[DghtRdc]

I found this definition of 'Buddha Nature'.

"Buddha-nature or Buddha Principle (Buddha-dhātu), is taught, within Mahayana Buddhism, to be an intrinsic, immortal potential for reaching enlightenment that exists within the mind of every sentient being.

Buddha-nature is not to be confused with the concept of Atman, or Self, but instead is viewed to be empty of defining characteristics (also see Sunyata and Nondualism)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature


I also saw it described in the glossary of a book as -"Unrealised enlightened mind, the essential nature of all sentient beings."

What does "immortal potential" mean - and how can the potential (and fruition) for reaching enlightenment exist in the mind of an ant or a fish?

Did the Buddha teach about "Buddha Nature"?


Comments ?

[secondmortgagek]

'Buddha Nature'.

This a concept in Buddhism that I cannot accept as true. To begin with, I assume by "all sentient beings" is meant man, since, as far as we can tell, insects and most of the animal kingdom (?all) are not able to reason and hence can't make the volitional choices that one must make on the path to enlightenment (I'm assuming here that enlightenment doesn't just occur suddenly without cause).

I also do not believe that all humans are born with the same capacity to reason and hence to make choices based on some very complex ideas. It is "nice" and "politically correct" to say this is true but I don't believe it - I'm sure I would be labeled an "elitest" .

I also believe there are humans - truly evil people -who do not have the mental software(instinct, "nature") to develop the sense of right and wrong required for "right view", etc; sociopaths (the previous "antisocial personality disorder")do not seem to be able to learn that stealing is wrong no matter what the circumstance (except perhaps for survival as in stealing food to keep from starving) but these folks (and I've had to deal with two such individuals over my career) see no contradiction or problem with stealing or harming other people in various ways - the person who recurrently breaks the law in the same way would seem to be a likely member of this group.

I obviously don't believe that each of us is born with a "clean slate" and that "all" behavior is learned - "most" of the animal kingdom's behavior is instinctual and not "learned" and , if evolution is true, some of man's behavior is instinctual as well and not learned, and I include more than pure survival instinct here.

So, I'm not sure what is meant by "Buddha nature" unless it means being able to use one's intellect to decide what choices in life to make to persue the path.



edited to create spaces in block of text to avoid getting vis. migraine

[regfortruegoo]

So, I'm not sure what is meant by "Buddha nature" unless it means being able to use one's intellect to decide what choices in life to make to persue the path.

No, that's not what it means. ...and as far as I'm aware, "all sentient beings" means all living things.

Buddha nature was described by the late Chagdud Tulku in 'Gates to Buddhist Practice' as follows...

The mind is the source of both our suffering and happiness. It can be used positively to create benefit, or negatively to create harm. Although every being's fundemental nature is beginningless, deathless purity - what we call buddha nature - we don't recognise it.

[igs00r]

What does "immortal potential" mean

As I understand it, from my Tibetan days, the sentient being migrates in the round of samsara until it gains a precious human birth. Even then it must have generated enough merit to encounter Buddhist teachings. This potential exists, as we have all been swimming in samsara's strudel since beginningless time.

- and how can the potential (and fruition) for reaching enlightenment exist in the mind of an ant or a fish? It can't happen as an ant or fish but as a turtle may surface on a great ocean once every million years and by karmic fate place its neck into a hoop (the only one in the mighty ocean btw) a sentient being may attain a precious human re-birth.

So, I think we can all agree on that right?

I'm outta here now...

[esdfsdflast]

So, I think we can all agree on that right?

No, not really because Sogyal Rinpoche says here:

The buddha nature is simply the birthright of every sentient being, and I always say, “Our buddha nature is as good as any buddha’s buddha nature.” This is the good news that the Buddha brought us from his enlightenment in Bodhgaya, and which many people find so inspiring.

Through practice, we too can all become awakened. If this were not true, countless individuals down to the present day would not have become enlightened. "Every sentient being" is literally animals as well, is it not? "birthright" is something understood to be in the same lifetime as that birth. Also, is the "good news" about "buddha nature" in the Pali Canon? Could someone point me to a sutta there, please?

