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.
What is Buddha nature?
?
0
Comments
Have I mentioned this article before? I'd be interested in reading people's views after they've read it.
Freedom from Buddha Nature -
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/freedomfrombuddhanature.html
The subject has arisen before.
You'll get glowing descriptions from those who ascribe to it, and generally good-natured dismissals from those who don't.
And wisdom too. Love is wise.
No Innate Nature
This is why 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.
Access to insight is a Theravada reference site (for want of a far better description). if you learnt about 'Buddha Nature' in Theravada, I'd be very surprised.
Please supply a reference. Thanks.
Buddha nature is emptiness of any characteristic. Thats what it is. From having no (inherent/fixed/solid) characteristic all characteristics are born.
Love is the space of the heart to work with any situation.
"I wish there were somebody not caught up in words so I could have a word with him"
- Lao Tzu (roughly)
the uh..... utter flexibility of the mind. the unconscious intuitive knowledge that resides deep in the Sub-cnscious Mind Pool in your Brain, of the deep interconnectedness of evrything. That love yearning hidden deep in your heart of hearts. it's no waxy sticky residue glooping in your butt hole............ no waxy gloop in your butt hole.
You know, like when you are having a good acid trip, and you're all very feeling like you are one with the universe, and can feel its braids......... that is sort of like buddha nature being illumined to the mind's Eye, though a maybe very distorted of course because it's an acid trip.....
SIMPLY PUT It 's our human potetnial to harness the mind in "this very moment" and be as "an awakened one" ( also known as .... a buddh) which, through dedicated and persistent practice, coalesces into a continuous awareness and use of your Radiantly Illuminating Death-Defying Sweet Natured Mind of the Everpresent Buddha Energy Love Flow Mindocean Fruity Pebble Diarrhea Stink Carnival Onion Love Train Buddha Tao!!!!!!! Forever and ever and ever and ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! or until all things evaporate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! permeating and readiating!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! till the end of this brain life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! down the hole of the universe and into all sentient beings mouths and ears and butts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE END!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
mAY ALL sentient BEiNgS BE........ well-read?
If someone is not using your favorite brand of spaghetti sauce in their lasagna bake nobody feels behooved to correct them and show them the light. Or at least it is a much more easy going interaction.
Also there is always suffering in samsara. When we ate mom's lasagna as a kid we complained because it had onions. Now we don't like any lasagna because it doesn't taste like moms.
I don't.
"Some obscure Mahayana text".... perhaps a Mahayana practitioner here could point us in the right direction....?
Given that the Buddha died about 500 years BEFORE Mahayana as a Tradition, emerged, I fail to see how he could have said anything of the kind "just before he died"....
You Are Making This All Up. Buddhists don't pray, they practice understanding suffering and bringing about the cessation of suffering.
if you were a Theravada Monk, I'd love to know what happened during your time in the monastery, because it did nothing to improve your knowledge, at all....
There is clearly a fundamental difference of opinion between some Theravadins and Mahayanists on the fundamental nature of life.
Its (citing long sutras and links as participation) like when someone says "that reminds me of my uncle larry" and gives some long winded crap story that they think you can relate to.
At the same time I understand that Jon was stupidly playing with fire contradicting a mod and saying that you were wrong about buddha nature with vague articulation. I think what he meant to say was that he had personally had an experience studying with a therevada person and he got the idea that the person or persons had expressed to them that all people could become enlightened. And he equated this with a word he had heard 'buddha nature'.
prayer is just a word and it doesn't mean the particular of catholic upraising of one person. To jon prayer might have other connotations. Prayers are also good wishes and intentions. Metta.
Anyways I don't agree that it is a rule of the forum that when we talk about anything in the forum about therevada that we mention a sutra. In this aspect I am confused about your role as a participant and moderator. Lincoln can correct me if I am wrong.
