PeterB wrote:In other words its OK for Theravadins to use terms like Buddha Nature as long as they use them in a way that is essentially meaningless.
If you want to call poetic devices meaningless, I suppose yes. I personally find such devices to be far from meaningless.
Dan74 wrote:Not helpful to whom?
Certainly not helpful to me. I found it confusing when I was a Vajrayana practitioner, wondering if ''all sentient beings have Buddha Nature" how this could apply, for example, to slugs.
...and its irrelevant to my practice in the here and now.
Personally, it has never confused me, as a literal doctrine (which I do not subscribe to) or metaphor, and I do not find it irrelevant to my practice here and now. I think that it's perfectly helpful and if handled right does not have to cause additional delusion.
Zen koans.....yet another superfluous mound of baggage from a Theravadin perspective...
Buddha Dhatu.....KOANS yet...
Does anyone log onto DW to find out about the Theravada ?
Or do they see it as a fruitful field for missionary work..?
Come on guys, be real.
LE posted that mention of koans to point out a similarity, not to introduce them to the discussion.
No one has engaged in "missionary work". I find this allusion to be highly misplaced. If trying to support a minority view of something constitutes missionary work, then I'm probably most guilty of it out of everyone who's participated in this thread, and I resent the label. Buddha nature, even as no more than a poetic device, does not feature greatly in my thoughts on practice, and it has never been used, even as a poetic device, by my teacher.