Rocky Zen

[Malcolm]

The reasoning is quite simple. All is mind - mind is buddha - rocks and trees are buddha.

Piss poor reasoning.

N

[ronnewmexico]

Acc....."It is this non-difference of subject and object I find confusing and difficult to penetrate. But I suppose that is the point. Who is confused?"

I look at it as appearance is mind, and have employed strategy to approach that issue. I would also suppose "I", can be thrown into the mix, but to my way of thinking that would be a natural consequence of the former understanding. With the found way of knowing object with exchange it is impossible to find a individual I.

So just me, I would suppose one could extend in the same fashon from the I but this seems easier for me. Orange ball entering the room, it is not I and orange ball but what I may ever know of is only in relationship to the subjects ability to exchange with the object.
So as exchange is the nature of this thing of apprehension and object we are not seeing but ourselves our relationship. Like we are a ruler of senses measuring this or that on our scale. It is the scale we see not the object itself we are measuring. The scale/ruler is us.
So it is in a sense all a construct of us. So all we know of orange ball is measurement or us in relationship to that thing.

So in that sense rock is buddha nature. Awareness and empty nature or exchange being that which we perceive. If rock is perceived it is of this nature as well. The obeject itself we can presume in a conventional sense it exists as a seperate thing from our body.
Perceived inert but to the extent we may know of it and thusly exchange in this manner it is alive as we are.

IN the opposite fashion we may suppose there is a perceived and perceiver. But as we can say only that we are extreemly complex ruler with scale internalized we can never really say what we measure is what is, nor that we have any real identity as object itself. A ruler is a object of sorts we can't say it is not. But in the context of a ruler measuring something we cannot say in that context of use it is a object.

So is the construct to take ruler as real and to take ruler as object in opposition, (aversion attachment and all the rest) to that which is measured is a false apprehension. How can we avert attach as we but measure or apprehend things, know things understand things...we cannot rationally.

So that's how I look at it...Geeze lousie I hope I pass the koan test
Me having no accredation other than as having worked for free at a zen do as a maintance man of sorts years ago The sensei leaving due to sexual impriority and the zendo dissolving years ago, all forgottong and long gone that I ever did that thing. Ah..such is samsara...I tried to learn a thing or two over there, and hope i did.

[Astus]

Piss poor reasoning.

That is not a reasoning at all.

Besides the one already mentioned it is possible to relate it to the teachings of the Tedai school's "ichinen sanzen" and the Huayan school's Dharmadhatu of unhindered interpenetration of phenomena. But as I said, not all agreed with the idea that buddha-nature is universal on that level, for instance the teachers within the Hongzhou (Zen) school.

"The Dharmakaya (Dharma-Body) has no form, but it assumes different forms according to the needs of sentient beings. Thus, some say that green bamboo is the Dharmakaya and that the fragrance of yellow flowers is Prajna. If green bamboo really were the Dharmakaya, then the Dharmakaya would merely be like wood or grass. Thus, a person eating bamboo shoots could say that he was eating the Dharmakaya. If one talked like this, would there be any possible benefit for anyone in recording it? Such a person is really quite confused about the Buddha, who is right before him, as well as about his substance, which permeates all things; and so he seeks him elsewhere, outside, in error, kalpa after kalpa."
(The Tsung Ching Record of the Ch'an Master Ta-Chu Hui-Hai)

An essay by Robert Sharf discussing the whole issue: On the Buddha-nature of Insentient Things

[Astus]

"When self dissolves, everything is already awakened. Trees are awakened, rocks are awakened, birds are enlightened, and the clouds in the sky are enlightened. When the Buddha had this moment of complete realization, he discovered that this whole universe is already enlightened. More than that, he realized that every particle on the ground is enlightened. He saw that every particle is a Buddha paradise. In each particle there are billions and trillions of Buddha paradises. In each of those particles there are billions of buddhas residing. This whole universe becomes suddenly enlightened and perfect just as it is."
(Anam Thubten: No Self, No Problem, p. 46)

[Malcolm]

"When self dissolves, everything is already awakened. Trees are awakened, rocks are awakened, birds are enlightened, and the clouds in the sky are enlightened. When the Buddha had this moment of complete realization, he discovered that this whole universe is already enlightened. More than that, he realized that every particle on the ground is enlightened. He saw that every particle is a Buddha paradise. In each particle there are billions and trillions of Buddha paradises. In each of those particles there are billions of buddhas residing. This whole universe becomes suddenly enlightened and perfect just as it is."
(Anam Thubten: No Self, No Problem, p. 46)

Don't mistake poetry and rhetoric, like the above, for what is actual.

It simply means that all objects of knowledge are the display of one's own jñāna. It does not mean that rocks, trees, and such are independently awakened.



N

[Astus]

Don't mistake poetry and rhetoric, like the above, for what is actual.

It simply means that all objects of knowledge are the display of one's own jñāna. It does not mean that rocks, trees, and such are independently awakened.

That's the same point as in Zen, Huayan, etc., it's just that they might call it dharmadhatu or mind or something similar.

[Malcolm]

Don't mistake poetry and rhetoric, like the above, for what is actual.

