There is a possible difference right there Sonam. the Theravada does not see the Enlightenment of the Buddha as the same as the Enlightenment of an ordinary person.
The Buddha is Samasambuddhasa, the completely awakened one, teacher of Gods and men.
Only one of which arises in any given era.
Your point about Buddha Nature indicating anatman is illogical.
Anatta is a negative statement. A statement concerning the absence of a quality. Why would we need another term to indicate the absence of a quality ?
We dont unless we embark on a parallel discussion of the Mahayana view of Shunyata which is another complex of uncanonical speculations added on to the corpus of the Buddhas teachings centuries after the event.
After the collective lack of nerve which resulted in a retreat to vedantic thought brought to its logical conclusion by Nagarjuna.
Buddha Nature ?
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Buddha Nature ?
Are you sure?PeterB wrote:There is a possible difference right there Sonam. the Theravada does not see the Enlightenment of the Buddha as the same as the Enlightenment of an ordinary person.
>> 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: Buddha Nature ?
Unless " who had reached the same state " refers to the state of a Samasambuddhasa, which clearly by implication is not only a difference in function..
Re: Buddha Nature ?
Ok Peter ... I see your (Theravadin) point of view, and as I say in my previous message I'm not going to argue more bacause "then I would certainly be pulled out as soon as my first sentence ... "
+ I suppose many of more educated than me and (maybe) you, have started this kind of endless discussion. I just note than absolutely "no" one has the potential of a Bouddha such as Shakyamouni and what ever one would act, even for eons, he will never reach that specific state ... therefore the "base" of Bouddha Shakyamouni is not the same "base" than our.
But then where all that started from for Buddha Shakyamouni ... eons ago ?
Sönam
+ I suppose many of more educated than me and (maybe) you, have started this kind of endless discussion. I just note than absolutely "no" one has the potential of a Bouddha such as Shakyamouni and what ever one would act, even for eons, he will never reach that specific state ... therefore the "base" of Bouddha Shakyamouni is not the same "base" than our.
But then where all that started from for Buddha Shakyamouni ... eons ago ?
Sönam
no hope ... no fear
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Buddha Nature ?
The suttas, which are not always in absolute agreement with Theravadin doctrine, make it quite clear that the arahant's bodhi is no different from that of a Sammasambuddha.PeterB wrote:Unless " who had reached the same state " refers to the state of a Samasambuddhasa, which clearly by implication is not only a difference in function..
>> 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: Buddha Nature ?
Certainly its a well worn path Sonam..
I am sure there are a whole galaxy of issues on which we can agree.
The subject of "Buddha Nature" on a Theravadin website is perhaps not the place to discover those points of agreement..
I am sure there are a whole galaxy of issues on which we can agree.
The subject of "Buddha Nature" on a Theravadin website is perhaps not the place to discover those points of agreement..
Re: Buddha Nature ?
I may well be wrong Tilt ( not a rhetorical statement, I may WELL be wrong ) But my understanding is that the Arahant's Bodhi might be non different to that of the Sammasambuddha, but that the former arise only as a result of the latter.tiltbillings wrote:The suttas, which are not always in absolute agreement with Theravadin doctrine, make it quite clear that the arahant's bodhi is no different from that of a Sammasambuddha.PeterB wrote:Unless " who had reached the same state " refers to the state of a Samasambuddhasa, which clearly by implication is not only a difference in function..
Which I think Sonams most recent post is indicating.
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Buddha Nature ?
That would be the radical story the suttas tell.PeterB wrote: I may well be wrong Tilt ( not a rhetorical statement, I may WELL be wrong ) But my understanding is that the Arahant's Bodhi might be non different to that of the Sammasambuddha, but that the former arise only as a result of the latter.
>> 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: Buddha Nature ?
Yes ... the galaxy of the Dharma. And as you may now, vajrayana practitioners accept all the suttas teachings as valid, so we can agree on all. But what is more interesting, once we have accepted our definitive brotherhood, is the points where we may have slight differences. But I agree that Buddha Nature is not the best subject to start ... the infinite, divisibility of time would be a much easier subject for exemple.PeterB wrote:Certainly its a well worn path Sonam..
