Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Buddha Nature - in light of last week's discussion
Jeffrey
Veteran
This is from a free email teaching of student/teacher called Buddhism Connect:
I post this because we had some discussion of buddha nature last week...
Here goes:
Summary: How can we be all one and yet distinct from each other?
A student asks:
I seem to keep coming back to the fact that we are all Buddha nature and surely therefore must be the same ultimately and cannot therefore see how we can be distinct.
Lama Shenpen replies:
The ‘same’ is imprecise isn’t it. It can mean identical in terms of identity in which case of course it makes no sense (or does it?) to say we are the same. You are you and I am me and however enlightened I or you become we will never become the same in the above sense – but there are other senses of the ‘same’. One hand is distinct from the other but they are both parts of the same body, even though that body is not the same throughout – so ‘same’ here means something again. Then there is the ‘same’ in the sense of identical in nature. One thing is the same as another because it is alike in enough respects to justify calling it the same in type or kind.
Space is the same at every point – this is about as near as one can get to something that is the same in all three senses… and is the best example for Buddha Nature. Each one of us is the same in nature and that nature is the same throughout and is the same space – but every point in space is distinct from any other point and that has significance in terms of the totality. The metaphor breaks down at this point because although our idea of space is supposed to be the idea of something without limit, because it is an idea and not the thing itself it actually is limited simply because it’s a concept. Buddha Nature as an idea has the same problem. But as a symbol pointing to something beyond itself space is a very good symbol for Buddha Nature although of course incomplete. In other words all beings are the same and inseparable yet distinct.
Student:
But if we are not distinct then I cannot see how karma works?
Lama Shenpen:
That is one of the big problems with the idea that the same means we are all part of a whole. We are each the totality seen from a different point of view and karma works from our distinct point of view even though it is meaningless in terms of the totality.
I post this because we had some discussion of buddha nature last week...
Here goes:
Summary: How can we be all one and yet distinct from each other?
A student asks:
I seem to keep coming back to the fact that we are all Buddha nature and surely therefore must be the same ultimately and cannot therefore see how we can be distinct.
Lama Shenpen replies:
The ‘same’ is imprecise isn’t it. It can mean identical in terms of identity in which case of course it makes no sense (or does it?) to say we are the same. You are you and I am me and however enlightened I or you become we will never become the same in the above sense – but there are other senses of the ‘same’. One hand is distinct from the other but they are both parts of the same body, even though that body is not the same throughout – so ‘same’ here means something again. Then there is the ‘same’ in the sense of identical in nature. One thing is the same as another because it is alike in enough respects to justify calling it the same in type or kind.
Space is the same at every point – this is about as near as one can get to something that is the same in all three senses… and is the best example for Buddha Nature. Each one of us is the same in nature and that nature is the same throughout and is the same space – but every point in space is distinct from any other point and that has significance in terms of the totality. The metaphor breaks down at this point because although our idea of space is supposed to be the idea of something without limit, because it is an idea and not the thing itself it actually is limited simply because it’s a concept. Buddha Nature as an idea has the same problem. But as a symbol pointing to something beyond itself space is a very good symbol for Buddha Nature although of course incomplete. In other words all beings are the same and inseparable yet distinct.
Student:
But if we are not distinct then I cannot see how karma works?
Lama Shenpen:
That is one of the big problems with the idea that the same means we are all part of a whole. We are each the totality seen from a different point of view and karma works from our distinct point of view even though it is meaningless in terms of the totality.
0
Comments
but they are all ungraspable, self luminous, and interdependent.
thus with awareness all self liberates. buddha nature is this clear nature of all phenomena.
self luminous, because there is no subject/object duality imposed after the recognition of non-self.
everything is non dual already.
there are various parts coming together to give the illusion of oneness.
oneness is inferred. oneness is just the same inherent quality of all phenomena.
many reify this oneness into a thing, when it is merely the perception of interdependence.
food for thought, thanks for sharing.
this is worth reading!
this too.
i've been on a really nice kick with trying to integrate the different buddhist schools.
it's really interesting to see how it all fits together like a giant puzzle.
hope you enjoy.
advaita asserts that the eternal witness or oneness is the final product of enlightenment.
whereas the buddha's non self and emptiness teachings assert that there are separate streams coming together to give the illusion of wholeness.
i've been grasping at the advaita point of view for a long time so i understand that it is natural for one who isn't versed in buddhism to reify oneness or the witness as the absolute.
in essence the realization is the same, but it is merely the interpretation that is different. but the difference is paramount because the buddha's insight is much deeper as it penetrates fully to full release.
makes sense?
Finally there is more variation probably in levels of understanding amongst individual rangtongpas than there is difference between R and S. Just as males and females have differences but there is more variation between individual females (or males) than there is between m and f.
rangtong means empty of self. shentong means empty of other. I think (though I may be wrong) that buddha said the skandas were empty of self. I'm positive that shentongpas do not believe in a graspable self. And they feel that the skandas are a skillful means rather than the true nature of reality. Thus the unenlightened person understands a person as changing skandas while the skandas themselves are actually just a view just as karma and rebirth are just views. Like the sun rises in the east.
i've never heard the terms myself.
but i can understand that when the self is empty, then phenomena as to be empty as well.
when the non dual experience of "I AM" occurs then there is a distinct shift to an eternal witness position. this is a feeling of being behind the eyes and as if everything is being watched. you are no longer the thought, feeling, sensation, etc because these are all phenomena that can be objectified, they are no longer viewed as self.
okay but the next part involves even deconstructing this super subject or witness. seeing it's emptiness automatically dissolves itself into the presence. this presence is obvious but at the same time seen to be separate from the witness.
so the pure witness is the subject whereas the presence is the object.
so all objects are felt as presence and when this witness is penetrated with emptiness/no self then there is only presence. this presence in turn is reified into oneness. so again the same habit of clinging is still there but just transfered to "oneness" as the ultimate or absolute reality.
but even this oneness is deconstructed via emptiness/no self, until there is just the six streams of consciousness.
so both subject and object must be deconstructed. not only deconstructed we need to throw away the subject/object duality all together. the pure non dual experience is the 6 streams of consciousness.
in hearing, just noise. a subject/object relation is asserted/projected after the fact. it is inferred. it cannot be definitely known to be fact when we experientially examine our experience moment to moment.
subtle but very very profound.
so i understand if this makes absolutely no sense to you.
"Anatta is a seal, not a stage.
Awareness has always been non-dual.
Appearances have always been Non-arising.
All phenomena are ‘interconnected’ and by nature Maha.
Emptiness is the ground of all experiences."
-
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html
Thinking is the only game in town. But we don't have to get caught in our voices of lordly judgement.
beautiful =]