Buddha nature misunderstood as atman.

Whether you're exploring Buddhism for the first time or you're already on the path, feel free to ask questions of any kind here.

Buddha nature misunderstood as atman.

Postby DarwidHalim » Thu Sep 06, 2012 2:12 am

From: Re: Why is dependent origination so important?

Jyoti wrote:....
showing the dharma of permanance of the buddha nature.

Jyoti


This is not right.

Buddha nature is not permanent. If Buddha nature is permanent, that is atman.

We should know that Buddha nature is just a name for the sake of communication referring to the baseless and rootless.

And in that, the word permanent and impermanent are not valid.

We need to be careful when we discuss Buddha nature because permanent lead to atman. Impermanence lead to changing, which again changing implies something unexplainable must be changing.

When we discuss Buddha nature, we need to make sure the language that we use doesn't give rise to these 2 extremes.

Permanent is extreme.
Impermanent is opposite of permanent. Which is also extreme.

And Buddha nature is none of them.
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!
User avatar
DarwidHalim
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Buddha nature misunderstood as atman.

Postby SSJ3Gogeta » Thu Sep 06, 2012 2:41 am

It depends whether you are talking about tantric or sutric Buddha nature, which are two different things.

The Tathāgatagarbha Sutras ARE eternalist, and contain some pretty crazy stuff few people are aware of.

I've even read somewhere they influenced Advaita Vedanta.

Malcolm wrote:The point is that part of the sutra under question, which "normalizes" the view of the MPNS does not seem to be present in any other recension. It certainly is not in the Tibetan version. Based in that, we can consider that the original Tathagatagarbha theory was fully eternalist.



Malcolm wrote:Yes, but your point has little bearing on the original meaning of the MPSN sutra as a text in its own right, apart from the various sectarian uses and interpretations of it there may be been. I was discussing the fact that originally the MPNS introduced a eternalism into Buddhism.
SSJ3Gogeta
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 3:26 am

Re: Buddha nature misunderstood as atman.

Postby SSJ3Gogeta » Thu Sep 06, 2012 2:52 am

In Mahamudra, a tantric tradition, Buddha nature simply refers to the nature of mind, which is also known by many other terms in that tradition.
Last edited by SSJ3Gogeta on Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:12 am, edited 3 times in total.
SSJ3Gogeta
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 3:26 am

Re: Buddha nature misunderstood as atman.

Postby DarwidHalim » Thu Sep 06, 2012 2:52 am

There is no differences.

We must know the pitfall of language. Some sutras may stress on a particular subject, but other sutras may already states this nonduality. So in any cases, the view on particular Sutta must always be connected with the teaching of other sutras. In this way, the pitfal of language can be avoided.

We cannot just take 1 Sutta and treat it as independent, because each Sutta just focus on specific subject. And if we do that, we can fall into some externality or nihilist, which actually not the intention of that Sutta, because this nonduality has been stated somewhere else.
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!
User avatar
DarwidHalim
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Buddha nature misunderstood as atman.

Postby DarwidHalim » Thu Sep 06, 2012 2:59 am

SSJ3Gogeta wrote:In Mahamudra, Buddha nature simply refers to the nature of mind, which is also known by other terms such as kun gzhi etc.


The nature of mind is just name.

It is not important what is the name, the most important is what is referring is not permanent and not impermanent.

When Cittamantra read the teaching of Maitreya, they may have an intellectual object of view min or consciousness as something real.

But, for others, they will not see in this way. So, for them Maitreya did not teach the existence of mind.

If we just take 1 text, it can give you that impression, but all Suttas must be understood as overall - knowing the link between them.

And that is effective to prevent unnecessary pitfall due to the inherent mistake of language.
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!
User avatar
DarwidHalim
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Buddha nature misunderstood as atman.

Postby Jyoti » Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:02 am

DarwidHalim wrote:
Buddha nature is not permanent. If Buddha nature is permanent, that is atman.

We should know that Buddha nature is just a name for the sake of communication referring to the baseless and rootless.

And in that, the word permanent and impermanent are not valid.


We need to be careful when we discuss Buddha nature because permanent lead to atman. Impermanence lead to changing, which again changing implies something unexplainable must be changing.

When we discuss Buddha nature, we need to make sure the language that we use doesn't give rise to these 2 extremes.

Permanent is extreme.
Impermanent is opposite of permanent. Which is also extreme.

And Buddha nature is none of them.


Your method of negation is just method (provisional dharma), if one involved with provisional dharma to discuss reality, it is only proliferation. In the scriptures of definitive meaning, permanence is permanence, no negation can apply, otherwise it cannot be maintained as definitive.

Your statement 'permanent lead to atman' is not true, atman is exclusively the mistaken perception (apprehender) of the subjective field of consciousness as opposed to the mistaken perception (apprehended) of the objective field of consciousness, the concept of permanent or impermanent has no influence here.

In Srimala-devi simhanada-sutra (commentary), it is stated:

"The true mind of the tatagatha store is the buddha nature of sentient beings. It cannot be seen due to our buddha nature being obscured by afflictions, thus [our buddha nature] is being provisionally termed as sentient being. Actually the buddha nature is permanent, it is not gain during buddhahood, it is not lost while being as sentient being. As such it is said prior to buddhahood one is already a buddha, after buddhahood one is still a buddha."

