Making sense of types of thought

[LastLegend]

Buddha-nature is what all beings possess.
They also possess the potential to realize that Buddha nature.

Labelling the emptiness of the aggregates buddha nature can be inspirational (as it's supposed to be according to RGV 1.166), but other than that it literally does not stand for anything, so how could it be more than a concept?

No. Everything mental seems like one big mental organ but each aggregate is different. A concept is a functioning of all five aggregates. So is thinking, grasping, etc. The reason why Buddha nature is concealed it’s because of aggregates.

[Astus]

I don’t know who labels the emptiness of the aggregates Buddha-nature. Maybe you are mixing a bunch of different stuff together.

Didn't you agree here that "it is 'the mind’s original unborn state free of craving' that you call buddha nature, in other words that the mind is empty and pure"?

[Astus]

The reason why Buddha nature is concealed it’s because of aggregates.

Do you have any source for that? Also, if the aggregates conceal buddha nature, that means buddha nature is not just without a body, it is also without consciousness and all mental functions. What good is buddha nature for that is practically less useful than a piece of rock?

[PadmaVonSamba]

I don’t know who labels the emptiness of the aggregates Buddha-nature. Maybe you are mixing a bunch of different stuff together.

Didn't you agree here that "it is 'the mind’s original unborn state free of craving' that you call buddha nature, in other words that the mind is empty and pure"?

Yeah but why bring the aggregates into it?
Anyway, the point you seem to be focused on is that Buddha-nature is merely a concept.

So, what does that mean? A concept is only a way of describing something that someone imagines, but which may not have any ‘reality’ to it other than what is imagined. It’s like making up Godzilla for the first time. Godzilla started out as a concept.

But what I’m saying is that Buddha-nature, or unborn mind, tathagatagharba, Buddha mind, etc. Are all terms that refer to mind’s original state. That original state itself isn’t a concept. Yes, you can have concepts about it, labels for it, but the mind’s original state is just that.

[LastLegend]

Do you have any source for that? Also, if the aggregates conceal buddha nature, that means buddha nature is not just without a body, it is also without consciousness and all mental functions. What good is buddha nature for that is practically less useful than a piece of rock?

Concealed means one’s one can’t get out of its own reasoning. Your reasoning is an example of And I think you are putting yourself at an odd position knowing Buddha nature is talked about in Chan texts and Sutras. You said Buddha nature is equivalent to aggregates. It’s not. Buddha nature is referred to as aware nature in Bodhidharma’s blood stream sermon. Aware nature is not aggregates.

[LastLegend]

Despite Nagarjuna’s intention, you can’t reason yourself to enlightened. The best bet is to have your mind very quiet to know what subtlest arises. Aware nature has no substance yet it’s not aggregates because aggregates are appearance. Refer to Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra (one by Manjushri with the Buddha), Bodhi is free from appearance.

[PadmaVonSamba]

Do you have any source for that? Also, if the aggregates conceal buddha nature, that means buddha nature is not just without a body, it is also without consciousness and all mental functions. What good is buddha nature for that is practically less useful than a piece of rock?

Concealed means one’s one can’t get out of its own reasoning. Your reasoning is an example of And I think you are putting yourself at an odd position knowing Buddha nature is talked about in Chan texts and Sutras. You said Buddha nature is equivalent to aggregates. It’s not. Buddha nature is referred to as aware nature in Bodhidharma’s blood stream sermon. Aware nature is not aggregates.

The keyword in Buddha-nature is nature as in ”the nature of things” in this case, the true nature of mind. “Buddha nature” isn’t some kind of object, like a rock. As such, it’s not with or “without” anything. Saying it is without body or consciousness is a nonsensical statement.

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

Mind isn’t a continuous entity.
It’s a continual process.

With permission, I'd like to use that in the future.

[PadmaVonSamba]

Mind isn’t a continuous entity.
It’s a continual process.

With permission, I'd like to use that in the future.

Permission isn’t needed.
Go for it.

[LastLegend]

Do you have any source for that? Also, if the aggregates conceal buddha nature, that means buddha nature is not just without a body, it is also without consciousness and all mental functions. What good is buddha nature for that is practically less useful than a piece of rock?

Concealed means one’s one can’t get out of its own reasoning. Your reasoning is an example of And I think you are putting yourself at an odd position knowing Buddha nature is talked about in Chan texts and Sutras. You said Buddha nature is equivalent to aggregates. It’s not. Buddha nature is referred to as aware nature in Bodhidharma’s blood stream sermon. Aware nature is not aggregates.

The keyword in Buddha-nature is nature as in ”the nature of things” in this case, the true nature of mind. “Buddha nature” isn’t some kind of object, like a rock. As such, it’s not with or “without” anything. Saying it is without body or consciousness is a nonsensical statement.

