Rocky Zen

[Acchantika]

Does a rock have buddha-nature?

[LastLegend]

Does a rock have buddha-nature?

Yes.

[Indrajala]

Buddhanature is emptiness and since all things are empty, yes a rock has Buddhanature.

[Acchantika]

Buddhanature is emptiness and since all things are empty, yes a rock has Buddhanature.

"Our buddha-nature is awareness: to be aware and make others aware. To realize awareness is liberation."

- The Zen Teaching of Bodhidharma, 1987. pp.79

If buddha-nature is emptiness, why would the founder of Zen say that buddha-nature is awareness? Is it because they are the same?

If they are the same, is a rock aware? Or is a rock awareness?

[Astus]

Zen is not a single doctrine, both interpretations of buddha-nature exist.

[Indrajala]

The word for Buddha-nature in Chinese fo xing 佛性 has many many meanings.

[Malcolm]

Buddhanature is emptiness and since all things are empty, yes a rock has Buddhanature.

This is not correct. Sentient beings are defined as the buddhadhātu, and rocks are not sentient. They cannot become Buddhas.

That fact that a rock is empty and a sentient being are empty does not mean a rock can also acheive awakening.

N

[Indrajala]

Buddhanature is emptiness and since all things are empty, yes a rock has Buddhanature.

This is not correct. Sentient beings are defined as the buddhadhātu, and rocks are not sentient. They cannot become Buddhas.

That fact that a rock is empty and a sentient being are empty does not mean a rock can also acheive awakening.

N

It depends on the definition parameters.


In the Treatise on Buddha Nature 佛性論 (Fo Xing Lun) buddha-nature is equated with suchness and emptiness.

In that sense a rock is dependently originated, so it has buddha-nature.

I'm not saying a rock can achieve awakening. Only that it is empty and by some standards that means "having buddha-nature".

It is just a play of words really.

[Malcolm]

In the Treatise on Buddha Nature 佛性論 (Fo Xing Lun) buddha-nature is equated with suchness and emptiness.

Fo xing lun is mistaken, then.

Tathāgatagarbha is not merely emptiness.

[ronnewmexico]

As a third option from the uneducated layperson's point of view...perhaps what is referenced is the ultimate or final consideration of buddha nature which is empty, or resideing as well as all other things in the mileau of emptiness.

I personally think of inert objects as our fingernails and hair as is to our body. Part and parcel or extension of us, considered as us but inert.
So rocks and things a extension of our awarness in the same manner. Our body of awareness that is. Extending from that rocks and such things inert.
Part of us but not part of us by perception.So inert but not inert as we perceive them they are to that extent as us.

[Acchantika]

Zen is not a single doctrine, both interpretations of buddha-nature exist.

Bodhidharma said, "Realising your nature is Zen. If you don't realise your nature, its not Zen."

How can your realising your nature be subject to interpretation?

Buddhanature is emptiness and since all things are empty, yes a rock has Buddhanature.

This is not correct. Sentient beings are defined as the buddhadhātu, and rocks are not sentient. They cannot become Buddhas.

That fact that a rock is empty and a sentient being are empty does not mean a rock can also acheive awakening.

N

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

Shrunryu Suzuki said, "Buddha-nature is to be aware of Buddha-nature" (1970, pp.137). Is this what you are saying?

How is this view not dualistic, if awareness and buddha-nature are not the same?

Further, how can it be direct apprehension of reality if it is mediated by something (awareness)?

-

Does the word buddha (awake) dhātu (matrix, nature) not literally mean your 'aware nature'?

[Acchantika]

As a third option from the uneducated layperson's point of view...perhaps what is referenced is the ultimate or final consideration of buddha nature which is empty, or resideing as well as all other things in the mileau of emptiness.

I personally think of inert objects as our fingernails and hair as is to our body. Part and parcel or extension of us, considered as us but inert.
So rocks and things a extension of our awarness in the same manner. Our body of awareness that is. Extending from that rocks and such things inert.
Part of us but not part of us by perception.So inert but not inert as we perceive them they are to that extent as us.

Well, as I understand it, the question itself is flawed as it implies that buddha nature is an attributive property and that people or objects have intrinsic, independent qualities in the first place.

