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's nature same as emptiness?
Buddha's nature same as emptiness?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The nature of mind is clarity or the movement of suchness.
The essence of mind is emptiness or the unestablished, unborn, ungraspable, pure, infinite potentiality.
Everything in experience is movement. Such movement itself is the activity as buddha nature. Appearing from no where, abiding no where, ceasing no where.
This isn't to say there is a void, but a vast canopy of experience is possible, yet completely mirage-like.
The metaphor is of a bird flying. We cannot trace its flight. It is where it is and then gone. Always in movement.
Appearances are determined into existence. Why must we determine them? Because they don't intrinsically exist. For example, suppose somebody wanted to make a marker. He would take a piece of wood or a rock and place it on the ground, and then call it a marker. Actually it's not a marker. There isn't any marker, that's why you must determine it into existence. In the same way we ''determine'' cities, people, cattle - everything! Why must we determine these things? Because originally they do not exist.
Concepts such as ''monk'' and ''layperson'' are also ''determinations.'' We determine these things into existence because intrinsically they aren't here. It's like having an empty dish - you can put anything you like into it because it's empty. This is the nature of determined reality. Men and women are simply determined concepts, as are all the things around us.
If we know the truth of determinations clearly, we will know that there are no beings, because ''beings'' are determined things. Understanding that these things are simply determinations, you can be at peace. But if you believe that the person, being, the ''mine,'' the ''theirs,'' and so on are intrinsic qualities, then you must laugh and cry over them. These are the proliferation of conditioning factors. If we take such things to be ours there will always be suffering. This is micch?ditthi, wrong view. Names are not intrinsic realities, they are provisional truths. Only after we are born do we obtain names, isn't that so? Or did you have your name already when you were born? The name comes afterwards, right? Why must we determine these names? Because intrinsically they aren't there.
Ajahn Chah
http://www.amaravati.org/teachingsofajahnchah/article/480/P4/
If one is attached to phenomena and is mastered by the senses and their constructs, how might one understand the Buddha’s teaching which transcends the phenomenal?
The truth of the Buddha's teaching is this:
"He who knows these things and that all phenomena have the nature of illusion and dreams, that they are pithless as the stem of the plantain, and similar to an echo; and who knows that the triple world throughout is of that nature, not fast and not loose, he knows rest" (Lotus Sutra).
Therefore it is not correct to say "Buddha Nature" = "Emptiness".
Is Buddha Nature empthy?
Yes.
Mañjushri said....if he contemplates emptiness as the defilement, he is said to be engaged in right practice" (The Inconceivable State of Buddhahood Sutra).
Better question would be, "Is existence real or an illusion?". The answer is neither. The world is dependently arisen. Eye + visual object ----> eye consciousness. The world is fabricated through our senses - sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touch, thoughts, feelings. Its nature is emptiness as in lacking inherent existence.
" Does sound exists if one doesn't have organ of hearing?"
" Does America really exist?" "Did it exist before its discovery?"
" Do you exist?" "When did you begin your existence?" "Are you the egg or sperm or something else?"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html
If we read the sutras without applying logic, reason and our own experience also, we're going to always be missing something. "Reality" has real-ness to it, we must realize that delusional views about what "is" (suchness) are where illusions are found/created.
From Nagarjuna's Acintyastava:
"Just as here in this world an echo arises in dependence on a sound, so also [all] of existence arises like an illusion or a mirage."
This guy who played guitar is buddha-nature:
"By Buddha-nature, we mean the most perfect enlightenment" (Maharparinirvana Sutra).
Yeppers, a sammasambuddha.
An important passage by Nagarjuna explaining that all manifestation are in essence Dharmadhatu or Buddha-Nature. It explains Dharmadhatu and Consciousness as the very manifestation that dependently originates and is empty.
Arya Nagarjuna:
38. When eye and form assume their right relation,
Appearances appear without a blur.
