Buddha nature

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Buddha nature

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Greg,
greggorious wrote:I've been told more than once that Buddha nature is not a Therevadin concept. Does this mean that we don't have the seed of enlightenment within us.
The Buddha never once taught the concept "Buddha Nature", yet vast numbers of people attained arahantship, non-returning, once-returning and stream entry by following his teachings.

So what does that tell you?

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."
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Buddha nature

Post by mikenz66 »

tiltbillings wrote:Buddha-nature/tathagatagarbha is not a singular notion. It is something has varying explanations, depending upon when and where the doctrine is looked at. But, in its most basic form buddha-nature is expressing our potential to awakening because we are empty of any unchanging, self existence thingie-hood:
  • Samyutta Nikaya III 144: "Bhikkhus monks, the Buddha said, holding
    a fleck of cowdung on his palm, if even if that much of permanent,
    everlasting, eternal individual selfhood/metaphysical being [attabhava],
    not inseparable from the idea of change, could be found, then this living
    the holy life could not be taught by me."
Thanks for that perspective. That particular sutta doesn't seem to be on Access to Insight, but one of the variants is:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is here: http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pit ... ggo-e.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
21. 2. 5. 4.
(96) Gomaya: Cow dung

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Buddha nature

Post by Cittasanto »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Greg,
greggorious wrote:I've been told more than once that Buddha nature is not a Therevadin concept. Does this mean that we don't have the seed of enlightenment within us.
The Buddha never once taught the concept "Buddha Nature", yet vast numbers of people attained arahantship, non-returning, once-returning and stream entry by following his teachings.

So what does that tell you?

Metta,
Retro. :)
:anjali: :anjali: :anjali:
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4528
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Buddha nature

Post by Dan74 »

It seems that Greg has already moved on...

http://zenforuminternational.org/viewto ... =10&t=7773
_/|\_
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Buddha nature

Post by tiltbillings »

Does the Pali Canon have buddha-nature? Or the Buddha, for that matter?
>> 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
Goofaholix
Posts: 4015
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Buddha nature

Post by Goofaholix »

Dan74 wrote:It seems that Greg has already moved on...

http://zenforuminternational.org/viewto ... =10&t=7773
Interesting, the Zen responses so far aren't much different from ours.
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4528
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Buddha nature

Post by Dan74 »

My sense is that we all hold on to concepts, teachings and beliefs. Most of these are hopefully beneficial and help to uproot unwholesome habits.

When someone else comes along with their pet belief, perhaps it is good to pause and reflect on whether this too could be beneficial to them even if we don't share this particular belief.

Buddha nature is an expedient, skillful means. It can be a designation, a pointer or an obstacle. It is not a statement of doctrine, it is not an assertion of an existent something. At most it is saying that Nibbana is an unconditioned dhamma. Typically (in my lineage) it is saying that liberation does not come from the outside and is not something to gain but manifests when the defilements and obscurations are let gone of. In terms of faith, it inspires a practitioner with the belief that he or she already have it and spurs them on with the inquiry why if they have it do they still suffer and delude themselves.

It is a powerful teaching that has been used by many generation of great Mahayana teachers.

Just because the Buddha is not on record to have used it does not make it useless. This is a leap of logic that is neither justified, nor probably beneficial in its effect on others (as we see with our friend Greg). It may indeed be no use to you or me - if you have attained liberation without delving into the teachings on the Buddha nature - wonderful! But it may well be of use to others and without proper understanding one should not rush to dismiss it, I think.

By coincidence just this morning I was reading one of the letters of Zen Master Ta Hui on this very subject, in the collection Swampland Flowers, which I heartily recommend to anyone remotely interested in Zen and Mayahana.
_/|\_
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Buddha nature

Post by mikenz66 »

Thanks Dan,

When people use terminology that initially sounds completely oxymoronic to me, such as Buddha Nature or True Self, I have often found that the problem is with the terminology rather than what they are trying to get at.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Buddha nature

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Dan,
Dan74 wrote:When someone else comes along with their pet belief, perhaps it is good to pause and reflect on whether this too could be beneficial to them even if we don't share this particular belief.... expedient, skillful means.... Just because the Buddha is not on record to have used it does not make it useless...
I do think people here are cognizant of such things, which is why we didn't see anyone here say anything unnecessarily harsh or degrading with respect to the notion of Buddha nature. In fact, I'd say the responses were very diplomatic, logical, and respectful.

