[GaxyGroordrep]

A Monk Asked Nansen: "Is there a teaching no master ever preached before?"
Nansen said: "Yes, there is."
"What is it?", asked the monk.
Nansen replied: "It is not mind, it is not Buddha, it is not things."

Mumon's comment: Old Nansen gave away his treasure-words. He must have been greatly upset.

Nansen was too kind and lost his treasure.
Truly words have no power.
Even though the mountain becomes the sea,
words cannot open another's mind.

Kaarine's question: Is this about buddha nature?

[HexcewlyRette]

The death of the slug is the end of the 'slug episode' but, as the twelve links demonstrate, it ain't the end

Aha, but that's if one likes the 3 lifetimes version of DO -and I prefer the one lifetime version, because it makes more sense to me. However, as this thread isn't about DO I'll say no more!

[Heacechig]

Kaarine's question: Is this about buddha nature?

Emptiness ?

[bestgenpower]

Emptiness ?

Maybe stillness,

[TeemFilla]

but that's if one likes the 3 lifetimes version of DO

Well, I don't have the faintest inclination towards the three lifetimes model, so if I'm guilty of seeming to support it, then it's coincidence.
It sounds like a lot of speculation to me.

Anyway, I don't need it - I've got my eternal Atman. I'm sorted.

[teridbruse]

Anyway, I don't need it - I've got my eternal Atman. I'm sorted.

Hyuk!

[Xfxhbcxp]

Yeah didn't the lifespan used to be 40 or something back then? or less? I know plague-era it was something like 35...

[grinaJanoDant]

Yeah didn't the lifespan used to be 40 or something back then? or less? I know plague-era it was something like 35...

Hi Cloud,

Did you post after reading page 1 and miss the posts in page 2 by any chance?

[seervezex]

Crap I did!

[GaxyGroordrep]

There's an audio from Thanissaro Bhikkhu here :

"What is wrong with Buddha- Nature ?"


http://www.audiodharma.org/talks/audio_player/1390.html

[eI7iqNot]

Depends on who is defining it

Ajahn Sumedho has made use of the term as a way of teaching present moment awareness, Buddha-nature or Buddha-wisdom being the "one who knows".


The word Buddha is a lovely word, it means 'the one who knows', and the first refuge is in Buddha as the personification of wisdom. Unpersonified wisdom remains too abstract for us, we can't conceive a bodiless, soulless wisdom, and so as wisdom always seems to have a personal quality to it, using Buddha as its symbol is very useful.

We can use the word Buddha to refer to Gotama, the founder of what is now known as Buddhism, the historical sage who attained Parinibbana[*] in India 2500 years ago, the teacher of the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path, teachings from which we today still benefit. But when we take refuge in the Buddha it doesn't mean that we take refuge in some historical prophet but in that which is wise in the universe, in our minds, that which is not separate from us but is more real than anything we can conceive with the mind or experience through the senses. Without any Buddha-wisdom in the universe life for any length of time would be totally impossible, it is the Buddha-wisdom that protects. We call it Buddha-wisdom, other people can call it other things if they want, these are just words.We happen to use the words of our tradition. We're not going to argue about Pali words, Sanskrit words, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, English or any other, we're just using the term Buddha-wisdom as a conventional symbol to help remind us to be wise, to be alert, to be awake.
http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma2/bds.html




Ajahn Chah also made references to "original mind"

The human mind, the mind which the Buddha exhorted us to know and investigate, is something we can only know by its activity. The true 'original mind' has nothing to measure it by, there's nothing you can know it by. In its natural state it is unshaken, unmoving. When happiness arises all that happens is that this mind is getting lost in a mental impression, there is movement. When the mind moves like this, clinging and attachment to those things come into being. http://www.amaravati.org/abmnew/inde...rticle/385/P1/


However both are quite clear that this is not some innate "thing" or some kind of "Self"



This makes sense to me, as I understand it Buddha is always here. "Siddharta" died a long time ago but whenever there is pure mindfulness and clear comprehension then Buddha manifests

What is the "nature" of the Buddha? Wisdom and freedom from greed and hatred, clear knowing, awakened attention

[leadmoffer]

is the mind intrinsically pure and bright? when one is practicing, zazen, vipassana or shikantaza, the act of the meditation is so wholesome it make it seem like the mind or nama is intrinsically bright and pure. but in reality its not the mind that is bright and pure but the act of meditating?

