The Six Paramitas and the Eightfold Path

[Minobu]

why can't someone please just explain Buddha nature in terms that is simple.

Some seem to imply they know something everyone else does not know and go on in debate whilst implying they know..without ever really even trying to explain it.

It makes no sense to do this sort of thing.

Here is the best discussion of Buddha nature from a Zen perspective that I was able to find:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/myjourneyo ... ha-nature/

Describing the experience of Buddha nature, except perhaps for the purpose of introducing it as a concept, is ultimately a meaningless exercise. Buddha nature bears its fruit when we each experience it for ourselves. All the traditions of the Buddhadharma are replete with methods to realise the Buddha qualities inherent within all of us. Online our limited and precious time is best spent describing and discussing (within our tradition of choice) these time-tested methods that have been kept alive for millenia and now generously handed down to us.

thank you...the piece is beautiful..unfortunately for me i read into it ,a sort of creationist thing...like all things come from the Hand of God ...but without an all powerful sentient being making it all up like the Abrahamic God...

more of a Pantheist view that Alan Watts mixes with Buddhism ..

i want to believe in this pure primordial source from which everything arises and turns into a sunyata thing ...all things being seen from the view of Sunyata....but then it would not be a sunyata thing..for it would be a primordial source...so....i thank you for that....but lately a lot of what is being said is none other than another way of discussing some source that all things come from...


i just do not know and am wary...very wary

[Dharma Flower]

The next time the Lotus Sutra is taught, it may very well include a story about Bodhisattva Butthead.

That's a good point. Probably the most important message of the Lotus Sutra is that anyone, regardless of their station in life, can be a Bodhisattva.

[Bristollad]

i want to believe in this pure primordial source from which everything arises and turns into a sunyata thing ...

Why?

[Minobu]

i want to believe in this pure primordial source from which everything arises and turns into a sunyata thing ...

Why?

Well for one it seems like the Dzogchen crowd believes in it and I respect them.It was from their section i got the primordial source words and concept.
Shocked me i might add.

So many teachers and Buddhist scholars are claiming something like a primordial source or that alll things are Buddha Nature and all things are manifestations of Buddha Nature, everything comed from Buddha Nature.

None of which was available to me in the past. over forty years ago . Anything like this was shunned.

We would get into conversation that Lord Sakyamuni Buddha just never commented on God the Creator . why?
Allan Watts taught a sort of pantheist view mixed with Buddhist thought..But you never got the impression of an Almighty Being responsible.

I realize that no Buddhist claims a God the Creator ...but a primordial source is a Creationist View.

So it would be easy for me to sit back and just give in to this and have a neat packaged concept of Buddha Nature to work from.
Part of me wants to give in to this , but i have this nagging lemming mentality worry.
Not ready to go this route even though many now say it is so.

It goes against the Sunyata view..one of the main arguments in Buddhist circles here in the west about a God the Creator paradigm was "what was the cause of this primordial God the Creator" everything is cause and effect and co arising and co dependancy in Buddhist thought..thats what sets it apart from creationist theories.

I have this nagging feeling that Dzogchen is mixed with early shamanistic view , and maybe the cause for this sort of thing creeping into their Buddhism.



But it would be nice and comfy to see it as such...it has always been easy for the masses to believe in...and it sells well ...

Again...what do i know...just another shrub grappling with the whole non answer to what is Buddha Nature...

I wonder how much of world wide Buddhism is just not really reality...
I know this ...Buddha never mentioned god the Creator or talked of creationism ...

i recall Malcolm saying on esangha that a lot of Buddhist writings come with a seal of approval that it comes from the Buddha and he used the whole Hindu using Krisna as the seal of approval and that many teachings came from krisna due to someone saying they did, by adding Krisn's name to the source of the teaching...

not malcolm's exact words but he did say something along those lines...and it stuck to me and i have mentioned this here before..

so the verdict is still out for me..

lately i'm looking at the words Buddha Nature, and wondering if it means just that...the nature of the Buddha...like compassion and the ability to aid sentients in samsara...like a tree turned into shelter or paper or fire wood for warmth...rocks being used for shelter and bridges and the such ...to ancients and for people that see things through the eyes of Sunyata, Buddha Nature could simply be that when applied to the words"even the trees and rocks have Buddha Nature".

sort of a way of seeing the possibility in all things to aid sentients in samsara...All sentients have Buddha Nature or the possibility of living and acting like a Buddha would. too simple...?????