Additionally we have this at the beginning of the article:

Buddha nature — when the Buddha became enlightened he realized that all beings without exception have the same nature and potential for enlightenment, and this is known as buddha nature. source: http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Buddha_nature

So again,is there evidence that someone can show me that the Buddha gave this teaching about"buddha nature" after his enlightenment, please ?

[Ankeseiband]

More about animals:


"Animals have always been regarded in Buddhist thought as sentient beings, different in their intellectual ability than humans but no less capable of feeling suffering. Furthermore, animals possess Buddha nature (according to the Mahāyāna school) and therefore an equal potential to become enlightened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animals_in_Buddhism

[Tibaveriafark]

Did the Buddha teach about "Buddha Nature"? From the Lankavatara Sutra (purportedly the only Sutra that Bodhidharma ever recommended)
http://lirs.ru/do/lanka_eng/lanka-chapter-2.htm#chap2 (XXVIII-XXIX The Tathagata-Garbha and the Ego-soul)
At that time, Mahāmati the Bodhisattva-Mahāsattva said this to the Blessed One:
Now the Blessed One makes mention of the Tathāgata-garbha in the sutras, and verily it is described by you as by nature bright and pure, as primarily unspotted, endowed with the thirty-two marks of excellence, hidden in the body of every being like a gem of great value, which is enwrapped in a dirty garment, enveloped in the garment of the Skandhas, Dhātus, and Āyatanas, and soiled with the dirt of greed, anger, folly, and false imagination, while it is described by the Blessed One to be eternal, permanent, auspicious, and unchangeable.

Is not this Tathāgata-garbha taught by the Blessed One the same as the ego-substance taught by the philosophers? The ego as taught in the systems of the philosophers is an eternal creator, unqualified, omnipresent, and imperishable. The Blessed One replied:
No, Mahāmati, my Tathāgata-garbha is not the same as the ego taught by the philosophers; for what the Tathagatas teach is the Tathāgata-garbha in the sense, Mahāmati, that it is emptiness, reality-limit, Nirvana, being unborn, unqualified, and devoid of will-effort; the reason why the Tathagatas who are Arhats and Fully-Enlightened Ones, teach the doctrine pointing to the Tathāgata-garbha is to make the ignorant cast aside their fear when they listen to the teaching of egolessness and to have them realise the state of non-discrimination and imagelessness.

I also wish, Mahāmati, that the Bodhisattva-Mahāsattvas of the present and future would not attach themselves to the idea of an ego [imagining it to be a soul].

Mahāmati, it is like a potter who manufactures various vessels out of a mass of clay of one sort by his own manual skill and labour combined with a rod, water, and thread, Mahāmati, that the Tathagatas preach the egolessness of things which removes all the traces of discrimination by various skilful means issuing from their transcendental wisdom, that is, sometimes by the doctrine of the Tathāgata-garbha, sometimes by that of egolessness, and, like a potter, by means of various terms, expressions, and synonyms. For this reason, Mahāmati, the philosophers' doctrine of an ego-substance is not the same as the teaching of the Tathāgata-garbha.

Thus, Mahāmati, the doctrine of the Tathāgata-garbha is disclosed in order to awaken the philosophers from their clinging to the idea of the ego, so that those minds that have fallen into the views imagining the non-existent ego as real, and also into the notion that the triple emancipation is final, may rapidly be awakened to the state of supreme enlightenment.

Accordingly, Mahāmati, the Tathagatas who are Arhats and Fully-Enlightened Ones disclose the doctrine of the Tathāgata-garbha which is thus not to be known as identical with the philosopher's notion of an ego-substance.

Therefore. Mahāmati, in order to abandon the misconception cherished by the philosophers, you must strive after the teaching of egolessness and the Tathāgata-garbha.

At that moment then the Blessed One recited this verse:
'The personal soul, continuity, the Skandhas, causation, atoms, the supreme spirit, the ruler, the creator, —[they are] discriminations in the Mind-only.' Then there's one opinion on the matter from someone I admire much for his scholastic works and elucidations on various subjects, the Venerable Huifeng (an active online poster of various forum/sites) on 'Buddha Nature'...hope it helps all...
First of all.... Keep in mind that there are quite a few different texts - sutras and sastras, esp. - on this topic, and they don't always agree. Some may equate them together, some will make distinctions, etc. etc.