I am sure there are a whole galaxy of issues on which we can agree.
The subject of "Buddha Nature" on a Theravadin website is perhaps not the place to discover those points of agreement..
_/|\_
Sönam
no hope ... no fear
-
- Posts: 980
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am
- Contact:
Re: Buddha Nature ?
Without even touching anything other than Pali suttas, I would simply point to the words: sunna, rittaka & tucchaka.PeterB wrote:...
Your point about Buddha Nature indicating anatman is illogical.
Anatta is a negative statement. A statement concerning the absence of a quality. Why would we need another term to indicate the absence of a quality ?
...
Anatta has the negative prefix "an-" (= "a-"), but none of these three, do. They certainly don't have to necessarily indicate a positive, reified, etc. meaning, and are not used as such.
It appears that the buddha didn't have much of a problem using terms like this to indicate an absence.
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
Re: Buddha Nature ?
But thats the point isnt it Ven Huifeng ?
The Buddha used nuanced speech to indicate an absence of qualities assumed to have a positive existence in the religious culture in which he took birth.
There is it seems to me more than a matter of emphasis between the Canonical use of a term like "sunna" and the use of a highly developed set of concepts like " Shunyata"..culminating in the Vajrayana with 78 or 92 or 18 different types of "Emptiness..."
The Buddha used nuanced speech to indicate an absence of qualities assumed to have a positive existence in the religious culture in which he took birth.
There is it seems to me more than a matter of emphasis between the Canonical use of a term like "sunna" and the use of a highly developed set of concepts like " Shunyata"..culminating in the Vajrayana with 78 or 92 or 18 different types of "Emptiness..."
Re: Buddha Nature ?
happy to see you there Venerable Huifeng ...
Peter, in Vajrayana there is "only" one emptiness ... I would be curious to consult the sources you use to state that. By definition emptiness is non dual ...
Sönam
Peter, in Vajrayana there is "only" one emptiness ... I would be curious to consult the sources you use to state that. By definition emptiness is non dual ...
Sönam
no hope ... no fear
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Buddha Nature ?
Greetings,
I've got nothing to say other than to send a hi to Sönam.
Metta,
Retro.
I've got nothing to say other than to send a hi to Sönam.
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."
-
- Posts: 980
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am
- Contact:
Re: Buddha Nature ?
Emphasis added by me:
Could you please point out where the terms "sunna", "rikkata" and "tucchaka" are "qualities assumed to have a positive existence in the religious culture in which he took birth"? Because I've had a brief look before in the Vedas and Upanisads, but I haven't been able to find any. If you could point that out, I'd really appreciate it! (Apart from having to rewrite some parts of my dissertation! )
In fact, as far as I see, these are always just straight out terms indicating some sort of absence (in a general sense). So, how is this "the point"? How is the Buddha's use of these terms such "nuanced speech"?
Hi PeterB,PeterB wrote:But thats the point isnt it Ven Huifeng ?
The Buddha used nuanced speech to indicate an absence of qualities assumed to have a positive existence in the religious culture in which he took birth.
There is it seems to me more than a matter of emphasis between the Canonical use of a term like "sunna" and the use of a highly developed set of concepts like " Shunyata"..culminating in the Vajrayana with 78 or 92 or 18 different types of "Emptiness..."
Could you please point out where the terms "sunna", "rikkata" and "tucchaka" are "qualities assumed to have a positive existence in the religious culture in which he took birth"? Because I've had a brief look before in the Vedas and Upanisads, but I haven't been able to find any. If you could point that out, I'd really appreciate it! (Apart from having to rewrite some parts of my dissertation! )
In fact, as far as I see, these are always just straight out terms indicating some sort of absence (in a general sense). So, how is this "the point"? How is the Buddha's use of these terms such "nuanced speech"?
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
-
- Posts: 980
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am
- Contact:
Re: Buddha Nature ?
Hello Sonam in France!Sönam wrote:happy to see you there Venerable Huifeng ...
Peter, in Vajrayana there is "only" one emptiness ... I would be curious to consult the sources you use to state that. By definition emptiness is non dual ...
Sönam
(I think he may be referring to lists of sunyata found in Mahayana sutras, but don't know about the Vajrayana part.)
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.