Karma - in my perception

zombiegirl

As a Theravadin I do not ascribe to 'Buddha Nature', per se. Theravadans don't. If we have 'Buddha nature' it must follow that we have 'Mara nature' in equal proportions, to a greater or lesser extent.
Mahayana seems to overlook this factor.

really? i thought it went without saying that we have "mara nature" of a sort. i mean, it's not called that, it's not focused on... but it's still there. my idea of buddha nature as it was explained to me is best described as the story of the lotus, a pure flower growing from muck and dirt, rising above it all. the flower is the buddha nature blossoming, the muck and dirt could be called mara nature, i suppose. and yet, without the muck and dirt, the lotus would never blossom. unless i'm misunderstanding things, it seems to me that the symbolism is somewhat the same, just described differently with emphasis in different places.

federica

As I explained, Mara nature, while equally existent is never referred to specifically. Reference might be made in flowery terms (excuse the pun, please) to a lotus arising from the mud, but it's not actually pointed out that this is your defiled samsaric 'Mara Nature' tendency.
so it does indeed go without saying. It's never alluded to or mentioned, AFAIK.

Theravada does not view a person as having Buddha Nature and Mara nature at all.
While a person is in samsara, they are neither one or the other. They are merely perpetuating the cycle of Suffering.
A person with "Buddha Nature" is enlightened.
You can't have a 'bit of you' being Buddha Nature. That's a bit like being 'slightly pregnant'.

TheJourney

Thereisonlybuddhanaturelolz.

Joshua

I always thought of Buddha Nature as the non-conceptual truth. Beyond the human perception of the apparent reality we experience through our senses and the resulting aggregates. The non-dual convergence of mind and matter from which all types of beings emerge. The proverbial ocean whence the waves that we are came. Mara Nature might be a by-product of the samsaric engine, but in absolute reality, it does not exist like Buddha Nature. Therefore Buddha Nature takes precedence over "Mara Nature". I also feel like Mara Nature suggests Zoroastrian-esque overtones of the duality between good and evil, whereas Mara Nature is but a cog on the gear of humanity being but a facet of the samsaric engine being driven by ignorance of Buddha Nature.

But I'm not Mahayanist. And I have a habit of presuppositions. Please correct me if my logic is wrecked.

CSEe

Hi federica , I belief there are countless way to learn Buddism if reading is one of the trillion by calculation is nothing....

Name me five other ways to learn about Buddhism,. without mentioning reading or being taught by monks. I'm not asking for a trillion, just 5.

sorry In buddha there are no teacher even Siddharta also not our teacher

I'm sorry CSEe, now you're just being ridiculous. we have to start somewhere!
Of course the Buddha is our teacher, he was the originator of spreading the Dhamma! You cannot come onto a Buddhist website and state that the Buddha is not our teacher! How would we discuss and learn about Buddhism without him? you might as well call it 'CSEeism'... because what you are proposing is both singularly individual - and ludicrous.

....we all just sharing....In Buddha I never think anyone including myself or even siddharta is teacher....

well you'd better think again.
The suttas, his teachings and his directive example are what we follow.

in school we have teacher but as awareness moves higher and higher our teacher can also become our student ....a kindergarden teacher at one point teach a student but after 20 years the student teach in university.....so awareness grows..

This is completely different. A kindergarten teacher is qualified to teach at kindergarten level only. A University lecturer is qualified to teach at University level only. They have fixed duties within certain limitations.
The Buddha was a teacher who taught his followers the perennial and universal Truth of Suffering, and the cessation of Suffering. his teachings span the life of a person, so the comparison you are making is pointless.

I belief and want to belief that Siddharta did ask us to explore even his own teaching....

Really? And how do you propose to do that, if you refuse to read his teachings, or what other Buddhist teachers have written?

As for hundreds of sources you find and you are confident of the information of common sources...maybe that is your limitation to explore or grow to higher awareness...

if one person tells you something, and 999 other people tell you the opposite, then the 999 people are more likely to be correct. When you find many sources saying the same thing, then you can reliably begin to see that perhaps they are accurate. This is how you find what is accurate and what is not. You test the words for yourself, by living the experiences that following the words brings to you. If you follow a teaching and it is an incorrect teaching, more confusion will follow.
I perceive you are very confused. if you refuse to read and research, your knowledge is very limited, there is much ignorance and yolu are entirely mistaken.