People use ‘nature of consciousness’ which isn’t different from ‘aware-nature.’ Nature of consciousness is actually two different things (because we talk about them we refer to them as things), consciousness does arise (so subtle) while nature doesn’t arise and they are close by each other. It’s really hard to tell them a part because it’s often turned into an mental object of aggregates (grasping with imagined thoughts). That’s the very issue. Same with nature of aware or aware nature.

[LastLegend]

Do you have any source for that? Also, if the aggregates conceal buddha nature, that means buddha nature is not just without a body, it is also without consciousness and all mental functions. What good is buddha nature for that is practically less useful than a piece of rock?

Concealed means one’s one can’t get out of its own reasoning. Your reasoning is an example of And I think you are putting yourself at an odd position knowing Buddha nature is talked about in Chan texts and Sutras. You said Buddha nature is equivalent to aggregates. It’s not. Buddha nature is referred to as aware nature in Bodhidharma’s blood stream sermon. Aware nature is not aggregates.

The keyword in Buddha-nature is nature as in ”the nature of things” in this case, the true nature of mind. “Buddha nature” isn’t some kind of object, like a rock. As such, it’s not with or “without” anything. Saying it is without body or consciousness is a nonsensical statement.

I am not sure what the issue is other than we are so wrapped up with non-independent entity that we are afraid to describe it in a way that would alienate it from the teaching of interdependence. We recognize it has no appearance, it doesn’t arise, it’s not an object or a rock, it’s not space or air (yet it describe like space, it’s empty. It has no characteristics of an entity other than the description we use make it like an entity. It cannot be entity. Nature of aware or consciousness is like the purest of consciousness.

[LastLegend]

Our original Buddha-Nature is, in highest truth, devoid of any atom of objectivity. It is void, omnipresent, silent, pure; it is glorious and mysterious peaceful joy — and that is all. Enter deeply into it by awakening to it yourself. That which is before you is it, in all its fullness, utterly complete. There is naught beside.

Even if you go through all the stages of a Bodhisattva's progress toward Buddhahood, one by one; when at last, in a single flash, you attain to full realization, you will only be realizing the Buddha-Nature which has been with you all the time; and by all the foregoing stages you will have added to it nothing at all.

You will come to look upon all those eons of work and achievement as no better than unreal actions performed in a dream. That is why the Tathagata said, "I truly attained nothing from complete, unexcelled Enlightenment. Had there been anything attained, Dipamkara Buddha would not have made the prophecy concerning me." He also said, "This Dharma is absolutely without distinctions, neither high nor low, and its name is Bodhi."

~Zen Teachings of Huang Po~


Next time…when you sit in a chair and then you suddenly adjust your sitting position. Asked yourself if that was filtered or processed or instantaneous? Did it any distinction was made before you do that? Did anything arise in mind?

[Astus]

But what I’m saying is that Buddha-nature, or unborn mind, tathagatagharba, Buddha mind, etc. Are all terms that refer to mind’s original state. That original state itself isn’t a concept. Yes, you can have concepts about it, labels for it, but the mind’s original state is just that.

The mind is the four mental aggregates, so the mind's nature is the nature of the mental aggregates, in other words, what they are like in general, what their characteristics are. Unborn is a synonym for the characteristic of emptiness, therefore buddha nature refers to the aggregates being empty, i.e. insubstantial, not self. To name the absence of self-nature as buddha nature is a skilful means, but just as emptiness is not a thing, not even in conventional terms, buddha nature, being a sort of rebranding of emptiness, is merely a concept without any actual referent.

[PadmaVonSamba]

But what I’m saying is that Buddha-nature, or unborn mind, tathagatagharba, Buddha mind, etc. Are all terms that refer to mind’s original state. That original state itself isn’t a concept. Yes, you can have concepts about it, labels for it, but the mind’s original state is just that.

The mind is the four mental aggregates, so the mind's nature is the nature of the mental aggregates, in other words, what they are like in general, what their characteristics are. Unborn is a synonym for the characteristic of emptiness, therefore buddha nature refers to the aggregates being empty, i.e. insubstantial, not self. To name the absence of self-nature as buddha nature is a skilful means, but just as emptiness is not a thing, not even in conventional terms, buddha nature, being a sort of rebranding of emptiness, is merely a concept without any actual referent.

