Buddha-nature

Invincible_summer

So I'm reading "Buddha of Infinite Light" by DT Suzuki, and in it, he says that Amida Buddha is within every one of us, and chanting the nembutsu "sincerely" is having Amida sort of "come through" us.


It sounds like he's describing Buddha nature. What I'm wondering is... is Buddha-nature just a catch-all term to refer to a nature that belongs to all Buddhas? For some reason I assumed that it referred to Shakyamuni Buddha.

TheJourney

All there is is the nature. We all have buddha nature, and they are not separate. All of our natures are the same, and that nature is buddha nature. A "buddha" is just one who has realized his nature.

xabir

Invincible_summer wrote: »

So I'm reading "Buddha of Infinite Light" by DT Suzuki, and in it, he says that Amida Buddha is within every one of us, and chanting the nembutsu "sincerely" is having Amida sort of "come through" us.


It sounds like he's describing Buddha nature. What I'm wondering is... is Buddha-nature just a catch-all term to refer to a nature that belongs to all Buddhas? For some reason I assumed that it referred to Shakyamuni Buddha.

Buddha-nature is the actual reality of your existence. What is this nature? It is pure presence/pure awareness/luminosity, and emptiness inseparable. All experiences are the manifestation of this nature, this essenceless-essence that is at once luminous and also empty/ungraspable.

The_Fruit_Punch_Wiza

Invincible_summer wrote: »

So I'm reading "Buddha of Infinite Light" by DT Suzuki, and in it, he says that Amida Buddha is within every one of us, and chanting the nembutsu "sincerely" is having Amida sort of "come through" us.

I'm skeptical of the effectiveness of the Nembutsu, but if it brings mindfulness, morality, mental development and wisdom, by all means do it.

It sounds like he's describing Buddha nature. What I'm wondering is... is Buddha-nature just a catch-all term to refer to a nature that belongs to all Buddhas? For some reason I assumed that it referred to Shakyamuni Buddha.

I think it is a term that refers to the Body of Teachings, the Dharmakaya.

Dazzle

Regarding "Buddha Nature," there's an essay by Thanissaro Bhikkhu here called "Freedom from Buddha Nature" which might be of interest.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/freedomfrombuddhanature.html





.

The_Fruit_Punch_Wiza

Dazzle wrote: »

Regarding "Buddha Nature," there's an essay by Thanissaro Bhikkhu here called "Freedom from Buddha Nature" which might be of interest.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/freedomfrombuddhanature.html





.

Brilliant point, I always wondered about that.

Simonthepilgrim

Dazzle wrote: »

Regarding "Buddha Nature," there's an essay by Thanissaro Bhikkhu here called "Freedom from Buddha Nature" which might be of interest.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/freedomfrombuddhanature.html





.

From the cited article:

If you assume that the mind is basically good, you'll feel capable but will easily get complacent. This stands in the way of the heedfulness needed to get you on the path, and to keep you there when the path creates states of relative peace and ease that seem so trustworthy and real. If you assume a Buddha nature, you not only risk complacency but you also entangle yourself in metaphysical thorn patches: If something with an awakened nature can suffer, what good is it? How could something innately awakened become defiled? If your original Buddha nature became deluded, what's to prevent it from becoming deluded after it's re-awakened?

Indeed, the same problem arises for the Christian. Some Baptists solve it for themselves by a doctrine of "Once Saved, Always Saved".

Those of us who hold to the notion of a Buddha/Christ Nature must find a way through this dilemma. Not easy, I admit but do-able. It requires an appreciation, not so much of one's own suffering and abandonment, but of those of others, particularly of the innocent.

TheJourney

I don't see it as a problem. You know, the whole 'not really attaining anything' bit. nirvana is inseparable from samsara, in light of dharmakaya. There is no "end" to samsara. What has no beginning can have no end.

TheDoctorDonna

Buddha Nature is that inermost part of our mind, the seed that has not fallen into the realm of Samsara.

Every sentient Being has Buddha nature and thus must be respected.

Jeffrey

This was asked recently http://newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7639&highlight=nature

http://www.rinpoche.com/teachings/jkrnature.htm
Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset;"> I would like to extend my greetings and my appreciation to all of you for having taken the time to receive these instructions. I have been asked to present an introduction to Buddhism, the Buddhadharma, “the teachings of Lord Buddha.” What I wish to talk about is a very important topic from the final cycle of the teachings which Buddha Shakyamuni gave to us. The principal theme of this cycle of teachings is the Buddha nature. Before I begin discussing this subject, though, I wish to remind you that we need to be free of the three faults while listening to the holy Dharma. The three faults are compared with a vessel or cup. The first fault is being inattentive, compared with a cup turned upside down that cannot hold what is poured into it. The second fault is being inconsiderate of the contents, compared with a cup with holes in the bottom. The third fault is being distracted by disturbing emotions while receiving the teachings, compared with a cup filled with poison that contaminates anything poured into it. We need to be free of all three faults and generate the pure motivation to attain enlightenment for the welfare of all living beings without exception. We listen to the holy Dharma for this purpose and aspire to integrate the teachings in our lives accordingly.

