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.
Modern interpretations of Buddha-Nature
There are three modern interpretations of Buddha-Nature as either:
1) An essential self.
2) Sunyata (emptiness).
3) An inherent possibility of awakening.
Which do you think is true and why? Of course some may believe that they are all equally true and if that's the case then please provide the reasoning, doctrine or whatever that supports this view.
Thanks in advance for your participation.
1) An essential self.
2) Sunyata (emptiness).
3) An inherent possibility of awakening.
Which do you think is true and why? Of course some may believe that they are all equally true and if that's the case then please provide the reasoning, doctrine or whatever that supports this view.
Thanks in advance for your participation.
0
Comments
It seem that anatman is core to Buddhism...
4) Was not taught by the Buddha, but a later addition.
Which happens to be my opinion. Why? If Buddha nature was so essential, the Buddha would have taught it in the earliest teachings (pali canon). But as far as I know, we can't find it there and I have read a lot of suttas.
Saying that there's no such thing as Buddha-Nature? Perhaps it is simply another was to refer to emptiness, in that case.
The Buddha nature teaching helps:
Confidence that enlightnement is possible
Overconfidence and looking down to others less informed or wise
Promotes good treatment of others because they are of the highest nature
Promotes forgiveness of our enemies because we know they have Buddha Nature
Whether it is an Atman is dependent on what you mean by Atman.
A student asks:
I know you are very busy, but I was very puzzled about no-self as discussed in book 3 of the Discovering the Heart of Buddhism course. What I cannot understand is that if the self is non-existent, what motivates people to do things, such as this course?
Lama Shenpen responds:
Do I actually say that the self is non-existent? I didn’t mean to. What the Buddha always taught was that what was impermanent, unsatisfactory and not as we wanted it could not be the self. The self, in this context, is the one who wants happiness. None of the things we grasp at as self provide that happiness so our whole idea of our self causes us suffering.
Who is the us that discovers that? It is the the ungrasped self, the true self, the self that is not impermanent, not suffering, that is as we want it to be. It is the Buddha Nature. When we discover that we realise that this is what we always wanted but we sought for it in the wrong place and in the wrong way. We found aspects of it that we tried to grasp at and own but they just became unsatisfactory as soon as we grasped them. In fact we tried to grasp them only to find we had grasped at thin air, but instead of just ceasing to grasp we got terrified and grasped more and more. Then we became more and more confused and still were left with just thin air. It is only when the fundamental awareness of our being turns towards that thin air and recognises its experience of itself for what it is that it can relax the grasping reaction and let that truth be.
You could call that the end of ego grasping and the life of the true self - or true nature - the ultimate reality of what we are. It is not something we can know by the grasping mind. It is not something to believe in as a concept. It is reality that discovers itself!
So it itself is motivated to discover itself and do this course!
The student continues:
Christians put a lot of faith in the soul, which they believe is a separate unchanging entity. Surely, if there was nothing there, one of them would have noticed by now.
Lama Shenpen responds:
You get all kinds of Christians like you get all kinds of Buddhist. Some have strong conceptual beliefs that they just trot out and say they believe in - they dont want to think too much about whether their beliefs are true or not. They just want something to cling on to that confirms them in their idea of themselves.
Some Buddhists are like that too.
Other Christians are connecting deeply to their hearts and discovering what is genuine and true in their experience - and they find what anyone finds who does that. So they talk about their experience in much the same terms as we would.
As for soul - well it just depends what one means by it doesnt it?
"Saying that there's no such thing as Buddha-Nature? "
Yes, that's what I'm saying. Because I've seen the term Buddha-nature generally causes more confusion than understanding, I tend not to use it. And my personal belief is the Buddha didn't do either. I'm certainly not the only one with this opinion, so I taught it was worth adding it to the list.
Who else thinks that a less than perfect definition of Buddha nature causes little effect on our day to day practise unless that practise is mental mastication.
Anybody think that when we are at a point where it might matter, that point will lol.
OK.. maybe this is a just Buddhist version of Sudoku or a parade that doesn't need my rain cloud.
Is Buddha Nature ..
1) An essential self....... with unlimited perspective what is essential or self?
2) Sunyata (emptiness). Such a polarity has the subtle scent of ego.
3) An inherent possibility of awakening..Interesting! Does that make the 5th law of the universe a part or the whole of Buddha Nature?
So that's foul, a strike and a possible bunt. I'm pretty sure the Buddha would just say that if a perfect description of Buddha Nature would aid in the path to sufferings cessation, he would have given it already.
I'm also not sure we have a language that could corral the Buddha Nature.