Since these neither arise nor cease,
They are the dharmadhatu, though they are imagined to be otherwise.
39. When sound and ear assume their right relation,
A consciousness free of thought occurs.
These three are in essence the dharmadhatu, free of other characteristics,
But they become "hearing" when thought of conceptually.
40. Dependent upon the nose and an odor, one smells.
And as with the example of form there is neither arising nor cessation,
But in dependence upon the nose-consciousness’s experience,
The dharmadhatu is thought to be smell.
41. The tongue’s nature is emptiness.
The sphere of taste is voidness as well.
These are in essence the dharmadhatu
And are not the causes of the taste consciousness.
42. The pure body’s essence,
The characteristics of the object touched,
The tactile consciousness free of conditions—
These are called the dharmadhatu.
43. The phenomena that appear to the mental consciousness, the chief of them all,
Are conceptualized and then superimposed.
When this activity is abandoned, phenomena’s lack of self-essence is known.
Knowing this, meditate on the dharmadhatu.
44. And so is all that is seen or heard or smelled,
Tasted, touched, and imagined,
When yogis [and yoginis]* understand these in this manner,
All their wonderful qualities are brought to consummation.
45. Perception’s doors in eyes and ears and nose,
In tongue and body and the mental gate—
All these six are utterly pure.
These consciousnesses’ purity itself is suchness’ defining characteristic.
If you hear a sound. It appears from no where, abides no where, disappears no where. Where is the sound? Because it is a conditioned arising as sound consciousness it is empty. Yet it appears.
The sound is suchness, buddha nature. The clarity is obvious. Yet it is coreless, ungraspable, unestablished.
So what this all means that everything is buddha nature. Yet this buddha nature is completely ungraspable.
In regards to whether or not it exists. It is neither existent, non-existent, both or neither. The point of this is to stop trying to capture suchness into neat little packaged ideas. Suchness is beyond any designation we give it. If we say it exists, then where is it? If we say it doesn't exist, here is the miragelike appearance.
See how we try to control and grasp at a ground. Well theres no ground and thats hard for minds to embrace.
But this is evident in all experience. There is color, smell, taste, sensation, sounds, thoughts. They are all buddha nature. Yet as soon as they arise they self liberate into their natural condition.
It's a simple question, isn't it?
The term Buddha-Nature is usually used to point out the potential for all sentient beings to achieve liberation, because this nature is always the case and it's possible for the mind to penetrate this nature (its nature) and release from craving/clinging.
The enlightened mind is one with "Mind", rather than delusional self-identifying "mind".
3rd Karmapa: “All phenomena are illusory displays of mind. Mind is no mind--the mind's nature is empty of any entity that is mind. Being empty, it is unceasing and unimpeded, manifesting as everything whatsoever.”
The Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra states: "Thus, there is no mind in the mind, but the nature of the mind is luminous-clarity (prabhāsvarā)"
However, 'like an illusion but not an illusion' also points out that our perceptions are not something fabricated or projected in a way that they cease after 'waking up', as if when we 'wake up', we find an alternate or ultimate reality that transcends or lies beyond the appearances. There is in fact no ultimate reality beyond appearance, though there is the ultimate truth of emptiness, which is inseparable from luminous clarity and the appearances/display.
Anyway, a bit of research suggests that there are three basic modern interpretations of Buddha-Nature as either an essential self, as Sunyata (emptiness), or as the inherent possibility of awakening.
An essential self and an inherent possibility seem to be at odds with emptiness. So that leaves emptiness, right?
What is the problem with Buddha-Nature = Emptiness? Let's be honest.
Emptiness means empty of true existence that can be pinned down or established. Nothing at all, including Budda-nature or emptiness has such substantial nature. Emptiness is also empty.
Therefore Buddha-Nature is a "constant attribute" (with several facets) and a "potential" (to awaken) in one convenient package, and can be used for multiple purposes teaching-wise.
But no, not done. Would like to see what others think (not just believe).