勝鬘師子吼一乘大方便方廣經講記
  真實如來藏心,即是眾生之佛性。我們的佛性被煩惱所纏不能自見,假名眾生
而已。其實佛性常住,成佛時未得,為眾生時未失。故曰未成佛時本是佛,已成佛
後還是佛。

Jyoti
User avatar
Jyoti
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:07 pm
Location: Taiwan

Re: Buddha nature misunderstood as atman.

Postby DarwidHalim » Thu Sep 06, 2012 5:50 am

In our daily ignorant world, there are even no people will mention permanent dream. Only foolish people will say that. Dream is just dream.

Likewise, if we know Buddha nature is not permanent, then don't say that as permanent. If we know Buddha nature is not impermanent, don't say that as impermanent Buddha nature.

Just Buddha nature.

Because if you say permanent Buddha nature, you are like saying permanent dream. Where can you find permanent dream in this universe?

Even ignorant people know saying permanent dream is a mistake.

Likewise, saying permanent Buddha nature is mistake in daily language.
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!
User avatar
DarwidHalim
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Buddha nature misunderstood as atman.

Postby Jyoti » Thu Sep 06, 2012 6:13 am

DarwidHalim wrote:In our daily ignorant world, there are even no people will mention permanent dream. Only foolish people will say that. Dream is just dream.

Likewise, if we know Buddha nature is not permanent, then don't say that as permanent. If we know Buddha nature is not impermanent, don't say that as impermanent Buddha nature.

Just Buddha nature.

Because if you say permanent Buddha nature, you are like saying permanent dream. Where can you find permanent dream in this universe?

Even ignorant people know saying permanent dream is a mistake.

Likewise, saying permanent Buddha nature is mistake in daily language.


Buddha nature and dream are not comparable. Buddha nature is of the body (basis), dream is based on the means (functions) of the body. The body is permanent but the means is neither permanent nor impermanent, viz. it is dynamic.

Jyoti
User avatar
Jyoti
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:07 pm
Location: Taiwan

Re: Buddha nature misunderstood as atman.

Postby Andrew108 » Thu Sep 06, 2012 6:22 am

To say that the basis is permanent is to give it a quality that it doesn't have by itself.
The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.
Andrew108
 
Posts: 1502
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:41 pm

Re: Buddha nature misunderstood as atman.

Postby catmoon » Thu Sep 06, 2012 6:39 am

How about:

Buddha nature must be either permanent or impermanent.

If permanent it is atman.

If impermanent then it must come to and end and all Buddhas must lose their Buddhahood.

Since neither position is tenable, Buddha nature is neither permanent nor impermanent and cannot exist.
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 3006
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: Buddha nature misunderstood as atman.

Postby DarwidHalim » Thu Sep 06, 2012 7:16 am

Jyoti wrote:
Buddha nature and dream are not comparable. Buddha nature is of the body (basis), dream is based on the means (functions) of the body. The body is permanent but the means is neither permanent nor impermanent, viz. it is dynamic.

Jyoti


That is just illustration how wrong it is to say permanent dream in just daily language.

Since you say permanent Buddha nature, can I say it As impermanent Buddha nature?
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!
User avatar
DarwidHalim
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Buddha nature misunderstood as atman.

Postby viniketa » Thu Sep 06, 2012 7:19 am

catmoon wrote:How about:

Buddha nature must be either permanent or impermanent.

If permanent it is atman.

If impermanent then it must come to and end and all Buddhas must lose their Buddhahood.

Since neither position is tenable, Buddha nature is neither permanent nor impermanent and cannot exist.


The Kitteh cuts threw it all! :twothumbsup:

Another option: There is a permanent basis that is not atman...

:namaste:
If they can sever like and dislike, along with greed, anger, and delusion, regardless of their difference in nature, they will all accomplish the Buddha Path.. ~ Sutra of Complete Enlightenment
User avatar
viniketa
 
Posts: 819
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:39 am
Location: USA

Re: Buddha nature misunderstood as atman.

Postby catmoon » Thu Sep 06, 2012 8:09 am

There are other possibilities as well. For instance there may exist things that are neither permanent nor impermanent, which would invalidate the first statement in the argument. Or to put it another way, the union of the two sets "permanent" and "impermanent" may not be equivalent to the whole of reality.
so there's still room to play, but it's still an interesting exercise in formal logic.
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 3006
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: Buddha nature misunderstood as atman.

Postby oushi » Thu Sep 06, 2012 11:08 am

No category can describe reality. It is ungraspable. As such, Buddha nature cannot be understood, or misunderstood. It is directly known, so cannot be incorporated into understanding.
Say what you think about me here.
User avatar
oushi
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am

Re: Buddha nature misunderstood as atman.

