Buddha-nature

[conebeckham]

No, because choosing and consciousness are conditioned. Simply spontaneously observe the crazy idea that you are already a Tathagatha, without relying on anything, and that itself is an enlightened observation... Seeing that you don't choose to be a Buddha (because choosing is conditioned, Buddha is not), but rather, you couldn't possibly choose to be anything else. Whatever it is you might choose to be is itself an expression of freedom -- perhaps an illusion -- which only covers the underlying truth.

How is observing the crazy idea that you are already a Tathagata any different than thinking of oneself as Buddha, or "choosing to think of oneself as Buddha?"

Observing an idea is conditioned, dualistic, is it not?

[5heaps]

"Not thinking you are anything" (the cessation of mental formations fueling birth) is Buddhahood.

not in buddhism. the root fueling birth is ignorance, not mental formations.

this so-called "not think anything" which might seem subtle for a desire realm mind is not at all subtle unless it either a) becomes a form realm mind or b) actual ignorance is overcome through the occurrence of insight.

[Individual]

Individual.
In a dream where things are without substance, without reality, false and fabricated, based on misconception, can we still suffer? Whether or not things have substance, we suffer, and that suffering has causes, causes that are under our control.

Saying that suffering and it's causes are something to disregard because they are based on the fabricated is insanity, total disregard for the reality of things.

You're right and that's not what I've said at all.

No, because choosing and consciousness are conditioned. Simply spontaneously observe the crazy idea that you are already a Tathagatha, without relying on anything, and that itself is an enlightened observation... Seeing that you don't choose to be a Buddha (because choosing is conditioned, Buddha is not), but rather, you couldn't possibly choose to be anything else. Whatever it is you might choose to be is itself an expression of freedom -- perhaps an illusion -- which only covers the underlying truth.

How is observing the crazy idea that you are already a Tathagata any different than thinking of oneself as Buddha, or "choosing to think of oneself as Buddha?"

Observing an idea is conditioned, dualistic, is it not?

Observing it from the self, observing it as, "That idea which I have observed," is dualistic. But this is not the only kind of observation of an idea that can be made.

"Not thinking you are anything" (the cessation of mental formations fueling birth) is Buddhahood.

not in buddhism. the root fueling birth is ignorance, not mental formations.

this so-called "not think anything" which might seem subtle for a desire realm mind is not at all subtle unless it either a) becomes a form realm mind or b) actual ignorance is overcome through the occurrence of insight.

Ignorance and mental formations are a part of the cycle; not "first causes" or "roots".

When I said, "not think anything," I meant: not thinking anything, while still allowing thoughts to arise and be used when necessary, without clinging to not-thinking, without clinging to the thoughts that arise, without being opposed to the effort that needs to be undertaken to make thoughts arise, and without clinging to thoughts once they have arisen. In this manner of thinking (and not-thinking!), there are no interdependent mental formations or ignorance, because nothing is added or removed other than what needs to be.

[spiritnoname]

Pff, as if I read carefully anything I don't write myself.

What about what I wrote Individual! What about me!

[conebeckham]

Observing it from the self, observing it as, "That idea which I have observed," is dualistic. But this is not the only kind of observation of an idea that can be made.

Care to elaborate on that further?

With regard to your elaborations regarding thoughts, their arising, the cause of their arising, and "the effort that needs to be undertaken for thoughts to arise", I will comment, based on Third Karmapa, Rangjung Dorje's Treatise on Buddha Nature:

(21) Phenomena are exlplained to be
(22) Samsara and Nirvana appearing as duality.
(23) This is named "the ground of the latencies of ignorance."
(24) The movements of mental events-correct and incorrect thoughts-
(25) Are the cause of generation;


In other words, thoughts, in general, whether "correct" or "incorrect," are not wisdom, per se.
I'm going to quote from Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche's commentary--the book is titled On Buddha Essence , published by Shambhala in 2006--incidentally, I highly recommend this fairly slim volume, along with all of Rinpoche's publications--on page 34:
"..the nature of thoughts is contrary to the true nature, and therefore we cannot directly realize dharmata. So the subtle aspect of thoughts is the appearance of dualism, which develops and becomes more obvious and stronger. First, there is the mere dualistic appearance; when this becomes stronger, the sensory consciousnesses ...appear."

By contrast, Buddhas do not have thought, and do not make effort.

[5heaps]

Ignorance and mental formations are a part of the cycle; not "first causes" or "roots".

when talking about the cessation of a thing, the overwhelmingly significant thing is the root. if mental formations are not the root then if you pull out mental formations you will still not have brought about a cessation.

In this manner of thinking (and not-thinking!), there are no interdependent mental formations or ignorance, because nothing is added or removed other than what needs to be.

yes, but there is great confusion on what exactly "needs to be there" or not. for example some people thought that mere shamata was nirvana itself because there was no activity more or less than what "needs to be there". and they had a good proof, the bliss of mental and physical pliancy and the fruits of those pliancies. no buddhist would accept this though, thus there are utterly detailed treatises for the purpose of overcoming wrong concpetion

[conebeckham]

From the same volume, on p. 124:
"On the paths of accumulation and application, we are not actually seeing the true nature of phenomena, dharmata; rather, it's something that we are creating with our mind in our meditation.....On the path of seeing we acheive the first bodhisattva level and realize the true nature directly. (p 125) But seeing the true nature directly doesn't mean that we become a buddha immediately. Because of our habitual patterns....just seeing the true nature once is not going to bring complete liberation. Rather, we need to follow the fourth path, the path of meditation, in which we continually meditate on the true nature."