There was one time ,......people from the whole world believe the world is flat but only a few so call " crazy people" belief the world is oval shape....and now who will be considered crazy?

And how do you know the world is round, and that it is a mistake to think it is flat? Where did you learn this? And how?

I find peace in Buddha....yes indeed very important dor me but to follow Siddharta blindly is not even his wish......

Nobody is asking you to follow blindly. But what we are saying is that following the method you use, is insufficient, misguided and leads to many mistakes.
you have to study.
Otherwise, we are all just wasting our time with you.

Hi Federica .....many for me to explain pls remind me if i miss anything ok....I want to explain all.
5 way to learn Buddha? Buddha is a pure spirit of selfless and without any ill or negetive feeling or so call pollutant .
lets start by what I want to learn say 10 minuts before I writing this .
1. Is now 7.30am , 10 minuts ago my daughter wakes up preparing for school and she smile at me , kiss me and wishes me " good morning dad . I love you " ....thats good wishes is Buddha .
2. My wife woke up....later then me and she asked me " dear good morning , how is your mother this morning....how is her suger level"....Thats buddha...her sincere care towards a sick old lady.
3. My daughter is now feeding my koi fish......with so much care...thats Buddha...sharing love and food.....
4. My fish...with her beutifull give a sense of pleasure and happiness to my daughter thats is Buddha......giving happiness to others.
5.My computer working perfectly this morning....thats also Buddha spirits from a non-living perspective .........and I not even dress up.`
you see federica...maybe you are learning Siddharta not Buddha .Your " teacher" I belief he said " Lets my teaching be your Master"..remember?
Second question .
Siddharta is founder of Buddha....I belief is also his wish that we continue explore Buddha in our own awareness and he never ask you to stop. if a kindergarden teacher ask you to stop further learning...I think you will not get this far right? We have to continue learn...just like technology or science ok. dont stop ...but move on....

Third & No 4 question
I think I had answered .
No 5
I Never read any Buddha so call teaching from any so call Master but I like to gossip ....just like I want to know about Micheal Jackson life ok....I want to gossip about Siddharta as a human and choose what I want to know his basic awareness .
No 6
I never been to Japan.....but there are millions of info on this culture/country call Japan.....since it is no harm , not that important to me yes I want to belief in this world there is a country named " Japan "....but Buddha is in mind / in spirit , we have option , we have different perception , we have civil law , religion , culture,belief so since this matter is very important to me...well I will try to use my own awareness to make my judgement so that I will not regret it....ok...
No 7
Pls refer to 6...
No 8...I had answered

Thks
Ee

zombiegirl

As I explained, Mara nature, while equally existent is never referred to specifically. Reference might be made in flowery terms (excuse the pun, please) to a lotus arising from the mud, but it's not actually pointed out that this is your defiled samsaric 'Mara Nature' tendency.
so it does indeed go without saying. It's never alluded to or mentioned, AFAIK.

Theravada does not view a person as having Buddha Nature and Mara nature at all.
While a person is in samsara, they are neither one or the other. They are merely perpetuating the cycle of Suffering.
A person with "Buddha Nature" is enlightened.
You can't have a 'bit of you' being Buddha Nature. That's a bit like being 'slightly pregnant'.

i appreciate the explanations as i know very little of the theravada tradition. to explain my thought processes, i learned about mara through my old sangha and what i stated above was the conclusion i drew based upon how it was explained to me. i was told that mara was not to be taken literally but actually represents the hindrances to our practices which more often than not, are actually ourselves. but if you take "mara" out of the equation altogether, i was also taught via the concept of the ten worlds that all states from buddha nature to hell(and the other nine states) exist simultaneously within us. i think that this would be the counterpart to "buddha nature" so, at least within the nichiren tradition, they do account for the downside to the up.

federica

Hi Federica .....many for me to explain pls remind me if i miss anything ok....I want to explain all.
(. . .)

Thks
Ee

Yeah, ok, thanks.

:whatever:

Dazzle

"..the Buddha never advocated attributing an innate nature of any kind to the mind — good, bad, or Buddha. The idea of innate natures slipped into the Buddhist tradition in later centuries, when the principle of freedom was forgotten."

from "Freedom from Buddha Nature" by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

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

.

federica

Right.
As I was saying.....

Thanks Dazzle!

