Buddha Nature

General forum on Mahayana.

Re: Buddha Nature

Postby ground » Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:39 am

Pema Rigdzin wrote:1) You have not answered my first question, only re-stated that there are supposedly different "interpretations of what buddha means." I'm asking you to specify what those differences are, since you claim to know of them.

If you studied a bit the literature then you should know. If you want to ignore it so be it. My motivation is not to sell anything or to evangelize anybody but I rely on that there is this variety of views about the meaning of the term "buddhahood" because I came across this diversity of views since I became interested in buddhism. Not wanting to persuade I am not going to put any effort in collecting quotes and reviewing literature since I do not want to present a scientific work here. There are already enough useless and futile activities in life but one of the most futile activities is arguing against beliefs.
Have you your belief that there is only one standard belief and that's fine for me if you feel good about it. Still it is an indefinite idea (or a collection of ideas) represented by one single term that is not accessible by valid cognition if one does not include scripture being valid "inference".

Pema Rigdzin wrote:2) My view is entirely consistent. Let me reiterate it for you. One can say accurate things (with respect to valid cognition or valid inferred cognition) about conventional phenomena. However, the ultimate truth is not an object of the conventional minds (discursive thought) and can only be nakedly experienced once the discursive mind has exhausted itself. Therefore, ultimate truth is not an object of analysis and anything one says about it -such as saying that emptiness is not blank but is inseparable from wisdom devoid of subject an object- is merely an expedient means of communication to stave off wrong views (such as that emptiness is nothingness and devoid of wisdom).

You did not understand. I said "ultimate truth" is a conventional phenomenon therefore it is an object of mind. Objects of minds are valid or not in the sense that they may be verified by many minds if certain procedures agreed upon through convention are applied or they may not be so verified. As soon as you merely say "ultimate truth" you are in the sphere of conventional truth since either you refer to something which is merely your own private fantasy or you refer to something which can be verified by valid conventional cognition in this case by inference.
But I agree that the psycho-mental effects of such an inference may be completely different depending on the psycho-mental circumstances under which such an inference is made.

Pema Rigdzin wrote:3) So let me get this straight... according to you, Dharmakirti, Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti, and Tsongkhapa and the Gelugpas deny the inseparability of emptiness and wisdom and merely use emptiness to negate everything but emptiness? Are you really sure any of these masters ever said that analytical reasoning trumped primordial wisdom??? Or did they in fact say that analytical reasoning can take one's discursive mind to its very limits, at which point primordial wisdom can be laid bare?

Sorry but I explicitely stated that I am referring to their logical reasoning procedures exclusively and not to any other teachings.
I appreciate that you want to support your belief system but my intention is neither to establish a belief system nor to negate a belief system.
However I concede that one may also come to the conclusion that what is called "logic" is not different from a belief system since of course it is a conventional system only, i.e. a system of thought that is established through agreement on rules and the meaning of terms. In this sense then I would concede that I prefer the belief system of logical reasoning over metaphysical belief systems that teach "given" phenomena beyond human reasoning doing so through rhetorically and sophistically applying the intellect to reject critical reasoning.

Pema Rigdzin wrote:4) Since you did not answer my previous 4th question, but instead just reiterated something about emptiness being mere negation, I'll restate the question: If your true nature involves no knowing aspect, i.e. wisdom, inseparable from emptiness, how did your present mind come about and what will happen to it once you realize emptiness?

I don't know.

Pema Rigdzin wrote:5) You said:
TMingyur wrote:Of course if - for the sake of simplicity and to have something to talk about - we define "buddhahood" as being a subjective state of an individual of having removed of all fabrications from experience - this is not "blank nothingness". Would could it be "blank nothingness" since this sentient being will still experience? And how could it be functionless since this sentient being still breathes, moves etc.

That's of course your own definition, but for the sake of argument, when such a sentient being dies, does this "buddhahood" die with him or her?

"Dying" is conventional reality. It can be perceived and inferred. It is a reality valid across all belief systems. "buddhahood" is no such conventional reality in that it is more restricted as to no. of people and cannot be perceived and inferred unless specific scripture is accepted as "inference".
When a sentient being dies it is dead and the body sort of "dissolves" gradually if not incinerated. This is the objectivied perspective.
Applying perception and inference inference this is all I can say about it. If you are not satisfied and content with that and if you are disiring for "more" then you should ask someone else or look into scriptures/commentaries which cover this issue.

Pema Rigdzin wrote:6) You have said that upon analysis, you cannot find your mind. In what way was it unable to be found?

Of course through applying what is called "mind". I am imprisoned being a sentient being.

Pema Rigdzin wrote:7) What is it that cognizes emptiness?

A sentient being which cannot be found under analysis.
What faculty is it?
Since only a sentient being may cognize it cognition being dependent on "mind" or "consciousness" or "awareness" (choose whatever term you prefer) the faculty necessarily has to be "mind" or "consciousness" or "awareness".

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Buddha Nature

Postby muni » Mon Feb 15, 2010 6:07 pm

When this thread is Zen only, it can take a seat there to avoid misunderstanding. Oops, the ask is different Mahayana schools.
muni
 
Posts: 2736
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Buddha Nature

Postby White Lotus » Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:13 pm

i have heard that the only true Zen is No Zen Zen, that true buddhism goes beyond any labels, one may be following the buddhas pathless path pathlessly, with total ignorance of the fact.

the buddha nature is perfect emptiness, emptiness of even emptiness. this is complete potential, and the root and presence of all arisings/forms/phenomena.
emptiness is pregnant with potental to create all things, and actually is all things. emptiness is the supreme reality of all things, the supreme reality of all things is buddha nature, emptiness/so.

love White Lotus. xxx :)
in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.
White Lotus
 
Posts: 538
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:56 pm

Re: Buddha Nature

Postby muni » Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:38 pm

We can respect the available teachings. Yes. Labelless is not merely saying no names.
Empty by nature, empty in essence, empty of characteristics. Equality.
muni
 
Posts: 2736
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Buddha Nature

Postby Dharmakid » Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:59 am

Hey everyone,
Please allow me to apologize for neglecting this thread for so long. It wasn't intentional.