That said, Greg's decisions regarding his life are Greg's decisions to make and looking at his comments at ZFI, it would seem that Sanghamitta was quite possibly right on the money with the prediction that Greg is fixed in his views, and there's not much we can do about it. Also, consider that Theravadins haven't taken it upon themselves to lead all beings to enlightenment, but rather accepting that the Dhamma is the greatest of all gifts, we are happy to share what the Buddha taught (and where necessary, make clear that which he did not)... so if people aren't interested in what the Buddha's teaching has to offer (i.e. the gift of Dhamma) then their rejection of that gift simply is what it is. It is not cause for anyone here to beat themselves up over, or feel they have failed in some proselytization initiative. I am pleased Greg wishes to persist with the Dharma, in whatever form, and I hope it brings him benefit (but if it doesn't, it's no fault or failing on our part). We are not hunting for converts, nor are we proclaiming ourselves teachers or fulfilling bodhisattva aspirations... so please be mindful not to project your own self-imposed bodhisattva commitments onto us. It is sufficient that we do not misrepresent the Buddha. Thanks.

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."
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Buddha nature

Post by Cittasanto »

preferences make the world go round!
and to be away from them is....
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4528
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Buddha nature

Post by Dan74 »

mikenz66 wrote:Thanks Dan,

When people use terminology that initially sounds completely oxymoronic to me, such as Buddha Nature or True Self, I have often found that the problem is with the terminology rather than what they are trying to get at.

:anjali:
Mike
That may be so, Mike, but as you probably know the term Buddha nature has been in wide circulation in Thai Buddhism, not least in the Forest tradition.
_/|\_
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Buddha nature

Post by Aloka »

Dan74 wrote: That may be so, Mike, but as you probably know the term Buddha nature has been in wide circulation in Thai Buddhism, not least in the Forest tradition.
This article is worth reading - "Freedom from Buddha Nature" by Thanissaro Bhikkhu:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... ature.html

excerpt:
"This is why the Buddha never advocated attributing an innate nature of any kind to the mind — good, bad, or Buddha. The idea of innate natures slipped into the Buddhist tradition in later centuries, when the principle of freedom was forgotten."
Details of the author from Wikipedia:
Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu, also known as Ajaan Geoff, (born 1949) is an American Theravada Buddhist monk of the Dhammayut Order (Dhammayutika Nikaya), Thai forest kammatthana tradition.

He is currently the abbot of Metta Forest Monastery in San Diego County. Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu is a notably skilled and prolific translator of the Pāli Canon. He is also the author of many free Dhamma books.

kind regards

Aloka
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Buddha nature

Post by Cittasanto »

Dan74 wrote:That may be so, Mike, but as you probably know the term Buddha nature has been in wide circulation in Thai Buddhism, not least in the Forest tradition.
Hi Dan,
I personally have not noticed this, have you an example?
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Buddha nature

Post by Aloka »

Dan74 wrote:That may be so, Mike, but as you probably know the term Buddha nature has been in wide circulation in Thai Buddhism, not least in the Forest tradition.

A quote from Ajahn Sumedho former Thai Forest Tradition abbot of Amaravati Monastery UK
"The "I am" is a perception - isn't it? - and "God" is a perception. They're conventionally valid for communication and so forth, but as a practice, if you don't let go of perception then you tend to still have the illusion - an illusoriness coming from a belief in the perception of the overself, or God or the Oneness or Buddha Nature, or the divine substance or the divine essence, or something like that."
http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books3/Ajahn ... n_Time.htm


_/\_
greggorious
Posts: 263
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:40 pm

Re: Buddha nature

Post by greggorious »

I haven't moved on, in fact I haven't moved anywhere. I'm more confused than I've ever been. I've practiced Zen for a few years but became interested in Vipassana too, As Zazen is primarily concentration based, and I also want something Insight based. However at the same time I'm not sure how many people who do Vipassana meditation trust their own wisdom through their meditations or still cling to every single thing The Buddha was meant to have said.
"The original heart/mind shines like pure, clear water with the sweetest taste. But if the heart is pure, is our practice over? No, we must not cling even to this purity. We must go beyond all duality, all concepts, all bad, all good, all pure, all impure. We must go beyond self and nonself, beyond birth and death. When we see with the eye of wisdom, we know that the true Buddha is timeless, unborn, unrelated to any body, any history, any image. Buddha is the ground of all being, the realization of the truth of the unmoving mind.” Ajahn Chah
Post Reply