltbillings wrote:Dogen did it better: Buddha-nature=impermanence.
Thank you for mentioning that. I was going to bring it up myself if no one else did. The impermanent and dependently arisen nature of things allows awakening to be possible.
The problem is with words. Dogen, I do believe, went in the direction he did as a corrective to the tendency to reify the concept of buddha-nature.
By the way, none of these statements are aimed at you specifically, Tilt. They're for the general public.
I know and thanks for saying that.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by tiltbillings »

PeterB wrote:Undies resolutely unknotted Tilt......air is flowing freely around my khandas... :smile:
I am very happy to hear that, but now I have that image in my head which is very disturbing.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by PeterB »

The Critical Buddhist Movement is the most significant development in the Mahayana in modern times imo.
And offers REAL hope for Buddhist unity. Not an idea based on wishful thinking.
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by Aloka »

More about the Tibetan Buddhist viewpoint....

From "Path to Buddhahood -teachings on Gampopa's Jewel Ornament of Liberation"by Ringu Tulku :
"Buddha Shakyamuni himself asserted the presence of buddha nature, and we have every reason to trust what he said, as he himself attained Buddhahood. Who better to tell us whether buddha nature exists or not? In the Samadhiraja Sutra the Buddha says, "The essence of Buddhahood pervades all beings." Likewise, the Mahaparinirvana Sutra says "All beings possess the nature of buddha or tathagatagarbha. " This same sutra goes on to explain that buddha nature is inherent in all beings as butter is inherent in milk. This assertion was not only made by Buddha himself but also by his successors, particularly those who founded and developed Mahayana Buddhism such as Asanga and Nagarjuna."
The text then goes on to say that the nature of both samsara and nirvana is shunyata and therefore the basic nature of all beings is also shunyata.
User avatar
Lazy_eye
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:23 pm
Location: Laurel, MD
Contact:

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by Lazy_eye »

I enjoyed Ven. Thanissaro's talk, but must take issue with some of his claims. His critique rests on three different presentations of the idea of "Buddha nature":

1) that we are already enlightened, so no need for practice,
2) that we all have the potential to become enlightened,
3) that buddha nature refers to some kind of "ground of being"; I guess he is referring to Mahayana dharmadatu.

But 1) sounds more like pop dharma than Mahayana; what legitimate teacher in any tradition would say that it's all right to go around sliming joggers in the park as an expression of "buddha nature" ?!?

His argument against 2) is weak, as Theravada also agrees that beings have the potential for enlightenment. Where did we get this potential? It was not transferred to us through the grace of God. Therefore it must be somehow innate.

As for 3) this is really a doctrinal difference over the nature of enlightenment, rather than "buddha nature" per se.

If the Venerable believes that Mahayana does not require effort and practice, perhaps he is not familiar with texts such as this:
http://www.kalavinka.org/book_excerpts/ ... _Intro.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It seems to me a stronger argument against "buddha nature" is that, among some Mahayanists, it has been turned into a sort of ineffable, quasi-eternalistic spiritual essence. This is a problem which Stephen Batchelor discusses in his excellent talk "Buddha Nature, Mara Nature". (http://www.audiodharma.org/teacher/12/t ... part_1.mp3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). As Batchelor suggests, translation problems from Sanskrit into Chinese may be partly to blame. However, he also points out that buddha nature does not have to be defined this way; it can be conceived more simply in terms of a capacity or potential for awakening.
Last edited by Lazy_eye on Thu Mar 17, 2011 12:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by PeterB »

The reality is if you frequent the pages of at least one Zen forum you will see that a full blown reification of Buddhadhatu is the default position. Your no's one and three are seen as mainstream Buddhism.
Practice becomes redefined as letting go of practice.

It is in fact a complete recasting of the Atman/ Brahman schemata.

The Theravada and Mahayana are not the same.
They have different means and different goals.

But no amount of saying so will make any difference to those who are emotionally invested in projecting commonality.
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4528
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by Dan74 »

Might be worth checking this out if one is interested in getting some sort of a balanced picture:

http://buddhism.org/board/read.cgi?boar ... r=9&nnew=1

http://www.scribd.com/doc/33827209/Sall ... y-Buddhist
_/|\_
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by PeterB »

A restatement of the same doctrine , a doctrine completely at odds with the Theravada view, is not a more balanced view from a Theravadin pov. Its just one more Mahayanist view.

Mahayanists agree with each other . Quelle suprise.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by tiltbillings »

PeterB wrote: Mahayanists agree with each other . Quelle suprise.
Actually, they don't. Sallie King is working from a text called THE BUDDHA NATURE TREATISE, which can be contrasted with THE AWAKENING OF FAITH attributed to Asvaghosa. This is an East Asian/Chinese text where one's gets a full blown reification of buddha-nature.

Anyway, from a Theravadin standpoint, the idea of buddha-nature is quite unnecessary. Ven Thanissaro's talk is well worth listening to.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4528
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by Dan74 »

Basically like Muller (in the essay above) clearly shows, the so-called Critical Buddhism movement rather than being a Mahayana movement is a bunch of Japanese academics engaged in second-rate scholarship based on their fundamental misunderstanding of key Mahayana doctrines. It may be applicable to segments of Japanese Buddhism that share the same misunderstanding but it's certainly not applicable to Mahayana as a whole.

In any case the links elucidate what is meant by a number of key Mahayana tenets like the Buddha Nature which are so often misunderstood here.

The point (to me) is not whether Theravada needs these teachings or not (that for each practitioner to decide on the basis of their practice) but to clarify what they actually point towards. The OP has implied that there is something wrong with Buddha Nature, so it might be worthwhile to understand what is actually meant by this term.
_/|\_
Post Reply