Postby Nothing » Thu Sep 06, 2012 11:36 am

Buddha nature is within every one of us.....like a sun in the sky but covered with clouds.....these clouds have to be removed before the sun can shine.
Buddha nature is just a description of what you are, your potential to become....to know the truth.....within yourself.
This is why it is termed as the "awakened one" for reasons because the human being as it is, is NOT awakened and does not know!

There is a saying in a film: "Have you ever had a dream that it was so real, what if you were never to wake up from that dream, how would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world"

It is telling you, the human being is currently in a dream world, to them, it is real and they are aware of it, yet the human being does not know that they are actually in a dream because the being is not awake. When the being is awakened, the being then knows that the world they thought they knew were actually not true, hence the saying.....how would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world?

The word "awakened" is very fitting and you will know when you know!

Another thing, the truth cannot be told, it must be realized by oneself.....in the mind.
User avatar
Nothing
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 5:39 pm

Re: Buddha nature misunderstood as atman.

Postby seeker242 » Thu Sep 06, 2012 1:23 pm

DarwidHalim wrote:From: Re: Why is dependent origination so important?

Jyoti wrote:....
showing the dharma of permanance of the buddha nature.

Jyoti


This is not right.

Buddha nature is not permanent. If Buddha nature is permanent, that is atman.



Is the quality of sunyata permanent? If the quality of sunyata is permanent and sunyata is buddha nature, then one can say Buddha nature is permanent without buddha nature being atman. Yes?
One should not kill any living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should one incite any other to kill. Do never injure any being, whether strong or weak, in this entire universe!
User avatar
seeker242
 
Posts: 712
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:50 pm
Location: South Florida, USA

Re: Buddha nature misunderstood as atman.

Postby Nosta » Thu Sep 06, 2012 1:33 pm

Buddha nature must be permanent. When you "reach"/find (whatever) your buddha nature (or: when you reach nirvana) you will never loose it.

Buddha nature is permanent in that sense.
User avatar
Nosta
 
Posts: 696
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 10:28 pm

Re: Buddha nature misunderstood as atman.

Postby Aemilius » Thu Sep 06, 2012 2:14 pm

Nosta wrote:Buddha nature must be permanent. When you "reach"/find (whatever) your buddha nature (or: when you reach nirvana) you will never loose it.

Buddha nature is permanent in that sense.


You must attain it to see what it is like!
Your car will eventually end, it's ending is permanent. But there is no car to know it! Because it has ended!
There is no "you" to know that you have ended or nirvanized, because you have ended.
svaha
User avatar
Aemilius
 
Posts: 1523
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Buddha nature misunderstood as atman.

Postby Jyoti » Thu Sep 06, 2012 2:50 pm

DarwidHalim wrote:Since you say permanent Buddha nature, can I say it As impermanent Buddha nature?


If you were like the many others, including the arahats who realizes the emptiness, who must insist on impermanence on the body that is supposed to be permanent, then there must be a cause for it and this is none other than the mental conditioning by the teaching of the 2 yanas. Because the 2 yanas taught the 3 impurities, the three dharma seals (impermanence, non-self, and nirvana), the four noble truth, etc. Insisting on the opposite of permanence, self, pleasure, purities where it shouldn't be, such as after being studied and practicing some of the element of definitive dharma is the cause of the four inversions:

T12n0376_p0862a19(01)║樂苦想顛倒,無常常想顛倒,常無常想顛倒,
"The thought of pleasure and pain is inverted, the thought of impermanence and permanence is inverted, the thought of permanence and impermanence is inverted,
T12n0376_p0862a20(01)║非我我想顛倒,我非我想顛倒,不淨淨想顛倒,
"The thought of non-self and self is inverted, the thought of self and non-self is inverted, the thought of impurities and purities is inverted,
T12n0376_p0862a21(00)║淨不淨想顛倒,如是四顛倒想者不識平等,
"The thought of purities and impurities is inverted, such is the four inversions which does not recognize the equanimity."

Due to these four inversions, even after attaining the fruit as in the case of arahats, it constructs the attainment of the four non-obstructions of the bodhisattvas and consequently obstruct the progress in the bhumis.

Jyoti
User avatar
Jyoti
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:07 pm
Location: Taiwan

Re: Buddha nature misunderstood as atman.

Postby Karma Dondrup Tashi » Thu Sep 06, 2012 2:55 pm

oushi wrote:No category can describe reality. It is ungraspable. As such, Buddha nature cannot be understood, or misunderstood. It is directly known, so cannot be incorporated into understanding.

Pretty much nails it for me. Is space/vibration/desire permanent or impermanent? Can’t say yes, no, both, neither, maybe.

Nosta wrote:When you "reach"/find (whatever) your buddha nature (or: when you reach nirvana) you will never loose it.

You will if you don’t keep puttin yer quarters in the machine (radiance/love). We gotta keep eatin our vegetables and keepin our hands to ourselves.

Aemilius wrote:But there is no car to know it! Because it has ended! There is no "you" to know that you have ended or nirvanized, because you have ended.

You don't need a "you" to have knowledge. The "you" is an appendage to the knowledge not the other way round. The "you" vanishes, the knowledge stays.
Karma Dondrup Tashi
 
Posts: 1014
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:13 pm

Next

Return to Exploring Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

>