muni wrote:Regarding the question in first post; your nature free from veils of ignorance = Buddha nature.
So does an Arhat, having rid him or herself of the veils of ignorance and the defilements, have Buddha nature?
muni wrote:Regarding the question in first post; your nature free from veils of ignorance = Buddha nature.
Arhat is not Buddhahood. Lets' keep it by that.Huseng wrote:muni wrote:Regarding the question in first post; your nature free from veils of ignorance = Buddha nature.
So does an Arhat, having rid him or herself of the veils of ignorance and the defilements, have Buddha nature?
muni wrote:Arhat is not Buddhahood. Lets' keep it by that.Huseng wrote:muni wrote:Regarding the question in first post; your nature free from veils of ignorance = Buddha nature.
So does an Arhat, having rid him or herself of the veils of ignorance and the defilements, have Buddha nature?
Hi,muni wrote:Regarding the question in first post; your nature free from veils of ignorance = Buddha nature.
Take a large diamond and place it on your kitchen table. Make up a batch of nice thick pancake batter and pour it on the diamond. The diamond and its nature becomes obscured, you can't see it any more. But if you clean the diamond carefully, its nature is again revealed.Dexing wrote:Hi,muni wrote:Regarding the question in first post; your nature free from veils of ignorance = Buddha nature.
I don't see how that's regarding the question in my original post, but thanks. I wasn't asking what Buddha Nature is, but what it means "to see", or more precisely, why in some schools (such as with Bodhidharma) do they call it "seeing" your nature. I think we have gotten to the bottom of that question.
But anyway, regarding your statement; if one's nature is not free from veils of ignorance is it not Buddha Nature, does one not have Buddha Nature then?
It sounds like the quality of the nature is affected by ignorance in your statement, or that one's nature is transformed into Buddha Nature when it becomes free from the veils of ignorance.
I'm not so sure I follow this interpretation.
muni wrote:Hi Huseng,
It is even worse. Each sentient being has the potential to actualize Ultimate Nature or Buddha Nature. How could the precious teaching be written down and thaught if no disciple understood?
However the perception of Arhat-Bodhisattva can be discussed and thaught, equality of ALL is my view. No focus on these concepts, as what is their value? Life is impermanent, we fill it up with these discussions or remain aware.
VenerableHuifeng wrote:Standard answer is that an arhat has only overcome defilement-obstructions, but not knowable-obstructions. They know the common characteristics of phenomena which is sufficient for realization of the four aryan-truths, but not the specific characteristics of phenomena which is required for the gnosis of all modes. Only with the latter is there full realization of "buddha nature", the former is partial.
This, as well as Mahadeva's five theses, is why some schools posited to types of ignorance (avidya):Huseng wrote:VenerableHuifeng wrote:Standard answer is that an arhat has only overcome defilement-obstructions, but not knowable-obstructions. They know the common characteristics of phenomena which is sufficient for realization of the four aryan-truths, but not the specific characteristics of phenomena which is required for the gnosis of all modes. Only with the latter is there full realization of "buddha nature", the former is partial.
Indeed this is the standard answer from a Mahayana position.
One thing that comes to mind is the status of Buddha's own disciples like Sariputra, Ananda and so on, who were said to have become enlightened and were called Arhats, not Bodhisattvas.
If one says that they, disciples who sat at the foot of Shayamuni, were still ignorant then what hope is there for the rest of us who do not have direct access to a Buddha?
I'm not sure who the "our" is of "our delineation", but I assume you mean traditional Mahayana exegesis. If so, you can be sure that when compared to the arhat of the Nikayas and Agamas, there are some major problems. Not enough people have good knowledge of both early Buddhism, sectarian Buddhism and the development of Mahayana to appreciate this. Most fall to one of two sides: "Selfish Arahants!" or "Heretical, not taught by the Buddha!"Lately I've come to wonder if our delineation of the Arhat vehicle is really appropriate or not. I don't like hearing people from a high horse point fingers and ridicule them as selfish. It is a perfectly valid vehicle that was taught by the Buddha right? So why make such a pejorative out of it (I'm not saying you personally are, but a lot of people both east and west do).
Whose gotra theory? There are several of them.Maybe the gotra theory should be emphasized? Some people are just predisposed towards certain vehicles. Some will be Arhats, some will be Bodhisattvas... I think if we're honest with ourselves it might even bring about a lot of benefit. Not everyone is going to be receptive to the Bodhisattva path (at least in this life anyhow). No sense stuffing somebody into the Bodhisattva station wagon when they want to get into the Arhat van.
Great.The other week I visited a Theravada temple here in Tokyo and made the Bhikkus some lunch and later chatted with them. I don't see any reason to call any of them selfish or to look down on them because they're striving for Arhatship.
Ananda apparently did not attain great awakening while Shakyamuni was alive. However, he later became the 3rd patriarch in the meditation tradition, following Maha Kashyapa.Huseng wrote:One thing that comes to mind is the status of Buddha's own disciples like Sariputra, Ananda and so on, who were said to have become enlightened and were called Arhats, not Bodhisattvas.
If one says that they, disciples who sat at the foot of Shayamuni, were still ignorant then what hope is there for the rest of us who do not have direct access to a Buddha?
According to Bodhidharma, as he always repeated; "I only talk about seeing your Nature". But that doesn't mean Buddha Nature needs anything. It's already perfect as it is. We don't see that, however.plwk wrote:Does 'Buddha Nature' need 'seeing'?
I was reflecting about your question. It took me more than a week to know: "I have no idea".Dexing wrote:Are we talking about liberation, or seeing Buddha Nature now?
Dexing wrote:According to Bodhidharma, as he always repeated; "I only talk about seeing your Nature". But that doesn't mean Buddha Nature needs anything. It's already perfect as it is. We don't see that, however.plwk wrote:Does 'Buddha Nature' need 'seeing'?
Great, so you found your own huatou, and arrived at what has been called in some traditions the "don't know mind" and in others "beginners mind".muni wrote:I was reflecting about your question. It took me more than a week to know: "I have no idea".Dexing wrote:Are we talking about liberation, or seeing Buddha Nature now?
Words are illusions about what is just perfect. Nor discursive thoughts, neither "perfect words" will perfect what is already perfect. Bodhidharma