It simply means that all objects of knowledge are the display of one's own jñāna. It does not mean that rocks, trees, and such are independently awakened.

That's the same point as in Zen, Huayan, etc., it's just that they might call it dharmadhatu or mind or something similar.

Mind is not jñ̄āna.

[Astus]

Mind is not jñ̄āna.

You may have noticed by now that terminology is not universal even within Buddhism. Mind (xin 心 - citta) in Zen is used not just for the deluded but the enlightened mind too, while other words like consciousness (shi 識 - vijnana) or intelligence (yi 意 - manas) are not used in both senses.

[Malcolm]

Mind is not jñ̄āna.

You may have noticed by now that terminology is not universal even within Buddhism. Mind (xin 心 - citta) in Zen is used not just for the deluded but the enlightened mind too, while other words like consciousness (shi 識 - vijnana) or intelligence (yi 意 - manas) are not used in both senses.

Nevertheless, Dzogchen and Zen are different and are in no way equivalent, even when one is confronted by very similar statements. The difference in these statements hinges on very subtle points. You need to seek out a teacher who can explain them to you.

N

[LastLegend]

If Dozgchen teachings direct at seeing the nature of the mind, then it is Zen just like any other forms of Mahayana. All Buddhist teachings, every word is aim at awakening sentient beings' minds, but because we are so deluded that hearing or read a thousand lines can't bring us to awakening. While others become enlightened when hearing a few words. This says we all hear the same thing, but we understand or experience it differently.

[Malcolm]

If Dozgchen teachings direct at seeing the nature of the mind, then it is Zen just like any other forms of Mahayana..

If it were just that, than yes.

[LastLegend]

If Dozgchen teachings direct at seeing the nature of the mind, then it is Zen just like any other forms of Mahayana..

If it were just that, than yes.

Just that...and different methods.

[Malcolm]

If Dozgchen teachings direct at seeing the nature of the mind, then it is Zen just like any other forms of Mahayana..

If it were just that, than yes.

Just that...and different methods.

No. But you should really visit with a Dzogchen master who can explain the differences to you.

N

[LastLegend]

No. But you should really visit with a Dzogchen master who can explain the differences to you.

N

I think I agreed with you. Dozgchen employs complete different methods from Zen. Thats what I am saying.

[Astus]

Nevertheless, Dzogchen and Zen are different and are in no way equivalent, even when one is confronted by very similar statements. The difference in these statements hinges on very subtle points. You need to seek out a teacher who can explain them to you.

I'm not arguing that - at least not here - since the work quoted makes no mention of Dzogchen, and it doesn't have to. The topic of this thread is something else anyway.

[catmoon]

Dōgen Zenji said that rocks and trees have/are the buddha-nature. Is this a wrong view?

Yes. Rocks and trees are not sentient beings, therefore, they cannot become buddhas.

Not necessarily so. This logic only holds if one defines Buddha Nature the way you do.
It is entirely possible that Dogen Zenji defined Buddha Nature differently than you do, for instance as not including sentience.
This does not make him wrong, it just means he is talking about a different thing than you are.

[desertman001]

Buddha nature is unbounded,nondual, but we still ask if a rock has Buddha nature! Of course rocks 'themselves' are not sentient. but they are not really 'themselves' because there is nothing outside of Buddha mind. In that sense no seperate things should be considered as really seperate. In that sense the monk who asked if a dog has Buddha nature, based the question on the false premise that seperateness is real when it comes to Buddha nature.

[kirtu]

Does a rock have buddha-nature?

You mean like Rocky and Bullwinkle?

moose_squirrel2.jpg

Kirt

[catmoon]

So have we decided on a definition of Buddha Nature? I mean, when one group includes sentience in Buddha Nature and another excludes it, it is no longer possible to make an answer.

Do we all agree a rock is not sentient?

(Believe or not, I have met people who make surprisingly strong arguments for uh, petrosentience.)

[conebeckham]

Dōgen Zenji said that rocks and trees have/are the buddha-nature. Is this a wrong view?

Yes. Rocks and trees are not sentient beings, therefore, they cannot become buddhas.

Not necessarily so. This logic only holds if one defines Buddha Nature the way you do.
It is entirely possible that Dogen Zenji defined Buddha Nature differently than you do, for instance as not including sentience.
This does not make him wrong, it just means he is talking about a different thing than you are.

It is possible that anyone can define "Buddha Nature" in any way they desire, but that does not mean that their own personal definition is correct. If, as someone indicated earlier, Buddha Nature were merely "emptiness," then all phenomena could be potentially enlightened. I do not see this reflected in any scriptural or doctrinal sources, outside of some "Zen" teachings. I believe it is a given, in the vast majority of Buddhist thought, that only Sentient Beings can be potentially enlightened--thus, it is not merely "emptiness" which defines Buddha Nature, but also the quality of sentience.

On a slight tangent, it is my uninformed opinion that this issue of "matter" or "insentient phenomena" having Buddha Nature is a sort of natural outgrowth of animist, pre-Buddhist thinking....in Japan and China to an extent, and also, I think, in Tibet. I dunno why I think that, but I'll just throw it out there....