Would that not fall into the creation of a self if I were to do so when Theravada people deliberately reject the concepts of Buddha Nature and such. But apparently there is an experiencer who is typing to you right now.Dan74 wrote:Perhaps it is best to first clarify what this "experiencer" is beyond a bunch of notions (insight).
What is Wrong with Buddha Nature
-
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 7:17 am
Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature
Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature
"Apparently" it is not always as it appears.
Why not investigate? Theravadins are all for investigation, I am sure.
Why not investigate? Theravadins are all for investigation, I am sure.
_/|\_
Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature
LL,
You are officially reprimanded on two counts.
One, not knowing that of which you speak.
Two, being a person with no sense of humor or awareness.
I punish you to being banished until further notice.
You are officially reprimanded on two counts.
One, not knowing that of which you speak.
Two, being a person with no sense of humor or awareness.
I punish you to being banished until further notice.
-
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 7:17 am
Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature
I am sure they are, but I was just avoiding the confusion in what I was trying to say.
And there are some Dhamma police here.
And there are some Dhamma police here.
-
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 7:17 am
Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature
I don't know what you are saying either...it's all good man. But let's stay on topic friend.alan wrote:LL,
You are officially reprimanded on two counts.
One, not knowing that of which you speak.
Two, being a person with no sense of humor or awareness.
I punish you to being banished until further notice.
- ancientbuddhism
- Posts: 887
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:53 pm
- Location: Cyberia
Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature
With reference to your original statement. You need to relearn what sakkāya diṭṭhi is.LastLegend wrote:Ahem. Not rejecting or accepting self is Buddha Nature my friend, but the cultivation is to get rid of defilement. Whatever you want to call it, Buddha Nature, Mind, Citta, Permanent, not a thing, etc. But without "it," you will not be able to cultivate. "It" is what you are cultivating for.chownah wrote:If Buddha nature is defined as something that all beings have or some capacity that all beings have then what is wrong with Buddha nature is that it is just one more way of constructing a doctrine of self....Buddha nature seems to be a doctrine of self based on the illusion that there is a self which "has" something....if we think "I" "have" "it" then a doctrine of self has arisen three times in that one short sentence...there is no "I" and entities can not "have" anything and "it" implies an external self as something which can be "had"......That is what is wrong with Buddha nature....it is a doctrine of self....something the Buddha advised us very strongly to not indulge in....
chownah
If you accept the concept of self, then behind it must be a "no-name "? Or should we not speak about "no-name" at all since "it" is not a thing and cannot be defined. But "it" must be permanent. What are you cultivating for if not "it"? And "who" is experiencing Nirvana after defilement is gone. If there is no "who," then two Arahants must not distinguishable. If there is no Buddha Nature, who is posting this?
Thanks for reading.
“I say, beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes.” – Henry David Thoreau, Walden, 1854
Secure your own mask before assisting others. – NORTHWEST AIRLINES (Pre-Flight Instruction)
A Handful of Leaves
Secure your own mask before assisting others. – NORTHWEST AIRLINES (Pre-Flight Instruction)
A Handful of Leaves
-
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 7:17 am
Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature
No thanks. That is your job.ancientbuddhism wrote:With reference to your original statement. You need to relearn what sakkāya diṭṭhi is.LastLegend wrote:Ahem. Not rejecting or accepting self is Buddha Nature my friend, but the cultivation is to get rid of defilement. Whatever you want to call it, Buddha Nature, Mind, Citta, Permanent, not a thing, etc. But without "it," you will not be able to cultivate. "It" is what you are cultivating for.chownah wrote:If Buddha nature is defined as something that all beings have or some capacity that all beings have then what is wrong with Buddha nature is that it is just one more way of constructing a doctrine of self....Buddha nature seems to be a doctrine of self based on the illusion that there is a self which "has" something....if we think "I" "have" "it" then a doctrine of self has arisen three times in that one short sentence...there is no "I" and entities can not "have" anything and "it" implies an external self as something which can be "had"......That is what is wrong with Buddha nature....it is a doctrine of self....something the Buddha advised us very strongly to not indulge in....
chownah
If you accept the concept of self, then behind it must be a "no-name "? Or should we not speak about "no-name" at all since "it" is not a thing and cannot be defined. But "it" must be permanent. What are you cultivating for if not "it"? And "who" is experiencing Nirvana after defilement is gone. If there is no "who," then two Arahants must not distinguishable. If there is no Buddha Nature, who is posting this?
