christopher::: wrote:There was so much static though, anyone know of a clearer version of that talk, or was it a problem with my download, should i try again?
christopher::: wrote:The only thing i disagree on is that the concept should be thrown out. I think it can be reconceptualized. This is done all the time in the social sciences, why not in Mahayana Buddhism?
christopher::: wrote:I dunno. I'd be interested in hearing the views of people like Ven. Huifeng, Shonin and Dan74 who have an appreciation of the strengths of both Mahayana & Theravadin wisdom.
Fair enough. Anything I say should be taken with the caveat that I don't see any need for the Mahayanisation of the Dhammavinaya. I don't see the need for any Theravadisation of it either, but that's another story.
christopher::: wrote:Paul, i am not worried about the Dhammavinaya, at all, it's the implications of the issues raised here for Mahayana Buddhism that i'm much more concerned about...
...Some would doubtless take exception to what I have said and call me intolerant or somesuch, so I want to make clear that what I say above isn't laced with hatred or animosity... it is necessary to be direct in order to speak clearly. It is so that you (and Aloka, who started this topic) can clearly understand the reasons why I think the term is sectarian, superfluous and is neither found in, nor corollary to the Pali Canon.
And just so you know I'm in good spirits about it, here's a group hug smilie!
bodom wrote:Could anyone translate this please?
"Sārira-dhātu (Pali), is the special bodily relics found amongst the bone remains after the cremation of Buddha and most Arahant. "
Dan74 wrote:My understanding is that whichever school of Buddhism one affiliates with, the important thing is to be clear about the practice and what immediately relates to it and of course to have sincere motivation - Right View and Right Intention.
The basics are anyway the same - dependent origination, virtue, discipline, concentration, mindfulness and insight. They appear in various guises but in my experience they are definitely there.
What I am trying to say is that philosophical speculation or matters relating to higher levels of attainment are best left alone, at least until they are relevant to practice.
I am not sure if what you are "weeding out" falls into this category, if not - my apologies for rambling.
PeterB wrote:tiltbillings wrote:meindzai wrote: Since a Buddha is self awakened, a Buddha can't be a person who is currently studying the teachings of the Buddha of the current period, so none of us can be Buddhas as long as we are studying the teachings of the Buddha!
None of us likely can be sammasambuddha, but buddha we can be.
An important, in fact I would vital, distinction.
Paññāsikhara wrote:TMingyur wrote:What strikes me in this thread is that it is implied that "buddha nature" is unanimously accepted in all schools of Mahayana and that if the term as such is accepted then there would be one meaning that is unanimously implied by all schools of Mahayana.
This is definitely not so. E.g. Madhyamaka does not hold the Tathāgatagarbha view and some schools of Madhyamaka explicitely reject all interpretations of "buddha nature" that imply something other than a mere non-affirming negation (i.e. emptiness).
Your key point here, if I understand, is not that the Madhyamaka (and others) reject "buddha nature", but reject a particular interpretation of "buddha nature".retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Without Colour,
To the best of my knowledge, neither of these terms (nor what they point to) are recognised in Theravada.
Paul's attempt at rejecting "buddha nature" in terms of a "buddha element" are only applicable to the affirming position vis this doctrine, but not with regards the Madhyamaka position. Simply reading the words "buddha-dhatu" and thinking that we now understand what all Mahayana schools mean by this is misrepresenting those schools. How can we then come to an understanding or answer the original question? Paul after all does state "what they point to", but unfortunately has not made the investigation to find out what they actually do refer to, and apparently doesn't even think that it is appropriate int his thread to find out!
Many Mahayana schools understand "tathagatagarbha" and "buddhadhatu" as synonyms for emptiness. This is almost always a strictly non-reified position, and in many cases extremely similar to Theravada positions on emptiness as not self. In fact, I may even go so far as to suggest that a majority of Indo-Tibetan schools read it in this way, and a fair portion of the east asian schools, too.
Thus, in this sense at least, although they may not use those exact words "tathagatagarbha" and / or "buddhadhatu", doctrinally there is a fair amount of commonality. As the second reliance states: Rely on the meaning, not on the words.
Paññāsikhara wrote:I was asked to make a comment or two here:
From another thread:
At the risk of sounding repetitive, from what we know, only some but definitely not all Mahayana traditions, and even then with very different meanings.
And for many non-Mahayana traditions, we don't know if they had such an idea or not, to be honest.
Oops, sorry, mistake. Poking around the Chattha Sangayana Tipitaka, I found this in the "other" texts:
(Nagare kapilavatthumhi sammādiṭṭhi bahujjano;
Tattha sārīrikaṃ thūpaṃ akāsi ratanāmayaṃ.
Nagare allake ramme buddhadhātu patiṭṭhiya;
Silāya muggavaṇṇāya thūpaṃ sadhātukaṃ akā.
Jano pāveyyaraṭṭhasmiṃ patiṭṭhiya sārīrikaṃ;
Silāya maṇivaṇṇāya pāveyyaṃ cetiyaṃ akā.
Tā dhātuyo ṭhapetvāna thero kassapasavhayo;
Rañño ajātasattussa adāsi dhātuyo tadā.
Gehe cūpakaraṇāni catusaṭṭhisatāni so;
Abbhantare ṭhapesi rājā sabbā tā buddhadhātuyo.
Karaṇḍāsīti saṃkiṇṇaṃ cetiyāsītilaṅkataṃ;
Gehe bahusamākiṇṇaṃ thūpārāmappamāṇakaṃ.
And also in the:
403. Katvāna agghiyaṃ tatthāti tasmiṃ cetiyapūjanaṭṭhāne tālapantīhi tālapāḷīhi cittitaṃ sobhitaṃ agghiyaṃ katvāna kāretvā ca sakaṃ cittaṃ attano cittaṃ pasādetvā cetiyaṃ pūjayuttamanti uttamaṃ buddhadhātunidhāpitaṃ cetiyaṃ pūjayinti sambandho.
So, actually, the Theravada literature does on a few very rare occasions, use the term "buddhadhātu".
Users browsing this forum: Santi253 and 37 guests