You are very positive for the forum in many ways Federica, but I get frustrated sometimes and this is a case in point. Not that I am saying Jon is 'right' or 'violated' or whatever.
I don't really care too much but I would be pissed if Dorje said to me everytime I said something to cite a mahayana scripture backing it up.
And incidentally I think Jon is an idiot for telling someone to take psychiatric meds. I know you are joking but its rather insensitive.
Fresh Dharma
The teachings are an individual personal experience right down to the present holder of the lineage. They have the quality of warm, fresh baked bread; the bread is still warm and hot and fresh. Each baker must apply the general knowledge of how to make bread to his particular dough and oven. Then he must personally experience the freshness fo the bread and must cut it fresh and eat it warm. It is a very learning process. There is no deception in terms of viewing the teachings as collecting knowledge. We must work with our own individual experiences. When we become confused, we cannot turn back to our collection of knowledge and try to find confirmation or consolation: "the teacher and the whole teaching are on my side." The spiritual path does not go that way. It is a lonely individual path.
We are all learning
The clue is in the "Former Monk" bit.... 'Studying with a theravada person' is a bit different to having been a monk. Then perhaps he should stop mixing random Christian references with Buddhism, because he's just confusing the issue. It is customary everywhere that if somebody makes specific reference to a particular source of information, they give a credible link or reference to that source. It happens on most forums. If you go to dhamma wheel, for example, to not do so is frowned upon. It even contravenes guidelines. It's just good manners.
Like the buddha said, "let your words be firm and grounded, and make your verity beyond question. When you speak in the market place, let all who hear not doubt your words, but evidence the writings of the teacher."
I am a member, I am a moderator, and I can see the dividing line. I don't abuse my position, and as such, I don't have a problem with my participation. If anyone else does, it's their problem. I do suggest they voice their concerns to Lincoln, by all means.
so what are you saying?
I don't follow.... Any sound reason why you feel things shouldn't be sourced? You and me both....
I didn't hear him claim that. If his handle was satan666 I wouldn't conclude he was the devil. There are plenty of wack jobs on this forum. There wouldn't be anyone left haha.
"Then perhaps he should stop mixing random Christian references with Buddhism, because he's just confusing the issue."
So is Simon excluded from this because he has a zillion posts. Or just is this the undesirable bouncer system and Simon was more intelligent?
"if you go to dhamma wheel"
My confusion was whether its Lincoln's policy to require scripture and if this will be consistently applied on the forum. I can understand if it is just your desire to have things backed up but I think the forum would be insane if every yo yo (or otherwise) who says something gets asked to post scripture.
I agree if he says it says X in the dhammapada and your like nuh uh. Then it is reasonable to ask him what it says in the scripture. But thats not a forum policy its just a question and it can not be a big deal even. I am responding to criticism for saying the therevada he had encountered directed that all could be enlightened.
Again if its an AB conversation I don't care. But I do had a confusion is if it was your desires or a rule of the forum.
"Any sound reason why you feel things shouldn't be sourced?"
John wasn't refering to his experiences with scriptures. He was refering to his experience with 'Therevada'. He didn't explain what that meant to him. You just assumed he was some liar pretending to be a monk. Maybe he is? I have no idea.
"so what are you saying?
I don't follow...."
Trying to say that I like and support you but I feel sad if John is run out of town because of unreasonable expectations. Perhaps later on I will wish he were gone, butg in general I like interesting quirky people, just not people who cause too much problem. Just enough hehe.
"dorje, i told you dorje i didnt renounce any vow i quit being a monk early because i was starving after 12pm, and it was too hard for me, theres no sin in quitting being a monk in Theravada, in fact your considered a Bhikku for life kinda like a monk that doesnt wear robes and can get married, and are still venerated as religious leaders, but not here on this forum i guess"
From this thread....
It's not a question of intelligence, it's a question of reliable knowledge. Simon - as well as anyone well versed in Christian doctrine - is able to cite sources for his comments.