Generally, the teachings that have come down to us from Buddha Shakyamuni are extremely vast and profound. The reason for this spread of both profundity and extent is basically the very different motivations, propensities, and capabilities of individual people. Some of the teachings that the Buddha presented were directed towards people who were very much in the midst of their daily obligations. Others were provisional teachings intended to lead a person into a deeper appreciation. And some of the teachings were about how things actually are, what we call “the definitive” or “certain section of teachings.” The vast body of instructions is generally known these days as “the three cycles” or “the three Dharmachakras.” The first cycle, which was the initial formulation of the Buddha’s experience, is concerned with the Four Noble Truths. The second cycle is known as “the teachings of no characteristics,” and the third cycle - which will be our principal theme here - is known alternatively as “complete differentiation,” “perfect delineation” or, probably more familiarly, “the teachings of the Buddha nature.” </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Quote:

The Third Dharmachakra



We find a very important and very wonderful teaching being presented in the Third Dharmachakra, namely that every sentient being is not fundamentally different from an awakened Buddha, that every living being has what we term “the Buddha nature.” This does not mean that there is some “thing” inside each of us that can be pointed to as “the Buddha nature,” that could grow into a Buddha. The idea that there might be something inside us of this kind is eliminative according to the teachings of the second cycle. However, the Buddha nature is nothing other than what we always and already are.

As it is, we live our lives in great confusion, and the teachings on the Buddha nature suggest this confusion. All disturbing emotions, the pain and distortions that we consider and define as “our experiences” are but incidental impurities and are not fundamentally what we in truth are. The Buddha nature is ever-present and manifests when all the confusion of ordinary experiences is cleared away; it is the empty, clear or radiant, and open mind. It is no “thing” in itself.And the empty, clear or radiant and open mind is never different from the mind of a Buddha, a Fully Awakened Being, i.e., we ourselves are not different from a Buddha, except for the presence of incidental impurities. According to these teachings, there is really no difference between the Buddha nature as taught in the third cycle and with awakening mind, which was mentioned in association with the second cycle of teachings. Awakening mind is “awakening to how the world is,” and Buddha nature is “the potential for awakening” - they are not two different things but are intricately entwined since one of the principles of awakening mind is a compassionate attitude towards ourselves and others.

You will notice that some people are naturally compassionate. It doesn’t matter who approaches them, everyone likes them, feels comfortable with and trusts them. That kind of spontaneous trust, inspiration, calm, and ease indicate the presence of the Buddha nature in that person. Some people seem to be naturally angry, aggressive, short-tempered, and so forth. The teachings say that anger isn’t the fundamental nature of an individual; the disturbing emotions are incidental impurities, adventitious stains that can be cleared away.

According to the third cycle of teachings, everybody has the Buddha nature - everybody has the potential to awaken. As individuals, there is no fundamental distinction, there is no difference between anyone, there is no basis for prejudice or discrimination present in any of us. There is also no justification to privilege one person against another, since we all fundamentally have the same nature. The only difference between us is the extent to which that nature is actually manifest or not. The more impurities or confusion we have, the less that nature manifests. The less impurities, the more that nature manifests. So, the task then becomes one of enabling the Buddha nature to manifest purely and fully in our lives. We do this by going back to the first cycle of teachings, which discusses karma, how we act, what we do on a day-to-day basis, the ethical actions of learning restraint, of learning how to perform virtue, and how to avoid non-virtue. These practices allow the Buddha nature to manifest. We can also look at the second cycle of teachings, which is principally concerned with the development of love, compassion, and the two aspects of awakening mind, awakening to our relationship to the world and awakening to how the world is. It is through the practice of these instructions that we can clear away our own confusion so that our true nature - the adamantine ground – manifests purely and fully.






Questions



Question: If Buddha nature is the fundamental reality, then why do impurities exist?
His Eminence: The point here is not an explanation of why there are the incidental impurities but on how we experience things now. In answer to your question, the incidental impurities we were discussing are an experience of ignorance, of not knowing. What does ignorance or not knowing refer to? The lack of experiential, direct understanding of how we are. That lack of understanding is present and overwhelms us, so we do not perceive ourselves or the world correctly. While our mind or essential nature is empty and clear – that is one way it is described – misunderstanding causes us to perceive emptiness as a “thing,” which we take to be a self. That assumption causes us to perceive and conceive the clarity that arises in the mind as “something else” or “other.” Both the notion of “self” and “other” are duality. It is ignorance or the misunderstanding and the propensity for duality that are the cause for incidental impurities.

Question: Rinpoche, you said that a religious life and a worldly life can be united. The teachings appear to be separate. It appears that if we learn to practice religion, we are encouraged to take vows and then have to return to worldly ways - then we’re on our own. I believe we could say we can put them together and here we are.
Rinpoche: We learn how to practice, and many practitioners spend considerable time in retreat. How do we join what we practice with how we actually are? Is that your question? Really, when we get down to it, our practice is best when it permeates every aspect of our lives and everything we do, whether we are walking, sleeping, sitting, or eating. Everything we experience becomes a reminder or an opportunity to practice mindfulness and awareness. Every interaction we have with another individual is an opportunity to practice not being self-centered or not regarding the world as originating with oneself. Being open and acknowledging the feelings and needs of another person is something we may find in the practice of taking and sending, for instance. This is what we learn to practice. It is intended to be used to completely permeate our lives so that everything we do is a response in that way.

Question: Rinpoche, would you tell us why the Four Noble Truths are called “noble.”
Rinpoche: They are called “noble truths” because they aren’t ordinary statements that are just true. They have a level of truth and profundity that makes them very special.