Looks like my question was answered and then some, haha. Great conversation even though I have a lot to learn before I can understand all of it.

:namaste:
Dharmakid
User avatar
Dharmakid
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 5:43 pm
Location: Georgia, USA

Re: Buddha Nature

Postby Quiet Heart » Mon Aug 22, 2011 5:30 am

:shrug:
Well, since you asked.....
(Just to make it clear, this is my understanding only....and may be "wrong". It wouldn't be the first time I have been there)
From what I understand "Buddha Nature" is that nature which is found when all defilements, illusions, and delusions are cleared by study and practice of the Dharma.
The way it was described to me was being like a person finding a stone lieing in a muddy ditch by a road. That person picks up the stone, washes it in a stream, and then gradually removes all the filth from the stone.
When that process is complete, the stone, really a brillant gem, shines through, so all can see it clearly.
I hope I'm still in that process of cleaning my stone. Maybe, it is a gem....maybe it isn't.
If I ever do manage to clean it up, I'll let you know.
I wouldn't wait up just to see it, though...just go on about your business. It may take a while.
:smile:

P.S.
Here's a poem by Vietnamese Zen master

Zen Master
NGO AN (DAM KHI)
(1020-1088)

English

A Farewell Poem

Our Buddha nature (is) not easily grasped.

Only a clear mind will capture it.

Bright as a jewel fired in volcanic heat;

A lotus plucked from a kiln, its hue, (still) lush and fresh.

(translation by)
Kevin Bowen and Nguyen Ba Chung

I added the words in parenthases ().
Shame on you Shakyamuni for setting the precedent of leaving home.
Did you think it was not there--
in your wife's lovely face
in your baby's laughter?
Did you think you had to go elsewhere (simply) to find it?
from - Judyth Collin
The Layman's Lament
From What Book, 1998, p. 52
Edited by Gary Gach
User avatar
Quiet Heart
 
Posts: 269
Joined: Thu May 19, 2011 10:57 am
Location: Bangkok Thailand

Re: Buddha Nature

Postby Dharmakid » Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:04 am

Quiet Heart: Yeah, that's very similar to how it was explained to me while practicing Zen. And my teacher did a good job of not making the concept too complicated, which I appreciated.

Thanks for posting the poem, it's very insightful.
User avatar
Dharmakid
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 5:43 pm
Location: Georgia, USA

Re: Buddha Nature

Postby Silent Forest » Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:55 pm

Quiet Heart wrote:I hope I'm still in that process of cleaning my stone. Maybe, it is a gem....maybe it isn't.

I just asked myself whether it can be something different than a gem which comes out? Or has it just not been rinsed well enough if it isn´t?
Silent Forest
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:46 pm

Re: Buddha Nature

Postby DarwidHalim » Fri Sep 23, 2011 11:14 am

Dharmakid wrote:Hello All,
Great to be here.

As a Theravada practitioner who once practiced Zen (and still attends zazen sessions and zen dharma talks on campus since it's the most convenient sangha for me), I often have questions concerning Mahayana teachings and concepts.

A question I currently have concerns Buddha nature. What is the difference between Buddha-datu, Tathagatagarba, and Buddha nature? Are they all the same thing? Do different Mahayana schools teach them differently?

Thanks for your input.

:namaste:
Dharmakid

May be I will answer in this way
Even now, we are already Buddha. The difference between Siddharta Gautama and us are Siddharta Gautama is the Buddha who is already wake up from his sleep, while we are buddha who are still sleeping.
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

Postby Dharmakid » Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:21 am

DarwidHalim wrote:May be I will answer in this way
Even now, we are already Buddha. The difference between Siddharta Gautama and us are Siddharta Gautama is the Buddha who is already wake up from his sleep, while we are buddha who are still sleeping.


I like this interpretation, also. It's simple and it makes sense, at least to me.

Does anyone here object to the simple explanations? And why?
User avatar
Dharmakid
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 5:43 pm
Location: Georgia, USA

Re: Buddha Nature

Postby ground » Fri Sep 30, 2011 5:37 am

Dharmakid wrote:
DarwidHalim wrote:May be I will answer in this way
Even now, we are already Buddha. The difference between Siddharta Gautama and us are Siddharta Gautama is the Buddha who is already wake up from his sleep, while we are buddha who are still sleeping.


I like this interpretation, also. It's simple and it makes sense, at least to me.

Does anyone here object to the simple explanations? And why?


View of self in disguise. Reification of a thought that has no support at all.


Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Buddha Nature

Postby Malcolm » Fri Sep 30, 2011 1:21 pm

Dharmakid wrote:
DarwidHalim wrote:May be I will answer in this way
Even now, we are already Buddha. The difference between Siddharta Gautama and us are Siddharta Gautama is the Buddha who is already wake up from his sleep, while we are buddha who are still sleeping.


I like this interpretation, also. It's simple and it makes sense, at least to me.

Does anyone here object to the simple explanations? And why?



It's a contradiction in terms.

"Buddha" means "fully awakened one". Someone who is "asleep" is therefore not a buddha by definition.

N
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10217
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Previous

Return to Mahāyāna Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], daverupa, MSNbot Media and 9 guests

>