Words don't help much, but practice can help a little. When Rinzai said, "Grasp and use, but never name," he wasn't encouraging people to walk around like sanctified zombies, all silent and serene (and full of shit). He was suggesting we pay attention to those things we rely on most and find out precisely how reliable they are.
Is "Buddha Nature" or "satori" or "sunyata" or "inherent potential" or "self" or "no self" reliable stuff on which to rely? Maybe so, but I can't imagine their being much more reliable than a chocolate bar. Yummy? Sure. Reliable? Your call.
What does the unlimited perspective show? Buddha-Nature = emptiness is not a polarity. Dark energy is part of the universe, not the whole of it.
On what list?
Sorry, confused with someone else.
My text was translated by Khenpo (scholar) Konchog Gyaltsen Rinpoche
........Here goes my 2 bucks...
@Sabre...alot of people here and there believe in the added later stuff.
Just a fact. Not saying you agree, But I or the whole community/ people
did'nt make it up, so how about just researching how
many people use this teaching tool and how/why/what...or not.
I agree that it causes confusion, but only if you dont have a
'general' idea of the term.
@how makes the humorous point that sometimes its just
not that serious, as far as terminology.
A possible bunt ?? I'll deal with you later.
@taiyaki....yes, Buddha Nature is writing! Man, I'm loving
you more everyday.
It doesn't create confusion in me personally because, after having researched it already, I just see it as a term that isn't an essential part of the Buddha's teachings. Not to offend anybody who cincerely beliefs in it. I know a lot of people think it is a part of the teachings and not a later addition. But because this point of view is shared by many, I felt it needed to be included in the list of options, just so everybody can be represented.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with new terms per se. Some new terms come up from time to time, that's natural. If these are quite clear, don't create confusion amongst people, I may also use them. But the problem with Buddha nature is that its not a clear term, as is also pointed out by this topic. People all have their own interpretation, so while I can relate to a certain interpretation of it, as a teaching tool I think it's not really effective. So that's also why I tend not to use it. Of course, with the exception of topics such as this one
Metta!
And if acceptable to inquire, does the teaching of ālayavijñāna and postmortem rebirth create more confusion than clarity?
I can relate to the possibility of awakening. Not to say everybody will be awakened one day, but at least there is the opportunity for people. But again, I wouldn't call it Buddha nature. I'd call it no-self as the Buddha did (in another language).
I think at least the terms ālayavijñāna (although I had to google it) and rebirth are generally clearer than Buddha nature. That doesn't say anything about whether I agree or disagree with them of course. If I'd base my view upon how much things confuse people or not, that'd be foolish. I only agree with things that I can validate for myself.
So in short: I use terms I think the Buddha used and that I see as truth and helpful. I may use new terms if I think they are useful, but I don't use new terms if they generally seem to create more confusion. So usually you won't see me making posts or speaking with terms such as 'Buddha nature', 'Great mind', 'Suchness' and things like that.
That's just to clarify why I personally don't use them. I want this to be clear because I don't want to offend anybody, but just show where I and a lot of people are coming from. Also I think the Buddha was very direct and as much as I can, I want to be direct too.
With metta,
Reflection
That the ability to be free of clinging/aversion and all self delusion is as "easy"
Ok, maybe easy is not a good word for something that appears to be so challenging. But then again all one ever needs to awaken to is this present moment.
Because it is our very nature, means we don't have to acquire anything else. It is a realization of that which is. To see impermanence and emptiness (empty of separate self existence) in every manifestation of form. The awareness and letting go of the concepts (beliefs, ideas, judgements, thoughts) that blind us and keep us locked in cycles of suffering. Ego and attachment are on the surface, perpetuated by self delusion. Below is the selflessness, wisdom and compassion of Buddha Nature.
Best Wishes
But since I am no longer aligned with them, I don't really know what I think about it anymore, lol. Perhaps I don't feel it is so important?
One "modern" take on Buddha-nature is presented by Stephen Batchelor. He says the correct translation is "Buddha-womb" or "Buddha-seed". So we all have this evolutionary seed within us, that is about growth and change and moving toward Enlightenment.
1. Kind of because of the three seals, no-self, impermanence and dukkha a true self seems to contradict these core Buddhist teachings. On the other hand the idea of there being nothing after enlightenment feels strange to me, that the goal is to dissapear entirely.
2. If there is a Buddha nature I believe the only way to realize it is through a direct internalization of emptiness. A belief in a true self, however subtle, won't help achieve it and would actually be counterproductive.
3. I feel that this is fully true, that every being has the ability to achieve enlightenment. I give it a kind of rating because it may not be the full picture.
Bottom line who knows and practically understanding emptiness and perfecting the virtues is the path to Buddhahood not a belief or rejection of a truly existing self.