Question: How do we gain experience of emptiness or an understanding of what emptiness is?
Rinpoche: By studying and reflecting the teachings one will come to some understanding. A direct understanding arises when there is no longer an experience of something being understood - understanding is not separate from what is understood. That’s when the understanding of emptiness really arises.
The entire topic of emptiness needs to be approached with a great deal of caution, because there are so many misunderstandings here. People take emptiness and make it into a thing, which is one form of misunderstanding; they conceptualize it and try to load it on everything they encounter - a major deviation. So, the topic really requires heedful analysis and training. What is very important here is that you have access to and rely on instructions from an authentic teacher who can guide you in this area.

Question: How do we deal with clinging in our relationships, such as parent and child, child and parents, wife and husband, and so forth?
Rinpoche: This is a source of concern for many people, and I encourage you not to worry about this at all. Many people feel if one dispenses with clinging, one won’t have any relationships. This is not what happens. Basically, the clinging present in the relationship is the source for the problems that may arise in relationships. As one becomes clearer and more and more free of clinging, the relationship becomes deeper, closer, and less problematic.

Question: Would someone like myself, who has not gone through a period of purification practice, benefit from the Kalachakra initiation?
Rinpoche: It certainly wouldn’t be a sign of disrespect if you felt interested and wish to attend the empowerment. If you feel inspired and confident, the empowerment will likely benefit you. Nevertheless, it is best to approach it with some understanding and awareness of what it means and involves.

Question: What happens to the Buddha nature at the time of death?
Rinpoche: At the time of death, when the structures of consciousness disintegrate, we experience what we truly are, which is the Buddha nature; this occurs in the first intermediate state following the death process. If an individual has trained during life and has some experience, then at that time a practitioner becomes completely free by realizing his or her own nature.

Question: Experiencing what we are, what is that which experiences?
Rinpoche: To answer your question directly as it was posed, one would say the mind is what understands how we are. But, to be more precise, we would rather say at that point there is no differentiation between what is understood and the understanding.
Student: So, are we in a certain sense a center of awareness?
Rinpoche: In a sense.

Question: What is the most efficient method of clearing away obscurations?
Rinpoche: Generally speaking, to be present with mindfulness and awareness in every moment and every area of our lives. On the basis of that mindfulness and awareness, to do what is virtuous and to avoid what is non-virtuous. Put another way, with the basis of mindfulness and awareness, to always be motivated with the wish to be helpful to others. That will naturally lead us to engage in virtue and to avoid what is non-virtuous. More particularly, there are specific practices within the tradition, such as the preliminary practices that are very effective ways of clearing away obscurations.

Question: It seems that in order to realize the Buddha nature, it takes a great deal of practice, it is very difficult, and takes a great deal of commitment. Is the only way to do this to become a monk or nun?
Rinpoche: There isn’t a single path we could say is the path everybody should follow, because we are all very different. Some persons have greater obscurations than others, some have more abilities than others, so there isn’t a single course everyone should follow. It’s an individual matter, but it may be helpful for you to become a nun.

The_Fruit_Punch_Wiza

Potential is one thing, but literal existence is another. To say universally there is potential for salvation is one thing, but to say something exists like a soul that exists in all qualia is to be animistic and essentially misunderstanding "Anatta" or "no self". I think this idea can be harmful if misunderstood.

The_Fruit_Punch_Wiza

Jeffrey wrote: »

The first cycle, which was the initial formulation of the Buddha’s experience, is concerned with the Four Noble Truths. The second cycle is known as “the teachings of no characteristics,” and the third cycle - which will be our principal theme here - is known alternatively as “complete differentiation,” “perfect delineation” or, probably more familiarly, “the teachings of the Buddha nature.” :

I don't understand the “perfect delineation” teaching.

There is distinction to what a banana can learn of the Dharma from what a human can learn from the Dharma. There's distinctions to what a Dog can learn from the Dharma to what a God can learn from the Dharma. Opportunities for salvation are not equal, because there's different things holding Gods, Ashura, Humans, Preta, Animals, and Hellish Demons back.

andyrobyn

The_Fruit_Punch_Wizard wrote: »

Potential is one thing, but literal existence is another. To say universally there is potential for salvation is one thing, but to say something exists like a soul that exists in all qualia is to be animistic and essentially misunderstanding "Anatta" or "no self". I think this idea can be harmful if misunderstood.

This is the important distinction as I understand it too.

The_Fruit_Punch_Wiza

andyrobyn wrote: »

This is the important distinction as I understand it too.

Aye, also to say that we're all on equal footing in Dharma learning is to attempt to ignore the amount of differences other creatures have in exposure to the Dharma, amount of self-delusion, profoundness of doubt, clinging to rituals, sensuous lust, ill will, greed for fine material existence, greed for immaterial existence, amount of conceit, amount of restlessness, and ignorance. We are not the same, but we want to be free from suffering, happy, and well. True understanding and insight as I have seen it comes from seeing things as they truly are, not from clouding things by seeing them as all the same when they are not, and I think understanding differences creates more opportunities for real compassion than ignoring them.

Dazzle

I find it much, much easier to regard all other sentient beings with respect as my brothers and sisters on the planet (something I did before I was a Buddhist) rather than contemplate that say, a slug, has the potential for enlightenment or has been my mother in a past life !

Better for my simple brain to just treat it with respect as 'slug brother'.


.

