Buddha Nature

General forum on the teachings of all schools of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism. Topics specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
User avatar
ground
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Buddha Nature

Postby ground » Sat Feb 13, 2010 8:14 am


muni
Posts: 4251
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Buddha Nature

Postby muni » Sat Feb 13, 2010 8:36 am

When we do not draw concepts by projections, dissolution of thoughts and then do not analyze those, there is just nothing? How can there be liberation, mind dwelling on some thing to analyze or clinging to it's creations in discursive thoughts?

Okay.

White Lotus
Posts: 1074
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:56 pm

Re: Buddha Nature

Postby White Lotus » Sat Feb 13, 2010 5:12 pm

it is a shame that no common ground can be found in such an enlightening and interesting thread as this. either of you would make a great teacher.

anyway, i guess this will make room for more interesting threads... to follow... nothing is permanent, except nothing/emptiness.

love, White Lotus. xxx :thanks:
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.

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

Re: Buddha Nature

Postby ground » Sat Feb 13, 2010 5:45 pm


User avatar
Dexing
Posts: 420
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 4:41 am

Re: Buddha Nature

Postby Dexing » Sat Feb 13, 2010 6:51 pm

nopalabhyate...

White Lotus
Posts: 1074
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:56 pm

Re: Buddha Nature

Postby White Lotus » Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:29 pm

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.

muni
Posts: 4251
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Buddha Nature

Postby muni » Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:50 pm

Radiance of warm heart.

Pema Rigdzin
Posts: 1037
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Southern Oregon

Re: Buddha Nature

Postby Pema Rigdzin » Sat Feb 13, 2010 10:04 pm

TMingyur,

There are a multitude of Mahayana texts that give a definition of Buddhahood according to Mahayana. I'm unaware of the ambiguity of the terms that you refer to.

Analysis can only be applied to compounded phenomena, not ultimate truth, to which no discursive thoughts apply. This is because it is beyond discursive thought, and thus duality. Your contention that as soon as we apply a label to anything, ultimate or not, it becomes subject to analysis, is mistaken. The label can be subjected to analysis, but one must keep in mind that applying labels to terms correlating to ultimate truth is just a necessary convention of speech and is only an expedient tool, and doesn't bear on what they are meant to refer to. Ultimate truth can only be accessed once all analysis and discursive thought has been exhausted.

Also, the fact that I referred you to scriptures that treat the topic we've been arguing does not mean I've done so out of blind, pious acceptance of scriptures. In truth, I've read (or heard) them and contemplated their contents and (in some cases) meditated on the understanding I came to. I referred you to them because I feel they offer more than sufficient explanations and reasoning to enable you to see that your own conclusions are not the only viable alternative. You apparently care not to explore that possibility, or to read and contemplate those teachings for yourself and then argue against points whose logic you find fault with. That's your prerogative, although it does not make for helpful discussion.

If I'm to be frank, it seems like all your self-guided "analysis" has done is make you combative, closed-minded and argumentative, and it seems like you prefer striving to prove others wrong over actually exploring all the logical possibilities available and finding "truth."

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

Re: Buddha Nature

Postby ground » Sun Feb 14, 2010 7:38 am


Pema Rigdzin
Posts: 1037
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Southern Oregon

Re: Buddha Nature

Postby Pema Rigdzin » Sun Feb 14, 2010 9:43 am

1) Please enlighten me as to the different definitions of buddhahood that abound in the different Mahayana schools, then. Do not each of the Chittamatra-based traditions find Asanga and Vasubhandu among their principle lineage masters as Madhyamaka-based schools find Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti among theirs?

2) Nothing truly accurate can be said about ultimate truth, because it is not an object of discursive thought, and what is said is only a finger pointing to the moon, not the ultimate truth itself.For this reason, Prasangika Madhyamaka does not involve itself with analyzing ultimate truth and instead simply removes all fabricated views so the ultimate can be nakedly experienced. However, in order to counter the nihilistic tendencies of some beings who would misconstrue emptiness as merely a state of negation, the Buddha and some of his lineage heirs spoke of this experience in order to show that once the veils of delusion have been removed, qualities correlating to this removal of delusion are evident. In other words, buddhahood is not a blank nothingness, nor is it functionless. This is why masters like Nagarjuna, who primarily focused on what came to be known as Madhyamaka, also took the time to write treatises focusing on the qualities of buddhahood.