The scope of "Mahayana" is very, very broad - probably the only thing they agree on is becoming a Budddha - and almost any generalization will mean either ignoring, or explaining away, those teachings which do not agree.

Being a bit more specific, or limited in scope, eg. "In Kagyu school ...", or "According to Dogen ...", etc. will be very helpful, and one may be able to get some clearer answers and perspectives. Secondly.... There are a couple of very different ways of understanding notions such as "buddha nature".
Those very brief posts above only represent one of them, which tends towards the Tathagatagarbha theory side of things.

Even this teaching has several forms, so a single textual citation will be too brief. But in general, it takes the Tathagatagarbha / Buddha nature idea as definitive over the other teachings, such as non-self. It may claim in some cases that non-self is applicable to certain phenomena, eg. the aggregates, but not to the Tathagatagarbha, which is subtle and difficult to perceive. However, the idea is that every living being has this buddha nature within them, a fully awakened buddha ready to be uncovered. This means that this type of buddha nature theory is only applicable to sentient beings, but not the insentient.

The other main explanation is that "buddha nature" refers to the emptiness, dependently originated nature of all phenomena. It thus makes the emptiness teachings definitive over such teachings as a true self Tathagatagarbha, etc. It considers that this buddha nature is not some thing within the heart / mind of each living being, but is merely potentiality. ie. because phenomena are empty, they can be enlightened. This notion of buddha nature as emptiness may thus be applicable to all phenomena, not just sentient beings.

Both of these two main schools of buddha nature thought have many subtle sub-schools and ideas, too.

Some schools, such as Huayan in East Asia, and mid-period Chan / Zen, will tend towards the first type as definitive. Others, such as most Madhyamaka based schools, will take the latter. They are in many ways very very different takes on the same words / terms.

Often people will discuss this topic, and fail to notice the main differences. They then tend to talk past each other. It is thus worth clarifying before continuing further with such discussions. Thirdly.... In the Tiantai/Tendai system you find the six identities, which is the beings relation to buddha-nature.
See, Sheng-yen: Orthodox Chinese Buddhism, p. 100-103. (Link: http://www.shengyen.org.tw/big5/book/orthodox.pdf )

1. Identity to Buddhahood in Principle
2. Identity to Buddhahood in Name
3. Identity to Buddhahood in Contemplative Practice
4. Identity to Buddhahood in Semblance
5. Identity to Buddhahood in Partial Realization
6. Absolute Identity to Buddhahood Then there's good ole Retrofuturist's thoughts (which I think it's well simplified) 8)
As I understand it, Buddha Nature simply means that that which is Buddha is not to be found outside.
Being a Buddha is no more than what we are, in fact it's a lot less... but less what? Less ignorance, less greed and less aversion.
When the defilements are eradicated, what remains is Buddha.

[sportsbettinge]

Here's an article "Freedom from Buddha Nature" by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

an excerpt......

"..the Buddha never advocated attributing an innate nature of any kind to the mind — good, bad, or Buddha.

The idea of innate natures slipped into the Buddhist tradition in later centuries, when the principle of freedom was forgotten. Past bad kamma was seen as so totally deterministic that there seemed no way around it unless you assumed either an innate Buddha in the mind that could overpower it, or an external Buddha who would save you from it. But when you understand the principle of freedom — that past kamma doesn't totally shape the present, and that present kamma can always be free to choose the skillful alternative — you realize that the idea of innate natures is unnecessary: excess baggage on the path.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/a...dhanature.html

[aspinswramymn]

Here's an article "Freedom from Buddha Nature" by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

an excerpt......

"..the Buddha never advocated attributing an innate nature of any kind to the mind — good, bad, or Buddha.