The_Fruit_Punch_Wiza

Dazzle wrote: »

I find it much, much easier to regard all other sentient beings with respect as my brothers and sisters on the planet (something I did before I was a Buddhist) rather than contemplate that say, a slug, has the potential for enlightenment or has been my mother in a past life !

Better for my simple brain to just treat it with respect as 'slug brother'.
.

I do the same, and I have compassion for it by trying to understand how they think on their terms from what little I know.

Jeffrey

I think there is a problem with the idea of existence. What do we mean by existence?

The buddha nature as my teacher teaches is none other than clarity openness and sensitivity (of an awareness)...

The skandas and objects of mind are not the buddha nature. The buddha nature is the emergence of experience itself as an opening to awareness (or clarity) with a feeling of sensitivity and a response. This is from the shentong perspective which you could research by reading Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness by Khenpo Gyamtso Tsultrim Rinpoche. Or a short blurb on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhentong.

Fruit Punch the problem you are encountering is that you have learned the idea of emptiness (impermanence, non-self, dukkha) from a Rangtong as opposed to Shentong perspective. There is a great debate about this issue. If you want to hear the Shentong side you could read The Buddha Within by Lama Shenpen Hookham.

Rangtongpas in Tibetan tradition also use the Buddha Nature concept as a skillful means to liberation however. You could say to a certain extent that the Buddha Nature to a Rangtongpa is a method whereas to a Shentongpa it is the ultimate nature of reality. Thats not exactly correct I suspect but a long time practitioner put it in a nutshell to me that way once (he was from Rangtong perspective btw).

Since the buddha nature is ungraspable and you cannot pin it down it has never come into existence in the first place and it never passes out of existence.

Jeffrey

Another argument, fruit punch, is that if at some level we don't have an unconditional buddha nature. Then we get an impermanent, unreal, unsatisfactory nirvana. Or a nihilistic nirvana.

Shentong is appropriate teaching for those who make error of nihilism. You can mistake it for eternalism.

Rangtong is appropriate teaching for those who make error of eternalism. You can mistake it for nihilism.

Dazzle

the problem you are encountering is that you have learned the idea of emptiness (impermanence, non-self, dukkha) from a Rangtong as opposed to Shentong perspective. There is a great debate about this issue. If you want to hear the Shentong side you could read The Buddha Within by Lama Shenpen Hookham.

Rangtongpas in Tibetan tradition also use the Buddha Nature concept as a skillful means to liberation however. You could say to a certain extent that the Buddha Nature to a Rangtongpa is a method whereas to a Shentongpa it is the ultimate nature of reality. Thats not exactly correct I suspect but a long time practitioner put it in a nutshell to me that way once (he was from Rangtong perspective btw).

Since the buddha nature is ungraspable and you cannot pin it down it has never come into existence in the first place and it never passes out of existence

As someone who has practiced Vajrayana offline for many years, I think suggesting in a Beginners forum for all traditions that someone try to understand Tibetan Buddhist Rangtong and Shentong perspectives is likely to be very confusing.

No offence intended though, Jeffrey.

Personally I think its essential for people to have a good understanding of the Four Noble Truths, Dependent Origination and The Three Characteristics first, before they try to understand the concept of emptiness. To me, emptiness is also best understood though an investigation of impermanence and anatta and then finally through regular meditation practice.

Regarding the term "Buddha nature" the meaning seems to vary in Mahayana, and it isn't a term which is used by Theravadins.


With kind wishes,

Dazzle

Jeffrey

As someone who has practiced Vajrayana offline for many years, I think suggesting in a Beginners forum for all traditions that someone try to understand Tibetan Buddhist Rangtong and Shentong perspectives is likely to be very confusing.

No offence intended though, Jeffrey.

Personally I think its essential for people to have a good understanding of the Four Noble Truths, Dependent Origination and The Three Characteristics first, before they try to understand the concept of emptiness. To me, emptiness is also best understood though an investigation of impermanence and anatta and then finally through regular meditation practice.

The way these (Four Noble Truths, Dependent Origination and The Three Characteristics first, before they try to understand the concept of emptiness) are taught is influenced (in Tibetan Buddhism) by which view on emptiness of the teacher. For example my teacher teaches all of those fundamentals from the perspective of clarity openness and sensitivity and our direct experience as opposed to from a conceptual level...though she does use some concepts. For example emptiness is none other than (our experience of) openness or spaciousness. Luminosity (in terms of ultimate truth rather than relative) is none other than clarity. I don't understand emptiness but I can still get a flavor of the distinction between Rangtong and Shentong. I thought this flavor can be understood by a beginner and Fruit Punch seems to know quite a bit so I am not sure she is a beginner. I thought it would be valuable for her to know of this distinction.

Indeed I don't feel you are the arbiter of what is a beginner teaching and what is not. Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness is written more at a beginner level than the Pali Sutras at least from my experience. I usually have a hard time understanding the Pali Sutras. My teacher says that this is common because we don't truly understand the sutras until we have the experiential understanding that they are based on. The insight.

I will mention that the Buddha Within is a very difficult read. I couldn't manage it when I tried.

Regarding the term "Buddha nature" the meaning seems to vary in Mahayana, and it isn't a term which is used by Theravadins.

Of course the OP asked about Buddha Nature. So I concluded that it was the topic of discussion. And that I could discuss it from the perspective of the tradition that uses the term.