3) Since you claim to be basing your views on actual Buddhist teachings, which teachers and texts are you basing them on? If your views are more than your own half-baked analysis, then you should be able to cite your sources.

4) 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?

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

Re: Buddha Nature

Postby ground » Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:49 am


White Lotus
Posts: 1074
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:56 pm

Re: Buddha Nature

Postby White Lotus » Sun Feb 14, 2010 5:18 pm

this is very thorough! Spockky couldnt have provided a clearer analysis.

Pema, there are a multitude of arisings in the mind, yours is one, Tmingyur's is another and mine is another... were we all identical no one would debate the finer material of dharma.

one school discourages thought and concept, another encourages thought and concept, these two positions are really both the same, simply arisings in emptiness of emptiness. the mind is empty and empty of inherent existence, but for reasons of convention we use the term 'mind'. infact i find that there is no mind on inspection, there are actually not even arisings or cessations of thought, though once it appeared that there were.

i will now print out both of your posts for study later. :reading:

thank you, and appreciated.

with love, from, 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.

Ngawang Drolma
Founding Member
Posts: 2230
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 8:44 pm

Re: Buddha Nature

Postby Ngawang Drolma » Sun Feb 14, 2010 7:44 pm

White Lotus I agree, this is fabulous dialogue :)

Kindly,
Laura

User avatar
Dexing
Posts: 420
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 4:41 am

Re: Buddha Nature

Postby Dexing » Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:11 pm

nopalabhyate...

Pema Rigdzin
Posts: 1037
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Southern Oregon

Re: Buddha Nature

Postby Pema Rigdzin » Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:19 am

PR's edit: accidental double post
Last edited by Pema Rigdzin on Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

Pema Rigdzin
Posts: 1037
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Southern Oregon

Re: Buddha Nature

Postby Pema Rigdzin » Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:20 am


Pema Rigdzin
Posts: 1037
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Southern Oregon

Re: Buddha Nature

Postby Pema Rigdzin » Mon Feb 15, 2010 3:00 am


User avatar
Huifeng
Posts: 1476
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:51 am

Re: Buddha Nature

Postby Huifeng » Mon Feb 15, 2010 3:58 am

Maybe the thread name should be changed to "Buddha Nature - According to the Tibetans".

If one takes the time to read the original post, Dharmakid states that s/he is a former practitioner of Zen. Focusing on a range of sutras (and maybe some sastras) of the Tathagatagarbha class is probably going to be more to the point.

Too much talk about Vasubandhu and Asanga, or Nagarjuna and especially Candrakirti (who was basically a non-figure in East Asian Buddhism) (let alone Tsong Khapa and the Gelugs) is probably not going to answer Dharmakid's questions about Buddha Nature with a Zen style point of view. Not to say that the above discussion is not useful, but don't you think that we are kind of getting a bit off topic?


User avatar
Huifeng
Posts: 1476
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:51 am

Re: Buddha Nature

Postby Huifeng » Mon Feb 15, 2010 4:01 am

Last edited by Huifeng on Mon Feb 15, 2010 8:44 am, edited 1 time in total.


Pema Rigdzin
Posts: 1037
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Southern Oregon

Re: Buddha Nature

Postby Pema Rigdzin » Mon Feb 15, 2010 4:22 am

Huifeng,

To be fair, my only original intention was to introduce the bodhisattva Maitreya's treatise on buddha nature which according to Mahayana tradition was written down and brought into this world by Asanga. Then TMingyur started in with his accusations of the tathagatagarbha being a self and contradictory to the Mahayana teachings on emptiness, and I felt the need to disprove that. I think the relationship between emptiness and qualities is entirely pertinent to the discussion of what buddha nature is and people's questions about it. However, I shouldn't have let myself get drug into a debate about TMingyur's misunderstanding of some Tibetan masters' views about all this. It's just difficult not to when these topics are so intertwined in the realm of actual discussion in the Tibetan schools and that is my orientation.


Return to “Mahāyāna Buddhism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests