Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha-dhātu

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Sanghamitta
Posts: 1614
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:21 am
Location: By the River Thames near London.

Re: Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha-dhātu

Post by Sanghamitta »

Your reply could be interpreted as assuming that those who do not see that concepts like the tathagarbha" have any utility for them , make that assumption on the basis of a faulty translation. I suspect i speak for many when I say that I am very aware of the nuances of the translations of that term. The concept of a :quote: Buddha womb :quote: makes no more sense to me than the idea of
Buddha Nature. LIke most Theravada students from a western background I didnt leap into an understanding Buddhism by jumping into the first presentation of the Dhamma I encountered. In fact I discovered Zen first. Fairly soon the whole Mahayana corpus struck me as a vast outgrowth which obscured the pure Dhamma which could still occasionally be glimpsed beneath its gothic edifice.
The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.

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

Re: Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha-dhātu

Post by mikenz66 »

Pannapetar wrote: It is a challenge to go even beyond the initial spiritual achievements which may have secured calm and peace of mind. This is the sort of situation, where tathāgatagarbha becomes meaningful. So, it should probably be considered by people enjoying good karmic fruits and intermediate practitioners.
Are you implying that Theravada is for "beginners" and Mahayana for the "more developed" practitioners? :juggling:

Personally, I think there are some contradictions between the details of Theravada and Mahayana practise. Either is valid, but in the end you really have to make some choices about how you approach practise. I like this post from elsewhere by meindzai:
http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index. ... 9149&st=40" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
meindzai,Oct 28 2008, 09:04 AM wrote:
passenger1980,Oct 27 2008, 04:08 PM wrote:So what's keeping you from practising the fundamentals? I'm not saying that you should do the same as me. But meditation and living by the 8FP is all we need in my opinion. Practise as much as you can, and that's it, the rest is just wasting time if you see it from a spiritual point of view.
I was trying to avoid getting too specific here so that I don't open up a big can of worms, but here goes. Pandoras box follows: (sorry for mixing metaphors)

Meditation in zen vs. theravada, as an example, are based on two entirely different premises. In Zen it's based on the idea of Buddha nature, and requires a lot of faith in the process, letting go of thoughts as they come. It's sometimes called a goalless process, effortless effort. The more the practitioner "messes" with it the less productive it becomes. It is akin to "wu-wei" in daoism. It's a very organic and natural unfolding, again - totally based on the idea that Buddha nature will reveal itself through the practice.

However, the Buddha (of all people!) did not talk about buddha nature. There's no such teaching in Theravada. Meditation is very specific and goal oriented. One overcomes the 5 hindrances (there are specific practices for each) and develops samadhi by balancing certain factors, piti, sukkha, one pointedness, etc. You have a choice to develop the jhanas or do a dry vipassana practice. Right concentration is defined as the four Jhanas. Meditation is tied directly into the suttas by way of overcoming taints, defilements, etc. The suttas explain what those are, in detail, and how to overcome them.

Also in Theravada, meditation is tied directly into the teachings on morality. This relationship is much more apparent then in zen, which emphasizes meditation.

According to Bodhidharma:
Buddhas don't recite sutras." Buddhas don't keep precepts." And Buddhas don't break precepts. Buddhas don't keep or break anything. Buddhas don't do good or evil.

To find a Buddha, you have to see your nature.
The idea of course being that we're already Buddha's so our job is to see our own nature. Not to keep precepts, not to overcome hindrances, not to purge the defilements, etc.

It's not that Bodhidharma's teaching is wrong within the scope of zen and mahayana. But you cannot hold this viewpoint, and, simultaneously, engage in a practice of overcoming hindrances and purging defilements.

In that sense there's nothing "basic" about meditation. The paradigm is entirely different. Meditation is part of a larger picture. Each system depends on it's own paradigm for meditation to have any clear purpose.

You also mention the eightfold path. The heart sutra, chanted Daily by Zen practitioners, teaches "no suffering, no path," etc. etc. This of course doesn't mean you shouldn't practice the eightfold path, but it points to the idea that the teachings themselves have the property of sunyata - emptiness.

Again, ok in context, but no such teaching in Theravada. As the simile of the raft illustrates, you let go of the raft when you reach the other side. But until then, HOLD ON.

I'm going to keep saying this so it's clear - I am not criticizing either teaching. When one is fully immersed in one or the other, they function as a complete system that will get one to the other side. But you cannot practice them simultaneously. Even the "basics" are different once you go just a little bit beneath the surface.

-M
Metta
Mike
Sanghamitta
Posts: 1614
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:21 am
Location: By the River Thames near London.

Re: Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha-dhātu

Post by Sanghamitta »

Yes thank you Mikenz66, thats excellent.
The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.

Bhikku Bodhi.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha-dhātu

Post by tiltbillings »

Tathagatagrabha in its very basic original conception was a way of talking about emptiness in terms of the mind, meaning that because there was not a fixed thingness to our mind, we were open to the possibility of awakening. Of course this was done within the rather elaborate, complicated doctrinal structures that the Mahayana was wont to develop, and it only got worse (or - without value judgement - considerably more complicated) over time. As a teacher I worked with years ago would say, "Best to keep things simple and easy."

And just because I have this already on file, let me share this:
-- The tathagatagarbha [buddha-nature] is not just any emptiness,
however. Rather it is specifically emptiness of inherent existence when
applied to a sentient being's mind, his (her) mental continuum. ... When
the mind is defiled in the unenlightened state this emptiness is called
tathagatagarbha. When the mind has become pure through following the
path and attaining Buddhahood so emptiness is referred to in the dGe
lugs tradition as the Buddha's Essence Body (_svabhavikakaya_). The
Buddha's pure mind in that state is his Gnosis or Wisdom Body
(_jnanakaya_), while the two taken together, the Buddha's mind as a
flow empty of inherent existence, is what the tradition calls the
_dharmakaya._ ... This also means that the tathagatagarbha itself is
strictly the fundamental cause of Buddhahood, and is no way identical
with the result, _dharmakaya_ or Essence Body as the case may be,
except in the sense that both defiled mind and Buddha's mind are empty
of inherent existence. ...which is to say that even the _dharmakaya_,
and, of course, emptiness itself, are all empty of inherent existence.
They are not 'truly established', there is no Absolute in the sense of an
ultimate really existing entity. --- Paul Williams MAHAYANA
BUDDHISM, pub by Routledge. Pg 106-7.
I am so glad I am a Theravadin.
>> 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
Pannapetar
Posts: 327
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 am
Location: Chiang Mai, Thailand
Contact:

Re: Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha-dhātu

Post by Pannapetar »

mikenz66 wrote:Are you implying that Theravada is for "beginners" and Mahayana for the "more developed" practitioners? :juggling:
That's your interpretation, not mine... :smile:

"Being a Theravadin" or "being a Mahayana practitioner" is just one more useless ego identification, in my view. Who cares?

Cheers, Thomas
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha-dhātu

Post by Ben »

Hi Thomas
I don't mean to speak for Mike, but I think I am correct in assuming he was asking you a question rather than passing a value judgement.
Perhaps you would like to clarify your statement so that we all have a better understanding?
Metta

Ben
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
Sanghamitta
Posts: 1614
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:21 am
Location: By the River Thames near London.

Re: Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha-dhātu

Post by Sanghamitta »

Pannapetar wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:Are you implying that Theravada is for "beginners" and Mahayana for the "more developed" practitioners? :juggling:
That's your interpretation, not mine... :smile:

"Being a Theravadin" or "being a Mahayana practitioner" is just one more useless ego identification, in my view. Who cares?

Cheers, Thomas

Erm ...me for one.
:anjali:
The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.