Dazzle

Indeed I don't feel you are the arbiter of what is a beginner teaching and what is not. Progressive Stages of Meditation on emptiness is written more at a beginner level than the Pali Sutras at least from my experience...etc

Neither are you, if you are a beginner yourself, Jeffrey ! I have received many offline teachings and empowerments from some of the teachers you quote, including detailed offline teachings from the late Kalu Rinpoche on The Four Noble Truths, Eightfold Path and Dependent Origination amongst other things - though I'm not suggesting that is a claim to anything special on my part.

Additionally I really don't think one can make a comparison with the suttas if one hasn't actually read them.

Anyway, peace -I'm not seeking conflict.

.

Jeffrey

Federica and co. are the arbiters And I have read (several of) the Pali Sutras and I did have trouble understanding some of them. I used to participate in a study group for over 3 years taught by a Therevadan buddhist and we covered a sutra over a period of weeks depending how long it was.

Dazzle

Jeffrey wrote: »

I have read (several of) the Pali Sutras and I did have trouble understanding some of them. I used to participate in a study group for over 3 years taught by a Therevadan buddhist and we covered a sutra over a period of weeks depending how long it was.

The Anguttara Nikaya can be a good place to start. There's an Anguttara Nikaya Anthology available which just contains very short suttas.

Anyway, time for my lunch, thanks for the chat ... and back to topic!


With kind wishes,

Dazzle

Jeffrey

I am also curious what the OP is asking. 2 possibilities..

1 the OP has heard 'buddha nature' thrown around on the forum but wonders what it is.

In that case presenting the view that Buddha Nature is not true from a Therevadin monks perspective would be appropriate.


2 the OP knows that buddha nature is a Mahayana concept and wants to know what it means within the Mahayana tradition.

In that case obviously (to me) it is not appropriate to say it is not true within the Theravadin view. It would be like if a guy asked what the difference between a lager and ale was and someone told them that they shouldn't drink haha.


Since the OP did not specify this I don't blame anyone for refuting the idea of buddha nature.

Simonthepilgrim

I have a small volume entitled Buddha Nature by Thrangu Rinpoche (Rangjung Yeshe Publications, Kathmandu, 1988. ISBN 962-7341-02-9).

Whilst I have spent many years reading it, much of it remains very difficult to penetrate but I persist because it contains a simple statement that encapsulates my own belief:

It is crucial to acknowledge what we naturally possess. Why? In terms of Dharma, the major obstacles to practice and accomplishments are laziness and discouraging oneself. 'Discouragement' includes putting oneself down, thinking, "I can't practice. People like Milarepa can attain enlightenment, but someone like me has no such capacity. I'll never become enlightened." Instead of discouraging ourselves, we should remember that Buddha Shakyamuni attained enlightenment because he possessed the sugatagarbha. Milarepa also attained complete liberation due to the enlightened essence. Because we have this same buddha nature, we are absolutely identical to them in our ability to attain enlightenment. regardless of whether we are rich or poor, male or female, educated or uneducated, we are capable of practicing the Dharma and attaining liberation. In this respect we are all the same.

I don't know if Audrey or others interested in the Buddhist-Christian dialogue read this thread, or persist after all the doctrinal wrangling, but I would add that, in Christian theological history, the Jansenists understood the concept of 'necessary grace', available to all, empowers practice, the result of free will, which enables grace sufficient to attain the liberation on offer. When combined with the theology of 'indwelling', parallels can be understood. Winstanley's writings suggest something similar, as do the secular beliefs in the value of each individual's vote in a democracy.

TheDoctorDonna

I know that for myself, it is very easy to get caught up in words and concepts and not to practice the Teachings. So I try to keep to the KISS pricipal (Keep it simple Stupid).

Buddha nature is our potentail for groeth that can be unlocked by the correct use of specific practices. In a sense it is like any other ability someone might have that needs training.

Derek Jeter has "Baseball nature" a specific skill set that allows him to be a good athlete. However without years of training that nature would just lie dormant.

The good news for us is that we all have the skill set, or Buddha Nature that we need to grow.

The_Fruit_Punch_Wiza

Jeffrey wrote: »

Another argument, fruit punch, is that if at some level we don't have an unconditional buddha nature. Then we get an impermanent, unreal, unsatisfactory nirvana. Or a nihilistic nirvana.

On the contrary. If you have something that you think exists that is unconditional to existing, it's an "ego soul". If you think that peace ends at Nirvana then you're Nihilistic. Peace is ultimately release from Samsara, and ultimately you don't ever return and are awakened to a state of eternal peace.

Shentong is appropriate teaching for those who make error of nihilism. You can mistake it for eternalism.

Rangtong is appropriate teaching for those who make error of eternalism. You can mistake it for nihilism.

Both are wrong.

Jeffrey

Different views... same samsara. Same nirvana.

You are correct that all views are wrong! But only when grasped to. In themselves there is nothing wrong. That is why nirvana can be here and now.

Invincible_summer

Jeffrey wrote: »

I am also curious what the OP is asking. 2 possibilities..

1 the OP has heard 'buddha nature' thrown around on the forum but wonders what it is.

In that case presenting the view that Buddha Nature is not true from a Therevadin monks perspective would be appropriate.


2 the OP knows that buddha nature is a Mahayana concept and wants to know what it means within the Mahayana tradition.

In that case obviously (to me) it is not appropriate to say it is not true within the Theravadin view. It would be like if a guy asked what the difference between a lager and ale was and someone told them that they shouldn't drink haha.