But with the dissolution of all phenomena into emptiness, what is left other than the buddha nature? Why then is a sentient being's buddha nature seen as meaningful, and an insentient being's buddha nature seen as misleading?

[ronnewmexico]

"But with the dissolution of all phenomena into emptiness, what is left other than the buddha nature? Why then is a sentient being's buddha nature seen as meaningful, and an insentient being's buddha nature seen as misleading?"

To my opinion they are the same. The difference in perception is the basis from which one may seem misleading and another not
This however does not speak to their true basis which is exactly alike.
As perceiver how can we differentiate that which we perceive and us that perceive.....
I find no distinction. I find it harder to see things fron the other side of inert. So we work from awareness.
But to my opinion all is the mileau of emptiness and awareness..... inert and sentient.
AS alive as I am are other things as i find them. All operate from the same basis of function....awareness.

I find my nails part of my body...do you not?

So that's my opinion if I hear your question correctly.
I would suppose I would say....all things dissolve into emptiness and awareness. Nature itself is not what is left but dependant origination is what is left. A opperational principal not a thing.

When caused, it appears naturally this thing of awareness operating within its mileau of emptiness. It is not that nature or awareness arise spontaneously or by themselves, the prior cause of awareness precipitates its arousing in this present moment. So all is caused, and no nature... buddha or otherwise is found to remain without cause.

[PadmaVonSamba]

Does a stone Buddha have rock nature?

[Astus]

Dogen's explanation:

In “all living beings” spoken of here on the way of the buddha, those with minds are “all living beings”; for the mind is living beings. Those without minds are similarly living beings; for living beings are mind. Therefore, all minds are living beings, and living beings all “have the buddha nature.” The grasses, trees and lands are mind; because they are mind, they are living beings; because they are living beings, they “have the buddha nature.” The sun, moon, and stars are mind; because they are mind, they are living beings; because they are living beings, they “have the buddha nature.”
(SBGZ: Bussho)

A classical story:

Dongshan asked Yunyan, "Who can hear the teachings of the insentient?"
Yunyan said, "It can be heard by the insentient." Dongshan asked, "Do you hear it, Master?" Yunyen said, "If I heard it, then you would not hear my teaching." Dongshan answered, "That being the case, then I do not hear your teaching." Yunyan replied, "You don't even hear my teaching, how could you hear the teachings of the insentient?" Dongshan was enlightened on hearing this and responded in verse:

Wondrous! Marvelous!
The teachings of the insentient are inconceivable.
If you listen with the ears, you won't understand.
When you hear with the eyes, then you will know.

Dogen's explanation in SBGZ: Mujo Seppo
Daido roshi's teisho on it

[Acchantika]

Does a stone Buddha have rock nature?

Woof.

[Acchantika]

"But with the dissolution of all phenomena into emptiness, what is left other than the buddha nature? Why then is a sentient being's buddha nature seen as meaningful, and an insentient being's buddha nature seen as misleading?"

To my opinion they are the same. The difference in perception is the basis from which one may seem misleading and another not
This however does not speak to their true basis which is exactly alike.
As perceiver how can we differentiate that which we perceive and us that perceive.....
I find no distinction. I find it harder to see things fron the other side of inert. So we work from awareness.
But to my opinion all is the mileau of emptiness and awareness..... inert and sentient.
AS alive as I am are other things as i find them. All operate from the same basis of function....awareness.

I find my nails part of my body...do you not?

So that's my opinion if I hear your question correctly.
I would suppose I would say....all things dissolve into emptiness and awareness. Nature itself is not what is left but dependant origination is what is left. A opperational principal not a thing.

When caused, it appears naturally this thing of awareness operating within its mileau of emptiness. It is not that nature or awareness arise spontaneously or by themselves, the prior cause of awareness precipitates its arousing in this present moment. So all is caused, and no nature... buddha or otherwise is found to remain without cause.

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?

[Malcolm]

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.

[Astus]

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

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

Well, as I understand it, the question itself is flawed as it implies that buddha nature is an attributive property and that people or objects have intrinsic, independent qualities in the first place.