[Dharma Flower]

The Infinite Life Sutra was originally taught for those on the Bodhisattva path:

Each of these bodhisattvas, following the virtues of the Mahasattva Samantabhadra, is endowed with the immeasurable practices and vows of the Bodhisattva Path, and firmly dwells in all the meritorious deeds...

Each Buddha emits a hundred thousand rays of light and expounds the wonderful Dharma to beings in the ten quarters, thus setting innumerable beings on the right Path of the Buddha...

Having heard the teaching, they expound it to lead people into the Path of the Buddha...

They cultivate roots of virtue, revere the Path of the Buddha, and know that all dharmas are completely tranquil and non-existent... Having reached the end of the Single Path, they have gone to the Other Shore.
http://web.mit.edu/stclair/www/larger.html

As one can see, the original intent of the Infinite Life Sutra might not be that we passively recite the Nembutsu, as if that alone is enough for living a Buddhist life.

Instead, as we read the story of Dharmakara and the fulfillment of his vow to become Amida Buddha, we are encouraged to take on the Bodhisattva path ourselves in our daily life.

[Malcolm]

I realize that no Buddhist claims a God the Creator ...but a primordial source is a Creationist View.

The "source of things" is whether or not one recognizes the nature of one's mind. If one does not, that nonrecognition produces all the dharmas of samsara. If one does, that recognition produces all the dharmas of nirvana. But the nature of the mind itself is beyond samsara and nirvana from the beginning. There is no samsara or nirvana outside of the mind.

[Virgo]

If one does, that recognition produces all the dharmas of nirvana.

Non-abiding nirvana, correct Malcolm?

Kevin

[shaunc]

The Heart of Buddha's Teaching by Thich Nhat Hanh has a chapter on the Six Paramitas:
https://terebess.hu/zen/mesterek/Thich% ... aching.pdf

Just thought I'd add that the 14 precepts of TNH are definitely worth reading and implementing into your life if you can although they're not official precepts.

[Minobu]

again someone cherry picks and decides to make a post from one of my sentences, missing the intention , and becoming totally miopic on a set of words strung together, out of context..
but here goes.

I realize that no Buddhist claims a God the Creator ...but a primordial source is a Creationist View.

The "source of things" is whether or not one recognizes the nature of one's mind. If one does not, that nonrecognition produces all the dharmas of samsara. If one does, that recognition produces all the dharmas of nirvana. But the nature of the mind itself is beyond samsara and nirvana from the beginning. There is no samsara or nirvana outside of the mind.

Sounds very close to Solipsism, but does not address this whole creationist thing i'm on about.

thank you for that ...
But...
i was referring to the primordial source that all things come from...a Creationist Thing...i believe Dzogchen teaches that as well ...I also realize Dzogchen focus on the primordial nature of mind. Awakening to it. which you seem to have just melded together.

But maybe what i read is a confusion about it, like how people got confused about emptiness aspect taught by cCNN and sunyata.

maybe a misunderstanding from people who practice Dzogchen....but correct me if i am wrong , i think you went along with the concept that there is a primordial source from which all things come from...quite different from this Solipsistic thing you just wrote.

As for what you say...can you be more explicit . It seems to be talking about other than what i was talking about. That being this thing i read everywhere that everything comes from Buddha Nature.

[conebeckham]

Ok but even conventionally I don't get it. The eye is not the I, the ear is not the eye, etc ... but the permanent self is the I. (What else could a "permanent self be but an I?) Doesn't sound right even conventionally.

When not just say buddha nature is just emptiness?

Does emptiness have some sort of cognizance or awareness?

[conebeckham]

again someone cherry picks and decides to make a post from one of my sentences, missing the intention , and becoming totally miopic on a set of words strung together, out of context..
but here goes.

I realize that no Buddhist claims a God the Creator ...but a primordial source is a Creationist View.

The "source of things" is whether or not one recognizes the nature of one's mind. If one does not, that nonrecognition produces all the dharmas of samsara. If one does, that recognition produces all the dharmas of nirvana. But the nature of the mind itself is beyond samsara and nirvana from the beginning. There is no samsara or nirvana outside of the mind.

Sounds very close to Solipsism, but does not address this whole creationist thing i'm on about.

thank you for that ...
But...
i was referring to the primordial source that all things come from...a Creationist Thing...i believe Dzogchen teaches that as well ...I also realize Dzogchen focus on the primordial nature of mind. Awakening to it. which you seem to have just melded together.

There is no primordial source that all things come from. No "creationist thing" in Dzogchen. If anything, such descriptions are metaphoric. the "Primordial Nature of Mind" is not a thing, not a source, per se.