[kjanyeaz1]

Hi Danny,


Bhikkhu Bodhi's book "In the Buddha's Words", he dedicates the first chapter to explore thoroughly what is human condition; at the end of his introduction he states:

"Most beings live immersed in the enjoyment of sensual pleasure. Others driven by the need of power, status and esteem, pass their lives in vain attempts to fill an unquenchable thirst. Many, fearful of annihilation at death, construct belief systems that ascribe to their individual selves, their souls, the prospect of eternal life. A few yearn for a path to liberation but do not know where to find one. It was precisely to offer such a path that the Buddha has appeared in our midst. After this then come the selected suttas that explain human condition. In this way, Buddha Nature is the event of having overcome that human nature or that human condition.

I am a regular Zazen practitioner since quite more than two years. In short, what zazen is about, at least as the way we practice it at the Dojo, is to watch thoughts; the wilderness of thoughts; the muddle we have as a mind. We were warned not to expect any sort of experience but just to watch... and to be mindful of our breath, counting it, watching thoughts how they arise and fade. This helps to develop insight and tranquility so to bring zazen into daily life; to bring that same awareness into day a day issues. There is nothing more than that. But it is a huge task anyway.

[hygtfrdes]

as a zen practitioner what is your stance on the nature of the mind? i can see how mahayanists beleive there nature is pure because when you do shikantaza, you literally dont do anything and then this creates much joy and compassion so i can see where they are thinking "if im just doing nothing being myself, and all these buddha like qualities manifest then my nature must be pure" what im thinking is, the mind might not be pure and bright, maybe the mind is neutral and its just that act of meditating the seeing of reality that is so pure. see what im saying?

[NiliSpuppypax]

what is your stance on the nature of the mind?

Even when Soto Zen is thought to be a Mahayana branch, this school is not too involved into Mahayana. The central teachings are those of Dogen and his Shobogenzo. The Bendowa is one of our main teachings as it is the Genjo Koan and the Hachi Danin Kaku. The Hachi Danin are given one by one as understanding evolves through Zazen. I have been recently into Shi-Kan-Ta-Za that is an stage about Zazen.

Even all this we are grounded with the Four Noble Truths and in that sense the nature of mind is that mind free from delusions which has developed Right View. For our next seshin we will go thoroughly into the issue of Right View which is an essential aspect of Soto understanding.

[ViaxobbimeVar]

is the mind intrinsically pure and bright? when one is practicing, zazen, vipassana or shikantaza, the act of the meditation is so wholesome it make it seem like the mind or nama is intrinsically bright and pure. but in reality its not the mind that is bright and pure but the act of meditating?

My understanding is this-

When people speak of the mind being originally bright and pure, this can be taken to mean that it has a sort of permanent characteristic, and this suggests to some people that the mind is regarded as a permanent thing, because a "thing" has characteristics that define it. If we say. "the mind is this" or "the mind is that" , even if we say it is 'bright and clear' then it is sort of like we are giving it a shape or color. But that is not really the case.

But when the mind is said to be originally bright and pure, it really means that it is free from defining characteristics. It's like going outside and saying that the air is fresh. The "air" that one experiences isn't one thing--it's a combination of temporary things such as wind, temperature, humidity levels, barometric pressure, pollen count and so on. Ultimately, there is no "air" that is "fresh" but on a relative level it is an accurate description. When there isn't some smog or foul smell or pesticide or something, or a lot of dust, the air is in its original state. Likewise, when the mind is free from the various attachments, clinging and other distractions, it is in its original state which is not some permanent thing, but flowing and free of defining characteristics.