Since the OP did not specify this I don't blame anyone for refuting the idea of buddha nature.

I know what the concept of Buddha-nature is. I thought my question was fairly clear about what I was asking... if Amida Buddha "coming to us" via nembutsu is equivalent to Buddha-nature being revealed through x practice, then is Buddha-nature something that is attributable to all Buddhas or just Shakyamuni Buddha? For whatever reason, I always assumed it just referred to Shakyamuni Buddha. My question has been answered.

I didn't ask "what is buddha nature?"

Jeffrey

Within the tradition that uses the term buddha nature even a dog has it

The small Parinirvana Sutra says:

All sentient beings have the Essence of the Thus gone One

Also the Sutra of the Great Parinirvana says:

For example, as butter permeates milk, likewise the Essence of the Thus gone One pervades all sentient beings.

And the Ornament of Mahayana Sutra:

Even though suchness is not different for any being,
One is called "Thus gone One" when it is fully purified.
Therefore, all beings are of its essence.

The_Fruit_Punch_Wiza

Jeffrey wrote: »

Different views... same samsara. Same nirvana.

You are correct that all views are wrong! But only when grasped to. In themselves there is nothing wrong. That is why nirvana can be here and now.

One is neither eternal, nor subject to annihilation, because there is no inherent existence one can point to and say it is Buddha nature. It is merely constantly changing realities constantly changing identities. That's the ultimate truth of Anatta. There is no ego soul that can be destroyed, the identity of a person is constantly in a state of change. Watch the current moment right now. By the time you hit that period in the sentence it is already gone and will never happen again. Cherish the moment as it happens and be aware of all things. Believing in potential is okay, but believing all the potentials are the same is an error. A dog and a demon both have to work very hard against their own nature to have this moment you are having right now. cherish it.

Jeffrey

Yes change with no reference point. Without a reference point its hard to call it change. That is exactly the buddha nature.

But what the mahayana is saying is that when grasping ceases qualities such as love emerge. Love is real. Skandas are not.

TheJourney

I think there is a mistake that some people make in regard to buddha nature. I do not have a buddha nature which is separate from anyone else's buddha nature. There simply is buddha nature. Just like here is hearing nature. Just like there is seeing nature. Etc. We all have buddha nature, but don't think of it as a separate soul or anything like that.

Jeffrey

Thats consistent with the text I have read which says the emptiness pervades and is indistinguishible between beings. None is bigger or smaller higher or lower. The author Gampopa is saying that emptiness is the buddha nature. Which is interesting to me.

TheJourney

Emptiness is everything. Everything is emptiness.

The_Fruit_Punch_Wiza

Silliness. What, when, where is emptiness if not completely dependent on everything else. You talk about emptiness as if it is something one has. It is not.

Dazzle

"True Dhamma, no matter what part, topic, level or kind must be one with emptiness, completely void of self. Therefore we must look for emptiness in all things, or as we call them for short, dhammas. To speak in terms of logic:

all things = dhamma
all things = emptiness
dhammas = emptiness

It can be put a number of ways, but the important point to understand is that there is nothing apart from our empty nature. Nothing whatsoever should be grasped at or clung to as being 'I' or 'mine'. So from this it can be clearly seen that emptiness is the nature of things. It is only by ending every kind of delusion that it can be discerned. To see emptiness there must be panna (discernment) that is undeluded and undefiled."

(Emptiness - by Ajahn Buddhadasa)

http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebdha196.htm

Jeffrey

Fruit Punch,

Everyone responds to language differently and some ways of saying it 'do it for you' but not then another person has their own phrase. I mean emptiness is the nature, and it is only a manner of speaking to say 'has'.

In my experience it is frustrating expectation that everyone will view the dharma as you do. Not that you are doing this as I said MY experience and not necessarily yours. I used to get so frustrated. At this point I know everyone is curious about their own experience and learning as they go.

I don't care what you call your experience. In the sense that I wish you well. I only express my own view of course as a discussion rather than trying to teach. That is why I always say X text says this or my teacher says this; my teacher has told me that I shouldn't try to teach people only share my experiences. If I have in some cases ommitted these phrases I am sorry. I have only read and heard things and interpreted them based on my life. I am very encouraged in my practice by the idea of buddha nature.

The_Fruit_Punch_Wiza

Jeffrey wrote: »

I thought this flavor can be understood by a beginner and Fruit Punch seems to know quite a bit so I am not sure she is a beginner. I thought it would be valuable for her to know of this distinction.

I'm Theravadin, therefore I'm saying both of these (rangtong and shentong) are both delusory and that the Buddha described ultimate reality as neither. He said neither eternal nor subject to annihilation.

Indeed I don't feel you are the arbiter of what is a beginner teaching and what is not. Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness is written more at a beginner level than the Pali Sutras at least from my experience.

That's because the teachings of emptiness can be misconstrued and require much more information to rationalize so it is taught early on.

I usually have a hard time understanding the Pali Sutras. My teacher says that this is common because we don't truly understand the sutras until we have the experiential understanding that they are based on. The insight.

The sutras are easy to understand when you don't overthink them.

I will mention that the Buddha Within is a very difficult read. I couldn't manage it when I tried.