The idea of innate natures slipped into the Buddhist tradition in later centuries, when the principle of freedom was forgotten. Past bad kamma was seen as so totally deterministic that there seemed no way around it unless you assumed either an innate Buddha in the mind that could overpower it, or an external Buddha who would save you from it. But when you understand the principle of freedom — that past kamma doesn't totally shape the present, and that present kamma can always be free to choose the skillful alternative — you realize that the idea of innate natures is unnecessary: excess baggage on the path.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/a...dhanature.html





That is a very useful explanation to me ... I understand Buddha nature as being the potential, in all sentinent beings which incorporates acknowledging the dependant origination nature of all phenomona.

[adolfadsermens]

As I understand it, Buddha Nature simply means that that which is Buddha is not to be found outside. Being a Buddha is no more than what we are, in fact it's a lot less... but less what? Less ignorance, less greed and less aversion. When the defilements are eradicated, what remains is Buddha

Retrofuturist. Hi everyone

My opinion:

The Buddha taught there are five spiritual faculties (indriya), namely, faith, energy, mindfulness, concentration & wisdom.

By wisdom, I intend to highlight the mind's capacity to both discern truth & be transformed by truth (eg. discerning impermanence resulting in letting go).

Retrofuturist mentioned a Buddha has less ignorance, less greed and less aversion.

In my opinion, ignorance is not the same as greed & aversion.

Greed and aversion can be lessened and ended by samatha (tranquility) practise. By calming the breath, body & mind, greed & aversion can be ended, for which the outcome is bliss (jhana).

But it is not possible to calm or lessen ignorance by samatha practise. Ignorance can only be lessened via the development or accumulation of wisdom.

To end ignorance, the mind must actually see conditionality, the four noble truths, impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, not-self, etc.

So I would say it is proper to say the Buddha is much more than we are because the Buddha has more wisdom (rather than less ignorance).

To me, what remains when the defilements are eradicated is not Buddha-Nature. What remains is luminous mind and Nibbana.

Nibbana is the unconditioned element in nature, the perfect stillness within which the universe turns. This is not Buddha-Nature. The Nibbana element itself does not possess any wisdom.

Luminous mind is also not Buddha-Nature, because a mind on an LSD or some other drug trip can experience luminous mind. Luminous mind is merely luminous mind. It also does not possess any wisdom.

So, to me, Buddha-Nature is the wisdom faculty, namely, panna indriya.

Kind regards



Sariputta, I am now old, aged, burdened with years, advanced in life and come to the last stage: my years have turned eighty.

Sariputta, even if you have to carry me about on a bed, still there will be no change in the lucidity of the Tathagata's wisdom.

Maha-sihanada Sutta: The Great Discourse on the Lion's Roar

[iiilizium]

"Every sentient being" is literally animals as well, is it not? "birthright" is something understood to be in the same lifetime as that birth.

Sogyal Rinpoche isn't saying that enlightenment is every beings birthright, merely that Buddha Nature is present within all. All sentient life possesses it but the potential at any time to realize enlightenment is vastly different according to individual conditions. They are not the same thing.
Also, is the "good news" about "buddha nature" in the Pali Canon? Could someone point me to a sutta there, please? I've never yet seen it but that doesn't cut any ice within the Mahayana schools. Their Sutras are their authority, so there's no milage in pointing that out to them.

The only way to comprehend it, is within their own frames of reference and then make a decision on the validity of it for ourselves. I tend to sort of equate (perhaps wrongly) Buddha Nature with the Dharmakaya.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharmakāya

Namaste
kris

[babopeddy]

Re #9, nice post Element, thanks.

Buddha Nature is present within all. All sentient life possesses it

Hiyah Kris,

Hmm, well I'm not convinced of the 'Buddha nature' of a slug - nor that it has the possibility of enlightenment in a future lifetime, because apart from it being too silly to comprehend anyway, such speculation would comes under what the Buddha called'unconjecturable'.

from a Vajrayana point of view again:

buddha nature = " The potential for enlightenment that is inherent in all sentient beings; the true nature of mind"

(Glossary of 'The Life of Gampopa' by Jampa Mckenzie Stewart - Snow Lion)

I tend to sort of equate (perhaps wrongly) Buddha Nature with the Dharmakaya.
To place 'Dharmakaya' into its complex Vajrayana context of the 'Four bodies of a Buddha' (from the same glossary)

" The four bodies or four kayas of the Buddha are:

1. the dharmakaya or ultimate truth body, corresponding to the mind aspect of the Buddha.