So, with regard to meditating, which is the activity of the mind, I think what you are talking about is the experience of the clarity of the mind. The mind is bright and pure--meaning free of defining characteristics, and there is a sense of the experience of that "brightness" during meditation. Sometimes there is just the experience of that clarity without any sense of 'me' bearing witness to it. There is no 'experiencer', meaning no 2nd person intellectualization. There is just the experience, the clarity. It may only last for a second. with practice, it can last longer.

How can there be an experience without an experiencer? If you have ever pounded a nail and hammered your thumb instead, that is a sensation, for a split second, of pure experience without any conceptualization. A second later you may yell "Oh Sh***! I hit my thumb!!!" but the second when it is happeneing, it is also pure clarity (although a lot more painful!!!). It is not the experience of the clarity of the mind free of characteristics, but it is the direct experince of the mind temporarily characterized by pain.

That's my understanding.

[Wheldcobchoto]

Hi all,

We already had this existing 4 page thread "what does "Buddha Nature mean" in the Beyond Belief forum, so I have merged posts 32 to 36 from 'Buddha Nature' in the Mahayana forum with it.

Please continue to allow for the viewpoints of others in a friendly manner.

Thank you

[Accor$314]

Hi,

My first post ever on this forum - and wouldn't you know it, straight into the dreaded "Buddha Nature" question! LOL

The thing about this question is that it simply doesn't have a definitive answer. It just really depends on which Buddhist you ask!
As I am more familiar with Tibetan schools, particularly Gelug, my reply comes from that perspective.

Though other schools may posit some kind of "seed" concept, from the Gelug (more particularly Madhyamika Prasangika/Nagarjuna perspective) there really is very little discussion about Buddha Nature because it engenders a tendency to give it some kind 'real thingness' if you like. Basically the Gelug pov is that as all sentient beings have minds, and as all minds are empty of any intrinsic nature - therefore can and do change from moment to moment - there is a possibility for these minds to attain Buddhahood. So indeed all sentient beings, slugs included, have a possibility of attaining Buddhahood. That would be the extent of most Gelugpas (from Je Tsongkhapa on) position on it, with exceptions of course depending on the particular teaching.

[budumol]

Aloka-D, am wondering about this:
" 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."


I have always understood the four bodies to be: the two Dharmakayas (svabhavakaya [or svabhavikakaya] and jnanadharmakaya, the purified mind) and the two rupakayas (form bodies) being sambhogakaya and nirmanakaya. In addition normally (again, from a madhyamaka perspective) the svabhavakaya is simply the empty/void/shunya nature of the Buddha's mind, which emptiness is of course no different from when it was not Buddha mind, hence "svabhava" or 'it's nature' (rough translation) Was curious to see your division of Dharmakaya being separate from svabhavakaya, and the svabhavakaya being the inseparabilyt of the three bodies. Or does that simply refer to the fact that all three bodies are empty in nature?

[Squeernemergo]

Was curious to see your division of Dharmakaya being separate from svabhavakaya, and the svabhavakaya being the inseparabilyt of the three bodies. Or does that simply refer to the fact that all three bodies are empty in nature?

Welcome mudra,

These weren't my own words , in my original post I was quoting information from the glossary of 'The Life of Gampopa' by Jampa Mackenzie Stewart.

the explanation of the four bodies of a Buddha continues:

"Sometimes only two kayas are mentioned: the dharmakaya, and the rupakaya or form body. In this instance, the rupakaya encompasses both the sambhogakaya and the nirmanakaya. These are sometimes spoken of in the context of the "two benefits" : one realises the ultimate non-dual truth body of dharmakaya for one's own benefit; and one realises the relative manifestations of the rupakaya in order to benefit all sentient beings"
To answer your question, Mudra, regarding the svabhavikakaya, in "Path to Buddhahood" Ringu Tulku says:

"When we talk about four kayas the fourth is the svabhavikakaya. This is in fact the union of the three kayas, the fourth being mentioned in order to emphasise their inseparability, their union, and to show that we are speaking of three different apects of the same Buddha.
As Milarepa indicates, (in text on previous page) we can discover the three kayas within ourselves by looking directly at the nature of mind."