Joshua

My logic certainly was wrecked says Thanissaro:

This is why the Buddha said that the mind is luminous, stained with defilements that come and go. Taken out of context, this statement might be construed as implying that the mind is inherently awakened. But in context the Buddha is simply saying that the mind, once stained, is not permanently stained. When the conditions for the stains are gone, the mind becomes luminous again. But this luminosity is not an awakened nature. As the Buddha states, this luminous mind can be developed. In the scheme of the four noble truths, if something is to be developed it's not the goal; it's part of the path to the goal. After this luminosity has been developed in the advanced stages of concentration, it's abandoned once it has completed its work in helping to pierce through ignorance.

Clever.

And thank you as well, Dazzle.

TheJourney

Yea cuz if the theravadians don't believe the buddha said something and the mahayana's do, then the theravadians must be right, right??? lolz

federica

Don't be antagonistic.
It is merely an illustration and a direct reference to what was being said. Given that it wasn't directed at you or for your benefit, why butt in?

Joshua

I believe Theravadins form conclusions based on something not dissimilar to Occam's razor (1; 2). Metaphysical speculations are nothing but abductive guesswork that are too easy to fall prey to in light of quantum physics, a folly I fall victim to every hour on the hour. I'm fast beginning to admire these Theravadins; it takes tremendous courage to admit that the answer is unknown. Does it never appear that the line between mysticism and Mahayana is hardly distinguishable?

Roger

In Buddha i want to belief that all of us evolved & purified ourself towards Buddha the pure energy .

There are no right or wrong , no true or false in Buddha but all depand on self awareness and wisdom .

So if we act bad to others this is because we not not hv the wisdom or awareness of our own Buddha so one day , weather in this world or in afterlife , we will regret of our bad action .....

Our regret is karma .

We will feel so-so hurt , so-so disappointed with our ownself and will rectify our own action .

Karma to me is our regret of our own act , is our teacher for higher wisdom .

comment are very welcome .

I don't understand what you are saying.

Some of it seems incorrect compared to the Buddhism I learned about. E.g. there IS right and wrong in Buddhism.

I have to READ INTO what it is I THINK you are saying.

That's my comment.

:-/

TheJourney

Mahayana requires a lot of thought. It is not about memorizing sutras at all. In order to truly understand mahayana you must have put much thought into the world and trying to figure out. IN MY OPINION(now now, i'm not saying any one way is better, or that anyone has to change their minds. I'm just expressing myself.), theravadians understood the initial message of the buddha that he was talking about. And then they stopped. They said "the buddha said this, therefore it is true. This is the truth. There is no need to think any further, because we already have the buddha's perfect truth." Others, however, kept thinking. They said, "Well, if this is true, then this MUST be true as well." They didn't stop thinking just because someone said that what he was saying was true. This leads to the mahayana. It is the next logical step after the buddha's original teachings in the pali canon. That being said, much truth is in the theravada and I don't care what you believe anyways. So, I wish you all the best of luck on your own path.

Joshua

@TheJourney, let me caution you against convictions in abductive reasoning. I'm not saying you're wrong, but what if you're not right? Those convictions aren't paramount toward liberation as I see it. But of course, I'm quite as new as you are, so please no hostilities. Let's be bodhi-buddies in our spiritual journeys. Just remember to always get both sides of the story. I already regret the better portion of all the posts I've made on these forums, for my mistakes were twofold: I made far too many precocious assumptions and now I've psychologically elevated myself as if I be some sort of Buddhist spokesman or some sort of quasi-authority when, in fact, I know quite little. It's a sad truth, but I am very, very young and so let's enjoy these truth-seeking dialectics C.

And it bogs you down. If you assume that the mind is basically bad, you won't feel capable of following the path, and will tend to look for outside help to do the work for you. 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?

@CSEe
Perhaps this quote from my beloved Berzin will lend you service:

We need to be openminded about all of this. What we try to do in learning the Dharma is to remove the three faults of a vase. If a vase has a hole in the bottom, whatever we pour in, goes out. We don’t remember it. The second is that if a vase is upside down, it is closed, so nothing goes in. This is like immediately saying "No!" to anything we hear. The third is that if a vase is dirty, then whatever we pour into it gets dirty. If we have all sorts of preconceptions, then we project them onto what we hear. We don’t really listen. Please try not to reject a presentation before listening to it. Listen to the whole system. Try to understand it. Don’t just reject every difficult point.

federica

CSEe is no longer on the forum.

He's gone elsewhere to try to improve his English. And clarify his PoV.
Not sure where. Only - not here.

Roger

I could not understand what he was saying.