2. the sambhokaya or complete enjoyment body, corresponding to the speech and prana aspect of the Buddha.

3. the nirmanakaya, the emanation body, corresponding to the physical human body of the Buddha.

4. the svabhavikakaya, the essential or nature body, representing the inseperability of the first three bodies."


Phew! feels like its time for a lie down now,!

So to put it simply, what you are saying is that you equate Buddha Nature with the mind of a Buddha.

In which case a slug, being a sentient being with 'Buddha nature'......... ...


Anyway, moving on, there was the following interesting comment in the article #7:

"If you're primed to look for innate natures, you'll tend to see innate natures, especially when you reach the luminous, non-dual stages of concentration called themeless, emptiness, and undirected. You'll get stuck on whichever stage matches your assumptions about what your awakened nature is. But if you're primed to look for the process of fabrication, you'll see these stages as forms of fabrication, and this will enable you to deconstruct them, to pacify them, until you encounter the peace that's not fabricated at all."

.

[Angry White American]

Just an exaple of how Zen deals with such things like the Buddha Nature... let me give a short Zen story.

One day a fifty-year-old student of enlightenment said to Shinkan: "I have studied the Tendai School of thought since I was a little boy, but one thing in it I cannot understand. Tendai claims that even the grass and trees will become enlightened. To me this seems very strange."

"Of what use is it to discuss how grass and trees become enlightened?" said Shinkan. The question is how you yourself can become so. Did you ever considered that?"

"I never thought of it in that way," marveled the old man.

"Then go home and think it over," finished Shinkan.

Edited from Zen Flesh, Zen Bones

[id2008]

I object! 50 isn't old.

[!!!maryann!!!]

I object! 50 isn't old.

It would be different to modern times in 8th century Japan.

[Honealals]

It would be different to modern times in 8th century Japan.

Fair enough.

[voksveta]

I was just looking at a comparison chart between Theravada and Mahayana schools at Buddhanet and I was puzzled by the following entry under Buddha Nature for Mahayana

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/...omparative.htm


Buddha nature

Theravada = Absent from the teachings of the Theravada tradition.

Mahayana = Heavily stressed, particularly by schools inclined practices.

What does "schools inclined practices" mean?

[68AttendGem]

Buddha Nature, IMO, through the Mahayana tradition, is an open gate that leads to religious thought and magic believes. Buddha nature indicates a way mind works as it works, so to say, under other "natures", like when we talk about "human nature".

[DoctorAlexandro]

It would be different to modern times in 8th century Japan.

That's right Aloka,

[codespokerbonus]

So to put it simply, what you are saying is that you equate Buddha Nature with the mind of a Buddha.

Yeah but, no but... sort of...
Without reaching for my Tibetan tomes, I recall being told that the Dharmakaya was either purified (Buddha) or impure (Everyone else including poor slug). There are different terms for both, I'm certain of that but Buddha Nature is the potential for eventual enlightenment. A slug, of course can't get enlightened but whilst there is ignorance, volitional formations will arise, consciousness etc. etc.
The death of the slug is the end of the 'slug episode' but, as the twelve links demonstrate, it ain't the end.

The spark will jump, Bardo (for Tibetans) will occur etc. If this didn't happen then Buddhism would be irrelevant as death would be the annihilation of all becoming. Buddha would have said "Chill out guys, when you croak it's all over anyway LOL" (Perhaps not LOL)

That's kind of what I mean. If I get time to dust off my Geoffrey Hopkins or Geshe Kelsang books, I'll come up with the goods but I'm a bit busy at the moment.

I figure that we're dealing (to some extent) with the reification of an abstract. Kind of like insisting that all sense data is actually illusory because Buddha once compared it to an illusion. There's a whopping difference but folks do get the two mixed up.