That's a weird one, I have never heard of it. There's no Buddha within. Where is it? Is it in the head? Is it in the heart? Is it in the electrons, the energy? If I remove the electrons and energy is the Buddha gone? See this is why I don't think the Buddha Nature doctrine is something that can be helpful to practice. It's directly contrary to Anatta.

Of course the OP asked about Buddha Nature. So I concluded that it was the topic of discussion. And that I could discuss it from the perspective of the tradition that uses the term.

Aye, and also discussing the refutation of such a term.

TheJourney

The_Fruit_Punch_Wizard wrote: »

Silliness. What, when, where is emptiness if not completely dependent on everything else. You talk about emptiness as if it is something one has. It is not.

Who talks about emptiness as if it is something someone has?

And you really make me laugh. You must be so incredibly wise if you feel comfortable to call your fellow buddhist's ideas silliness. It must be nice to know your opinions are better than others.

Jeffrey

I'm Theravadin, therefore I'm saying both of these (rangtong and shentong) are both delusory and that the Buddha described ultimate reality as neither. He said neither eternal nor subject to annihilation.

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset;">These views are rafts... My point was when you misunderstand either one of them you have a tendency towards nihilism on one hand and eternalism on the other. Nagajuruna (sic) refuted both views.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
That's because the teachings of emptiness can be misconstrued and require much more information to rationalize so it is taught early on.

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset;"> Emptiness is like dynamite. It is a powerful skillful means. The cat is out of the bag and students hear about it. That is why teachers teach it. To prevent the misconstruction such as "all is empty therefore meaningless".
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
The sutras are easy to understand when you don't overthink them.

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset;"> Not in my experience.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
That's a weird one, I have never heard of it. There's no Buddha within. Where is it? Is it in the head? Is it in the heart? Is it in the electrons, the energy? If I remove the electrons and energy is the Buddha gone? See this is why I don't think the Buddha Nature doctrine is something that can be helpful to practice. It's directly contrary to Anatta.

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset;">language. You should read the book before passing judgement imo.
</td></tr></tbody></table>

Aye, and also discussing the refutation of such a term.

I didn't say Dazzle or anyone else was innapropriate. And as the OP pointed out I had misunderstood what he was asking! It takes me awhile sometimes

PS sorry to put my response in quotes when I cut pasted you I couldn't delete your quotes of me anyway. And I hate walls of text with 25 layers of nested quotes. :buck:

The_Fruit_Punch_Wiza

Jeffrey wrote: »

Fruit Punch,

Everyone responds to language differently and some ways of saying it 'do it for you' but not then another person has their own phrase.

Oh I know, but as a linguist I am compelled to deconstruct language and explain that some things are just beyond words, and only experienced. To understand the true nature of reality we have to experience it, and without prejudices that we rationalize into it.

I mean emptiness is the nature, and it is only a manner of speaking to say 'has'.

But you see, that is the problem. To think that emptiness itself is a word that can be used to describe reality is to miss the point. Reality is what it is despite what we think about it.

To say "(so and so) is empty of inherent existence" is to say not that it is nothing, but it is to say that without everything else, there is nothing to distiguish it from everything else. So ultimately, we're all different, just like everyone else. We are interdependent and rely on each others differences to claim we exist.

In my experience it is frustrating expectation that everyone will view the dharma as you do. Not that you are doing this as I said MY experience and not necessarily yours. I used to get so frustrated.

Ah, I know what you mean, but see this is the problem, like what was said above, the three faults are compared with a vessel or cup. The first fault is being inattentive, compared with a cup turned upside down that cannot hold what is poured into it. The second fault is being inconsiderate of the contents, compared with a cup with holes in the bottom. The third fault is being distracted by disturbing emotions while receiving the teachings, compared with a cup filled with poison that contaminates anything poured into it. We need to be free of all three faults and generate the pure motivation to attain enlightenment for the welfare of all living beings without exception.

At this point I know everyone is curious about their own experience and learning as they go.

And I intend to try and teach what I can, and learn what I can.

The_Fruit_Punch_Wiza

TheJourney wrote: »

Who talks about emptiness as if it is something someone has?

Everyone who uses the term. One says "I", "they","it" or "you" has/have Buddha nature.

And you really make me laugh. You must be so incredibly wise if you feel comfortable to call your fellow buddhist's ideas silliness.

Silliness is silliness. :crazy:

If a word is used, then someone should at least know what it means. It's like those people who say "All you need is love" and then when asked "what is love?" they say they don't know or that it is indescribable. If that is true, then to say "all you need is love" is a meaningless statement that can mislead people, as can the word "emptiness" or "Buddha nature" in a statement about reality. That's my point. It's rather silly. It's a type of glittering generality that projects all your ideas of reality onto it, so you don't end up seeing it for what it really is which is counter intuitive.

It must be nice to know your opinions are better than others.

Oh it's not better than others', just 2 degrees less silly.

Jeffrey

It is not wrong to point to reality using words. For example "I like toast with jam"... there I have used words to point to reality. "emptiness" is no different.

Differences in use of language is directly related to dependent origination. There is no universal meaning to a word. We all have different experiences and we need to react sensitively to understand another person. For example my teacher had poor experiences with her mother who was 'depressed'. Nonetheless in dealing with depressed students she has to look deeply and understand their experience and try to help them with it.

My teacher feels that if she uses the words openness or spaciousness that her students feel less afraid than if she uses 'emptiness'. As pema chodron says "emptiness as if its a big black hole....oh no not emptiness!!"