Compare his comments to fmj's... Not at all, why should it? Have you been to Dhamma wheel? No sign of 'insane' there.... THis forum has no solid rules and regulations. This forum requires you behave the way you would do in any mixed company and act in a polite courteous manner. if you had someone in your circle of friends making wild claims about what says what where, you'd either want proof, or just take their comments with a pinch of salt. They'd pretty soon garner a dubious reputation - wouldn't they? It's the same here. if people wish to discuss Buddhist principles and make claims about what the scriptures say - they need to be able to back it up. It's not an unreasonable request, is it? He has made other claims elsewhere as to what the Buddha states and what the teachings propose. Yet he has never been able to underpin his comments with any credible text. I would recommend you don't go by this thread alone.... And how do we gauge the difference between "quirky" and "problematic"...?
We have plenty of quirky here,.
And we have had our fair share of 'problematic' too.
John hasn't been 'run out of town'. Yet.
he's bordering on the insulting, and has repeatedly been prevaricative, evasive, projective and dismissive.
let me know when you think this is problematic in a member who claims to have been an ordained Theravada Monk, but is incapable or unwilling to back anything he says, up, and gleefully mixes some form of Christian doctrine as a bit of a clouding issue.
"Not at all, why should it? Have you been to Dhamma wheel? No sign of 'insane' there...."
Well the point was not whether all forums should be like dhamma wheel. http://www.zenguide.com/forum/ Is another flavor of a buddhist forum and it is actually a nice forum in my opinion. It is arbitrary to say a buddhist forum 'should' post scripture.
"It's not a question of intelligence, it's a question of reliable knowledge. Simon - as well as anyone well versed in Christian doctrine - is able to cite sources for his comments.
Compare his comments to fmj's..."
Well it takes special abilities to study scriptures. My friend who had been attacked and almost killed went to a meditation retreat and had a lot of difficulty and they asked her to hold a teddy bear and think of metta (maybe not every day of course) instead of work with the meditation instruction at first. We work with what we have and if we are delusional or unable to read or unwilling we work with what we can do. I respect your judgement and I agree he sticks out like a sore thumb saying he is a monk and so forth. A lot of imho non-buddhist ideas get portrayed as buddhism on the forum occasionally and I think the difference is that they don't claim to represent a tradition or be an actual monk. My teacher expressedly instructed us not to say we are teaching the dharma, but rather "I read" "I heard" "I think"
Maybe he is delusional. Maybe he is toying and trolling. Maybe this meets some need in him. Maybe he was a monk with limited understanding. I realize some order has to be kept and I am glad that you haven't made up your mind yet. I wouldn't be able to do your job so I am thankful for this forum that somebody does it!
"if people wish to discuss Buddhist principles and make claims about what the scriptures say - they need to be able to back it up. It's not an unreasonable request, is it?"
I agree if it is the case that they are discussing scriptures. But you can learn principles from a popular book, a teacher, a friend, a forum. Again I think he sticks out because he said something represent a tradition and is a monk.
But rememember that what one person self identifies as 'buddhism' might be different from another. Within traditions and within capacities of understaniding. I have read a bit but my teachers dharma talks are like two hours long. I have made it through a handful of them but I learned something at least. I studied in an online Pali Canon and I enjoyed it and learned things but I don't have the kind of mind to remember them. Maybe because they didn't catch fire with me. I have a book of paragraphs 365 from a dharma teacher and I remember them probably because they are only a paragraph long and concise powerful to me.
Based on my experiences I can make claims about buddhist principles regardless of whether I can back them up with scripture. My whole experience of buddhism was not relayed to me through scripture. That in itself is interesting. Do I feel that I have not studied buddhism? No I do what I can. On the other hand do I feel special because I study with a lineage tradition Lama? Well sometimes but it doesn't do me any good when I am doubting and feeling horrible. At that time only what I can do atwork with at theat moment matters.