But maybe what i read is a confusion about it, like how people got confused about emptiness aspect taught by cCNN and sunyata.

maybe a misunderstanding from people who practice Dzogchen....but correct me if i am wrong , i think you went along with the concept that there is a primordial source from which all things come from...quite different from this Solipsistic thing you just wrote.

It's not a place, or a source, or some "thing" or "location," neither is it a mentally-fabricated solipsism.

Really, there is only one way to understand the intent of these words and ideas, and that is to obtain genuine transmission from a qualified master.

[PuerAzaelis]

Ok but even conventionally I don't get it. The eye is not the I, the ear is not the eye, etc ... but the permanent self is the I. (What else could a "permanent self be but an I?) Doesn't sound right even conventionally.

When not just say buddha nature is just emptiness?

Does emptiness have some sort of cognizance or awareness?

Ty for this question.

I would say - yes ok, unobstructedness, certainly.

But is that clarity a "permanent self" even in a conventional sense?

I don't know.

"Permanent" and "self" seems to imply there's one thing in the word at least that I can maintain or manage without leading to suffering - which is the wrong way to be thinking, no?

[Malcolm]

i was referring to the primordial source that all things come from...a Creationist Thing...i believe Dzogchen teaches that as well ...

Sometimes Dzogchen uses language that seems creationist, but it is intentional and not to be taken literally, but the same is true of the Hevajra Tantra and others. The texts themselves direct us to understand such language is metaphorical and not literal. Again, some people, through a casual reading of these texts, misunderstand everything.

[conebeckham]

Ok but even conventionally I don't get it. The eye is not the I, the ear is not the eye, etc ... but the permanent self is the I. (What else could a "permanent self be but an I?) Doesn't sound right even conventionally.

When not just say buddha nature is just emptiness?

Does emptiness have some sort of cognizance or awareness?

Ty for this question.

I would say - yes ok, unobstructedness, certainly.

But is that clarity a "permanent self" even in a conventional sense?

I don't know.

"Permanent" and "self" seems to imply there's one thing in the word at least that I can maintain or manage without leading to suffering - which is the wrong way to be thinking, no?

If one actualizes Buddhahood, which is the one thing in the world which, so I've heard, does not lead to suffering, then you should try to "maintain and manage that!"

Now I'll just trot out some familiar and often-used words I like to borrow from Karmapa Rangjung Dorje's "Aspiration Prayer of Mahamudra" :

The basis of purification is the union of luminosity/Emptiness,
the True nature of the mind.
**********
All phenomena are the illusory display of mind.
Mind is no mind, empty of any entity that is mind.
Though empty, everything appears unceasingly.
May we fully examine and resolve any doubt regarding the nature of the ground.
************
Projections that never existed are mistakenly taken as objects.
Due to ignorance, self-existing awareness is mistaken as a self.
Clinging to duality, we have been wandering in samsara.
May we discover the root of ignorance and confusion.

It is not existent-even the victorious ones have not seen it.
It is not nonexistent-it is the basis of all samsara and nirvana.
This is not a contradiction, but the middle path of unity.
May we realize the true nature of mind, which is free from extremes.

It can not be shown by saying "this is it."
It cannot be refuted by saying "this is not it."
The true nature of phenomena is beyond concept and unconditioned.
May we definitely know the perfect Ultimate Truth.

[PuerAzaelis]

... Karmapa Rangjung Dorje's "Aspiration Prayer of Mahamudra" ...

Wonderful, ty.

[Minobu]

i was referring to the primordial source that all things come from...a Creationist Thing...i believe Dzogchen teaches that as well ...

Sometimes Dzogchen uses language that seems creationist, but it is intentional and not to be taken literally, but the same is true of the Hevajra Tantra and others. The texts themselves direct us to understand such language is metaphorical and not literal. Again, some people, through a casual reading of these texts, misunderstand everything.

Ok as always you make clear that which lies in a fog.

thank you malcolm , and just so you know I learn a lot from the Dzogchen section and your teachings Loppon.

You have dedicated your life work to the cause and share much...yer one of the good guys.

if i sound off my self date at times i apologize, or angry or any other human frailty , it's never directed at what you know but what i don't understand.

cheers and bless.