TheJourney

Words are necessary. Don't call someone silly for using words. That's rather silly.

The_Fruit_Punch_Wiza

Jeffrey wrote: »

These views are rafts... My point was when you misunderstand either one of them you have a tendency towards nihilism on one hand and eternalism on the other. Nagajuruna (sic) refuted both views.

Aye, so why hold onto a raft that is going no where?

Emptiness is like dynamite. It is a powerful skillful means. The cat is out of the bag and students hear about it. That is why teachers teach it. To prevent the misconstruction such as "all is empty therefore meaningless".

Not that all is empty therefore meaningless, but rather the pages of the book are empty, so we can write whatever we want on the page, but then we forget that it is only ink on the paper in the book.

Not in my experience.

Ah, maybe give it a try again. You should read them before passing judgement imo.

PS sorry to put my response in quotes when I cut pasted you I couldn't delete your quotes of me anyway. And I hate walls of text with 25 layers of nested quotes. :buck:

I know what you mean. It's just easier 'eh?

Jeffrey

Aye, so why hold onto a raft that is going no where?

Don't let go until you reach the shore Unless there are no piranas haha

snip sutras

I mentioned earlier in the thread that I had studied in a weekly study group the Pali Canon with a Therevadin lay person leading. I really enjoyed it but often I didn't get it until it was discussed in class.

I have a friend who is intelligent enough to have been a therapist at one point but who suffered damage to her mind. She cannot even understand the Pali Canon when it is explained. When she went to a retreat at first instead of having her do visapana (and this was a therevadin visappana group) they had her hold a teddy bear and focus on love.

One teacher (lay joe) said that there were 3 types of people. Some need to just put a little varnish on. Some need to sand the wood and then put varnish on. And some are like maple. You have to totally rework the wood and then sand it and put varnish on. The third example refers to when you think you understand everything (but don't really). I historically follow the third example hehe but I am improving.

TheJourney

Even if you have reached the other shore you NEED WORDS to describe it to other people. I can't telepathically communicate to you, therefore I use words. Even the buddha used words. Lots and lots and lots of them. I have a feeling if the buddha lived today you would criticize him for not having experiential knowledge

The_Fruit_Punch_Wiza

Jeffrey wrote: »

It is not wrong to point to reality using words.

Actually it can be, and often is the problem. Our words are based on schema which are based on nested conceptualizations which reinforce use of stereotypes which don't reflect reality. So words are inherently useless when trying to describe a concept which is counter to concepts. Emptiness is the Anti-schema.

For example "I like toast with jam"... there I have used words to point to reality. "emptiness" is no different.

But you're thinking that emptiness can be expressed with words. It cannot. It's also anti-word. Anytime you put a declaration of reality upon it, it is no longer empty.

Differences in use of language is directly related to dependent origination. There is no universal meaning to a word. We all have different experiences and we need to react sensitively to understand another person.

QED. That's my point.

For example my teacher had poor experiences with her mother who was 'depressed'. Nonetheless in dealing with depressed students she has to look deeply and understand their experience and try to help them with it.

But her experience with depression is different from others, and one of the mistakes counselors can make is to make a generalized statement about a patient. Counselors have to see each patients as a unique case so as to help the patient recover.

Jeffrey

But you're thinking that emptiness can be expressed with words. It cannot. It's also anti-word. Anytime you put a declaration of reality upon it, it is no longer empty.

I don't agree. As in my sig words are alive for brief periods. Then they die don't they?

The_Fruit_Punch_Wiza

TheJourney wrote: »

Even if you have reached the other shore you NEED WORDS to describe it to other people.

Actually most of the time, the Buddha did not speak :rolleyes: According to the descriptions of sectarian tenets by Vasumitra, Bhavaviveka and Vinitadeva, the main Mahāsānghika theses, apparently also held in common by all the Mahāsānghika sub-groups, concerning the nature of Buddhas were:
Buddhas are supramundane.
Buddhas are devoid of all impurities (anāsrava) and mundane qualities.
Buddhas preach the Dharma with every verbal utterance they make.
Buddhas can express all elements of the Dharma by uttering a single sound.
The material body (rūpakāya) of Buddhas is unlimited (anatman)
The supernatural powers (prabhāva) of Buddhas are unlimited.
The longevity of Buddhas is unlimited.
In order to convert beings and to generate pure faith within them, Buddhas have no thought of satiation
Buddhas neither sleep nor dream
Buddhas reply to questions without the need for reflection.
Buddhas never actually utter any words since they abide in eternal samādhi or meditative concentration, but beings perceive words to have been uttered.
Buddhas understand all things with one momentary thought.
Buddhas know all things because insight or prajñā is conjoined to that one momentary thought.
The knowledge of cessation and of non-arising in the future are sustained continuously in Buddhas until they enter parinirvāna.
There are Buddhas dwelling in all directions of the compass.

I can't telepathically communicate to you, therefore I use words.

Which is all fine and well, but choose your words wisely otherwise like right now, they can be misconstrued or we end up projecting our own feelings and thoughts onto them.

Even the buddha used words. Lots and lots and lots of them.

He hardly ever spoke, nor did he need to.

I have a feeling if the buddha lived today you would criticize him for not having experiential knowledge

Not at all. If the Buddha lived today, I'd become his disciple and embrace what he taught, not what I think he taught.

I would also not proclaim myself a teacher or demand to become one.