So, the "take-away from all this is--if you're "thinking" about it, it's not a direct experience, it's just further continuation of generation....one needs direct, nonconceptual experience, and one then needs to train, repeatedly.

This is quite a bit different than saying "we are all Tathagatas" and it's merely a conscious decision. It's far, far more subtle than that.

[Individual]

Pff, as if I read carefully anything I don't write myself.

What about what I wrote Individual! What about me!

Care to elaborate on that further?

No.

But I will admit humbly that this is not something I have fully understood or realized; it is just something I know somewhat that is incredibly useful.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

As I understand it, Buddha Nature simply means that that which is Buddha is not to be found outside.

Being a Buddha is no more than what we are, in fact it's a lot less... but less what? Less ignorance, less greed and less aversion.

When the defilements are eradicated, what remains is Buddha.

I'm happy to be corrected if that's wrong.

Metta,
Retro.

[ground]

When the defilements are eradicated, what remains is Buddha.

I'm happy to be corrected if that's wrong.

Well "Buddha" ist just a word and so depending on context a variety of meanings can be assigned. However - at least - in Mahayana "Buddha" has a different connotation. It is not just eradication of defilements. "Eradication of defilements" applies to both, an 8th stage Bodhisattva and an Arhat, but [a] "Buddha" is beyond that stage.

"Buddha nature" again has a connotation that is different from "Buddha"

Kind regards

[Individual]

I'm sorry, Tmingyur, but I didn't understand you.

Could you repeat that all in Tibetan?

[Sherab]

Hi Retro,

I have no answer but I have a question for you.

If buddhahood is unconditioned, can the removal of conditioned things/phenomena mean that the leftover is the unconditioned?

Greetings,

As I understand it, Buddha Nature simply means that that which is Buddha is not to be found outside.

Being a Buddha is no more than what we are, in fact it's a lot less... but less what? Less ignorance, less greed and less aversion.

When the defilements are eradicated, what remains is Buddha.

I'm happy to be corrected if that's wrong.

Metta,
Retro.

[Jechan]

I don’t know what Buddha nature “is”, but here’s a few of my thoughts on Buddha Nature.

All living beings have inherent Buddha nature, but due to deflilements and karmic afflictions this Buddha nature has been diluted and clouded over the countless re-births in Samsara.

The Saha world in this last Dharma ending age makes it very difficult to understand Buddha nature and to practice Buddhism in general. Buddha Shakyamuni predicted this would happen; so the various Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, Saints, even laymen and women devised ways to practice the Buddhadharma that would suit people of this age and help them uncover their intrinsic Buddha nature that was lost over the eons.

Every time we practice our Buddhadharma, do a compassionate act, sympathise with other suffering beings, hold the precepts and the 6 Paramitas or whatever practices you do that are in line with the Buddhadharma, we are manifesting our Buddha nature (even briefly).

That’s just my limited understanding.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Sherab,

I have no answer but I have a question for you.

If buddhahood is unconditioned, can the removal of conditioned things/phenomena mean that the leftover is the unconditioned?

I have an answer, but I don't promise it's correct, nor that it's representative of Mahayana thought.

The answer is yes.

Metta,
Retro.

[catmoon]

See if you remove the conditioned, all that remains is the unconditioned - or nothing.

The logical problem is that there is no guarantee that the unconditioned is present wherever the conditioned is found. Might be interesting to tackle that.

[ground]

There is nothing that is not conditioned. But there are lots of conditioned fantasies about "unconditioned" or "absolute"


Kind regards

[Individual]

Greetings Sherab,

I have no answer but I have a question for you.

If buddhahood is unconditioned, can the removal of conditioned things/phenomena mean that the leftover is the unconditioned?

I have an answer, but I don't promise it's correct, nor that it's representative of Mahayana thought.

The answer is yes.

Metta,
Retro.

For once, Retrofuturist, you're mistaken.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Your question should not be phrased in this way: Where do these four great elements — the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind property — cease without remainder? Instead, it should be phrased like this:


Where do water, earth, fire, & wind
have no footing?

It's not "what's left over." That is like the bewildered delusion, "My self which I had previously no longer exists?"

Instead it's already here, right now. It is not the cessation of dhammas, but the clear perception of them to see what is genuine and what is illusory, what fits and what doesn't, what's true and false, right and wrong, noble and ignoble.

[muni]

There is nothing that is not conditioned. But there are lots of conditioned fantasies about "unconditioned" or "absolute"


Kind regards

It is own dual mind what solidifies external things, forms conceptual fabrications to classify appearances as fantasies.

[Hanzze]

empty

[ground]

There is nothing that is not conditioned. But there are lots of conditioned fantasies about "unconditioned" or "absolute"


Kind regards

It is own dual mind what solidifies external things, forms conceptual fabrications to classify appearances as fantasies.

That appears to be a rather dualistic and conditioned statement

Kind regards