[Anonymous X]

Now I'll just trot out some familiar and often-used words I like to borrow from Karmapa Rangjung Dorje's "Aspiration Prayer of Mahamudra" :

The basis of purification is the union of luminosity/Emptiness,
the True nature of the mind.
**********
All phenomena are the illusory display of mind.
Mind is no mind, empty of any entity that is mind.
Though empty, everything appears unceasingly.
May we fully examine and resolve any doubt regarding the nature of the ground.
************
Projections that never existed are mistakenly taken as objects.
Due to ignorance, self-existing awareness is mistaken as a self.
Clinging to duality, we have been wandering in samsara.
May we discover the root of ignorance and confusion.

It is not existent-even the victorious ones have not seen it.
It is not nonexistent-it is the basis of all samsara and nirvana.
This is not a contradiction, but the middle path of unity.
May we realize the true nature of mind, which is free from extremes.

It can not be shown by saying "this is it."
It cannot be refuted by saying "this is not it."
The true nature of phenomena is beyond concept and unconditioned.
May we definitely know the perfect Ultimate Truth.

Great quote.

What do you think the term self-existing means in the Mahamudra context? You usually see this term used as a description to something that has an independent existence, such as god.

[conebeckham]

Now I'll just trot out some familiar and often-used words I like to borrow from Karmapa Rangjung Dorje's "Aspiration Prayer of Mahamudra" :

The basis of purification is the union of luminosity/Emptiness,
the True nature of the mind.
**********
All phenomena are the illusory display of mind.
Mind is no mind, empty of any entity that is mind.
Though empty, everything appears unceasingly.
May we fully examine and resolve any doubt regarding the nature of the ground.
************
Projections that never existed are mistakenly taken as objects.
Due to ignorance, self-existing awareness is mistaken as a self.
Clinging to duality, we have been wandering in samsara.
May we discover the root of ignorance and confusion.

It is not existent-even the victorious ones have not seen it.
It is not nonexistent-it is the basis of all samsara and nirvana.
This is not a contradiction, but the middle path of unity.
May we realize the true nature of mind, which is free from extremes.

It can not be shown by saying "this is it."
It cannot be refuted by saying "this is not it."
The true nature of phenomena is beyond concept and unconditioned.
May we definitely know the perfect Ultimate Truth.

Great quote.

What do you think the term self-existing means in the Mahamudra context? You usually see this term used as a description to something that has an independent existence, such as god.

Uncaused, unconditioned, not dependent.....and I refer you back to Malcolm's definition.

[Minobu]

What do you think the term self-existing means in the Mahamudra context? You usually see this term used as a description to something that has an independent existence, such as god.

I recall HHDalai Lama in talks of God the creator expressing this whole thing as a self creation.

This luminous state Dzogchen practitioners refer to is real. And Nichiren Shonin talks of the mind as such. Most buddhist Masters and awakened beings talk of it this way as well.
Why, because this is what it is .
so now it's me, Minobu the Shrub , gloriously grappling with it along side my Teachers in the DharmaKaya, Gurus , and the Good People here at DW.

there is this mind . at one time thats all that was. so in a sense it is primordial. you Cannot have time without mass. so there was no time.
so there was a non time where all there was a boundless awareness. Pure blissful mind

Then Desire arose and the problem of Samsara started. It has no beginning and no ending for the pure mind is a no time event . But Desire was and is inevitable.
Hence the World of Desire realms were self created. Also time , so yes Samsara always was for one aspect of it is time.

It happened so long ago no one remembers. And just like we view life on earth as some wonder that never ceases to amaze at the variety of life forms that come about.
Samsara grows with each Karmic event the self Creation produces. I think samsara was really small at one time. Like beings of light being formed and enjoying desire in a realm of that...slowly mass formed and got much harder , so to speak...denser and Samsara eventually turned into what we know here on earth.

It's not so much the primordial mind creates but when introduced to desire creates...hence a sunyata ..a co arising ...an inter dependant samsara...

Desire was and is inevitable and the actual cause for Karma which is the reason we have Samsara for it is produced from Karma...hence a sort of self creation.

i actually firmly believe this at this moment in time...All of this is my take from what i have read from Buddhist teachers and readings.

also i do not think Buddha Nature came into being until a human form being sentient was awakened to this Mind and reality and then in time became powerful enough to colour everything through The dharma Kaya Body with Buddha Nature. In order to share with others and have the ability to blow out their samsaric attachments. The extinction is not an extinction but becoming one with mind totally ...which would be like a return from samsarric Desire realms to what we actually are primordially.

so there it is ..Minobu the shrub shares his dark Secret View....

[Dharma Flower]

Please do something nice for others today, no matter how small. That is the true Bodhisattva way.