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.
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..
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..
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.
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..
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 ?
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..."
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 ...
PeterB wrote:I was actually referring Ven Huifeng to attending teachings ( when in my protracted Vajrayana phase, from which I have made a full recovery ) titled things like " The Nine Types Of Emptiness"..
But once more the whole discussion is miring me in a pool of ennui, and reminding me of my reasons for seeking out a Theravada forum in the first place..
PeterB wrote:My interest was piqued suffiently to arouse me from my ennui and to find my notes from the teachings I attended.
They were by Khenpo Tsultrim Gyatso Rinpoche and were titled " The Twenty Kinds Of Emptiness".