Thanks for reading.
Last edited by LastLegend on Fri May 20, 2011 3:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature
Wow!!! Willfull ignorance. You don't understand Buddha-nature from a Mahayana standpoint and you do not want to learn what the Buddha has to say about things.LastLegend wrote:No thanks.ancientbuddhism wrote: With reference to your original statement. You need to relearn what sakkāya diṭṭhi is.
>> 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
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
-
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 7:17 am
Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature
I will now back out of this room. Thank you for concern.tiltbillings wrote:Wow!!! Willfull ignorance. You don't understand Buddha-nature from a Mahayana standpoint and you do not want to learn what the Buddha has to say about things.LastLegend wrote:No thanks.ancientbuddhism wrote: With reference to your original statement. You need to relearn what sakkāya diṭṭhi is.
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature
You do not need to back out of this room. You might stay around and try to learn something. Maybe you could explain your "No thanks" response; maybe you could ask for some clarification of what is meant?LastLegend wrote: I will now back out of this room. Thank you for concern.
>> 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
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
Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature
To break my vows and reenter, this deserves repeating:
I think right here we have a case study of how it is that there can be something quite wrong with Buddha Nature: When it causes this sort of confusion.You need to relearn what sakkāya diṭṭhi is.
-
- Posts: 939
- Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm
Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature
Just for convenience:
Sakkaya ditthi = identity view, one of the 10 fetters. It's an attempt to view a "self" as compared to the five aggregates, in the following ways: identical with them (form is self, consciousness is self, etc.); contained within them (self is found in form, self is found in consciousness, etc.); independent from them (self is beyond the form, self is beyond the consciousness, etc.); or owner of them (self owns the form, self owns the consciousness, etc).
I think that if the Dhamma is to be understood, and practiced to its fullest (all the way to liberation), the idea of "self" needs to be taken out of the equation completely, including the idea of "no self." It's really irrelevant to the practice (apart from conventional usage), and is a fetter.
Sakkaya ditthi = identity view, one of the 10 fetters. It's an attempt to view a "self" as compared to the five aggregates, in the following ways: identical with them (form is self, consciousness is self, etc.); contained within them (self is found in form, self is found in consciousness, etc.); independent from them (self is beyond the form, self is beyond the consciousness, etc.); or owner of them (self owns the form, self owns the consciousness, etc).
I think that if the Dhamma is to be understood, and practiced to its fullest (all the way to liberation), the idea of "self" needs to be taken out of the equation completely, including the idea of "no self." It's really irrelevant to the practice (apart from conventional usage), and is a fetter.
Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature
So anatta is irrelevant? o.O;beeblebrox wrote:I think that if the Dhamma is to be understood, and practiced to its fullest (all the way to liberation), the idea of "self" needs to be taken out of the equation completely, including the idea of "no self." It's really irrelevant to the practice (apart from conventional usage), and is a fetter.
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature
I think this is like the raft simile. We use the concept of anatta to get us where we want to go, but after it's done it's job it doesn't need to be held onto anymore. I can't remember where but I believe it's said that the arahant doesn't cling to even such concepts as "viraga" or "nibbana". Of course for the majority of us this isn't something we need to worry about right now. And I'd figure that "releasing the raft" happens automatically anyway at the right time, but whatever.
-
- Posts: 939
- Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm
Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature
Apart from the conventional usage... I think yes. What the Buddha taught was neither annihilationism (killing the self is the goal), nor nihilism (no self, so no worries). Why?daverupa wrote:So anatta is irrelevant? o.O;