Bhikku Bodhi.
User avatar
Pannapetar
Posts: 327
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 am
Location: Chiang Mai, Thailand
Contact:

Re: Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha-dhātu

Post by Pannapetar »

Which statement do you want me to clarify?
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha-dhātu

Post by Ben »

Hi Thomas
It would be the statement that Mike asked the question about, see below:
mikenz66 wrote:
Pannapetar wrote: It is a challenge to go even beyond the initial spiritual achievements which may have secured calm and peace of mind. This is the sort of situation, where tathāgatagarbha becomes meaningful. So, it should probably be considered by people enjoying good karmic fruits and intermediate practitioners.
Are you implying that Theravada is for "beginners" and Mahayana for the "more developed" practitioners? :juggling:
Many thanks

Ben
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
User avatar
Pannapetar
Posts: 327
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 am
Location: Chiang Mai, Thailand
Contact:

Re: Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha-dhātu

Post by Pannapetar »

Ah ok, thanks for the clarification.

The problem that I saw in Mike's response is that he made an inference from the Tathāgatagarbha to the Mahayana. While I agree that Tathāgatagarbha is an 'advanced' doctrine in some sense, I don't think that this can be said for Mahayana on the whole. Both Theravada and Mahayana contain basic doctrines as well as advanced doctrines.

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

Re: Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha-dhātu

Post by mikenz66 »

Pannapetar wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:Are you implying that Theravada is for "beginners" and Mahayana for the "more developed" practitioners? :juggling:
That's your interpretation, not mine... :smile:

"Being a Theravadin" or "being a Mahayana practitioner" is just one more useless ego identification, in my view. Who cares?
That's true. Any ego identification, including the identification as "non-secular", is something to be let go of... :popcorn:

I'm not averse to getting some inspiration from non-Theravadin sources. I spent an interesting weekend with a lay (former monastic) Tibetan teacher a couple of months ago. But, as I tried to illustrate with my quote from meindzai's post, there are some rather fundamental differences in approach between different teachers. [There's some rather large differences even between various Theravada practise schools. Again, I'm not averse to spending some time sampling them.]

Of course, some of these differences would be less confusing if I had an encyclopaedic grasp of the literature of all of the traditions, but who has time?

In my opinion it's much more efficient to have a firm grasp of one or two approaches within a particular tradition. And especially to have teachers to whom I can confidently entrust my mind-stream...

Metta
Mike
Sanghamitta
Posts: 1614
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:21 am
Location: By the River Thames near London.

Re: Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha-dhātu

Post by Sanghamitta »

Yes, well put.
It has been brought to my attention,( I should explain that I am a computer neophyte, therefore a Buddhist website neophyte ) that there are a small group of apparantly well known people who ( I am told ) go Buddhist website to website apparantly challenging whatever the prevailing school is. In the name of ..well whatever. I find this difficult to believe. Surely this cant be so ? Can there be people with so much time on their hands ?

I can only say that for me practising just one path calls for all of my effort, and all of my commitment. Which I gladly give. It is not though a matter of debate and discussion merely. Its to be lived and applied.
The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.

Bhikku Bodhi.
User avatar
kc2dpt
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha-dhātu

Post by kc2dpt »

"Each system depends on it's own paradigm"

This is probably the best statement I have yet read on this topic.
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha-dhātu

Post by mikenz66 »

Peter wrote:"Each system depends on it's own paradigm"

This is probably the best statement I have yet read on this topic.
And the shortest... :anjali:

Mike
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4528
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha-dhātu

Post by Dan74 »

I am probably not bringing anything really new to the discussion, but just to stress Buddha-nature is a teaching tool. It is something to be let gone of in due course. But before that it is something that is good to hold on to as we let go of more mundane things like the attachment to being right and to having the best vehicle of them all! So it is not atta/atman because it is clear in Zen that it is a provisional teaching.

So we practice to let go of attachments, including the attachment to Dharma and to Buddha-nature. Zen is a practice of abiding no where. Once the mind rests in a particular state, reification begins, the building of an identity begins, no matter how subtle. Just as people have said - arahatship is not an achievement of a state. There is no Buddha-nature there.

_/|\_
_/|\_
Post Reply