What you say is true, and we are talking about two different things.
You are referring to the emptiness of the aggregates themselves.
What I’m referring to, tathagatagharba, in the context of the inherent ability of beings to directly realize that emptiness.
That inherent ability is synonymous with original mind. Inherent means that beings don’t have to acquire it from anywhere.
When we begin to break from attachment to the aggregates process, then original mind begins to reveal itself automatically.
Without tathagatagharba, if the mind’s original nature wasn’t already buddha-mind, there would be no way to return to that, no way to liberation. Beings would simply wallow in appearances (and most do) with no basis for doing otherwise.

[Astus]

Buddha nature is referred to as aware nature in Bodhidharma’s blood stream sermon. Aware nature is not aggregates.

Looking for something outside this body and mind is a mistake.

'Our mortal nature is our buddhanature. Beyond this nature there's no buddha.'
(Bloodstream Sermon, p 17, tr Red Pine; X63n1218p2c20-21)

The only difference to consider is whether there is or is not any attachment.

'Your mind is basically empty. All appearances are illusions. Don't hold on to appearances. ... If you seek direct understanding, don't hold on to any appearance whatsoever, and you'll succeed. I have no other advice. The sutras say, "All appearances are illusions." They have no fixed existence, no constant form. They're impermanent. Don't cling to appearances and you'll be of one mind with the Buddha.'
(p 27; p3c10-14)

See also the final paragraphs from 'But this mind isn't somewhere outside the material body of four elements.' until 'But once you know that the nature of anger and joy is empty and you let them go, you free yourself from karma.' (p 43-45; p5a8-a22)

[Astus]

That inherent ability is synonymous with original mind. Inherent means that beings don’t have to acquire it from anywhere.

If you call buddha nature the ability to realise buddha nature that would mean the ability to realise the ability, which seems as senseless as saying that seeing means seeing the seeing, or that eating means eating the eating. If you were to say that buddha nature is both emptiness and the ability to realise emptiness, maybe better, but then there's still the question of what that ability consists of, and why it's a special point to consider.

Without tathagatagharba, if the mind’s original nature wasn’t already buddha-mind, there would be no way to return to that, no way to liberation. Beings would simply wallow in appearances (and most do) with no basis for doing otherwise.

The doctrine of buddha mind is not universal among all Buddhist schools, and its interpretation also varies, so it's hard to say why it's necessary to posit it when others can do just fine without it.

[PadmaVonSamba]

'Our mortal nature is our buddhanature. Beyond this nature there's no buddha.'
(Bloodstream Sermon, p 17, tr Red Pine; X63n1218p2c20-21)

What Bodhidharma is saying (that’s a really great book, btw!) is that realization can be had, here and now, in this body.

[PadmaVonSamba]

That inherent ability is synonymous with original mind. Inherent means that beings don’t have to acquire it from anywhere.

If you call buddha nature the ability to realise buddha nature that would mean the ability to realise the ability, which seems as senseless as saying that seeing means seeing the seeing, or that eating means eating the eating.

not senseless at all, just as with practicing shamatha meditation, where mind’s original calmness is realized in the practicing of returning to calm mind. It’s the same that sunlight is what brightens the sky and thus enables us to see sunlight. Actually, when you are seeing, you do see that you are seeing.

It is Buddha-nature which reveals itself when the obscurations are removed.

[LastLegend]

Astus,

The issue is grasping…then when grasping ends you still touching a state that’s pure and empty. Here there is no need to grasp if one has achieved samadhi.

[LastLegend]

Buddha nature is referred to as aware nature in Bodhidharma’s blood stream sermon. Aware nature is not aggregates.

Looking for something outside this body and mind is a mistake.

'Our mortal nature is our buddhanature. Beyond this nature there's no buddha.'
(Bloodstream Sermon, p 17, tr Red Pine; X63n1218p2c20-21)

The only difference to consider is whether there is or is not any attachment.

'Your mind is basically empty. All appearances are illusions. Don't hold on to appearances. ... If you seek direct understanding, don't hold on to any appearance whatsoever, and you'll succeed. I have no other advice. The sutras say, "All appearances are illusions." They have no fixed existence, no constant form. They're impermanent. Don't cling to appearances and you'll be of one mind with the Buddha.'
(p 27; p3c10-14)

See also the final paragraphs from 'But this mind isn't somewhere outside the material body of four elements.' until 'But once you know that the nature of anger and joy is empty and you let them go, you free yourself from karma.' (p 43-45; p5a8-a22)

Yes, seeking causes grasping, but when you practice Samadhi is you practice not grasping because the mind isn’t supposed to grasp anything when it’s quiet and clear. How can you grasp when mind is clear of itself? While in discussion like this grasping does arise. Delusional thoughts and attachment can arise when one engages in daily activity of living because that’s habit.

I totally disagree by simply having the view of (lack of self-existence) will take care of grasping because grasping is a long live habit.