What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by daverupa »

beeblebrox wrote:Of course, I never wanted to imply that anatta was non-essential... just that when it's done its purpose, then that's the time to move on with the practice. It's only the beginning.
When the Dhamma has done its purpose, as you say, that is nibbana. Discarding Dhamma rafts such as anatta happens then, not before.
  • "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]
Kenshou
Posts: 1030
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:03 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by Kenshou »

beeblebrox wrote:If you're having some problems, where is that coming from? When this is figured out, let that go.
I don't have a problem with that as a general idea. You just were sounding a wee bit cryptic.
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by beeblebrox »

Kenshou wrote:I don't have a problem with that as a general idea. You just were sounding a wee bit cryptic.
I don't understand how I'm being cryptic... I guess I need to come up with more metaphors. :tongue: (Unless you're trying to see something that isn't just there.)

:anjali:
Kenshou
Posts: 1030
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:03 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by Kenshou »

beeblebrox wrote:I don't understand how I'm being cryptic...
It was mostly this:
The significance of this is much more than what some people on here seem to realize...
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by beeblebrox »

daverupa wrote: When the Dhamma has done its purpose, as you say, that is nibbana. Discarding Dhamma rafts such as anatta happens then, not before.
Again... I'm not saying that you discard it. It just becomes a second habit... like the batter with his "bat." If you're fixating on the bat all the time (or you're worrying that you've forgotten your bat), the practice will suffer.

:anjali:
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by beeblebrox »

Kenshou wrote:
beeblebrox wrote:I don't understand how I'm being cryptic...
It was mostly this:
The significance of this is much more than what some people on here seem to realize...
There is no meaning to it beyond that. It's true that some people on here try to view nibbana as something that it's not. Sorry if you saw something in it... that wasn't my intention.
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by daverupa »

beeblebrox wrote:
daverupa wrote: When the Dhamma has done its purpose, as you say, that is nibbana. Discarding Dhamma rafts such as anatta happens then, not before.
Again... I'm not saying that you discard it. It just becomes a second habit... like the batter with his "bat." If you're fixating on the bat all the time (or you're worrying that you've forgotten your bat), the practice will suffer.

:anjali:
The Buddha describes bhavana in terms of seeing the world as anatta, anicca, dukkha. So, the practice is contemplating anatta. That metaphor of the bat is basically saying that swinging a bat gets in the way of swinging a bat. It's ridiculous - anatta is not a-la-carte.
  • "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]
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by beeblebrox »

daverupa wrote: The Buddha describes bhavana in terms of seeing the world as anatta, anicca, dukkha. So, the practice is contemplating anatta. That metaphor of the bat is basically saying that swinging a bat gets in the way of swinging a bat. It's ridiculous - anatta is not a-la-carte.
That's not what I said with my metaphor. If you think about the bat, when you're supposed to focus on the ball, you'll be clumsy for sure. When it becomes a second habit, the bat is still there, along with the way you hold it, but you don't think about it... you're focused on the ball. This probably only makes sense if you've played baseball. Sorry if the metaphor seemed inappropriate.

:anjali:
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by daverupa »

Yet you fundamentally claimed that by focusing on anatta,
beeblebrox wrote:...the practice will suffer.
However, the Buddha describes bhavana in terms of seeing the world as anatta, anicca, dukkha. So seeing anatta for oneself is not in the way of the practice, it is part of the practice.
  • "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]
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by beeblebrox »

daverupa wrote:Yet you fundamentally claimed that by focusing on anatta,
beeblebrox wrote:...the practice will suffer.
Focusing on thinking about the anatta. That will get you nowhere. Try to focus on the craving, or clinging, or anything else in the paticca-samuppada instead.

Pay attention to how they play out, without bringing in any idea about the "self."

:anjali:
Kenshou
Posts: 1030
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:03 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by Kenshou »

Focusing on (developing insight into) anatta, as well as the other characteristics is as relevant to realizing nibbana as contemplating craving, clinging and paticcasamuppada.
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by beeblebrox »

Kenshou wrote:Focusing on (developing insight into) anatta, as well as the other characteristics is as relevant to realizing nibbana as contemplating craving, clinging and paticcasamuppada.
I was never arguing that.

:anjali:
Kenshou
Posts: 1030
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:03 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by Kenshou »

Oh, well it sounded like it.

Is it that you're arguing against merely thinking about these things as opposed to developing more experiential insight? I wouldn't disagree with that. Though coarser contemplation is probably going to be a natural prerequisite. But of course, isn't sufficient.
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by beeblebrox »

Something more appropriate for this thread... a quote by Dōgen:
To study the Way is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be enlightened by all things... [a few lines pointing out the anicca, dukkha, and not in the very least, anatta].
:anjali:
alan
Posts: 3111
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:14 am
Location: Miramar beach, Fl.

Re: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Post by alan »

Why is that appropriate?
How can Dogen ever be relevant in a Therevada discussion?
Post Reply