Can buddha nature be proved?

General forum on the teachings of all schools of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism. Topics specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
User avatar
Monlam Tharchin
Posts: 1539
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:11 am
Location: Oregon

Re: Can buddha nature be proved?

Post by Monlam Tharchin » Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:11 pm

Because the sense of a subject and object is a confused imputation, something added on which leads to further error and suffering.

A fuller version of the Bokar Rinpoche quote explains:
Within illusion, the mind functions in this way: six sense objects and six consciousnesses, each apprehended as a separate reality. This separation is the space in which the play of conflicting emotions takes place.
These six objects and consciousnesses are not, however, actually separate entities. For instance, while perceiving a form, although we grasp at two entities independent of each other, a perceived object and a perceiving mind, we are making an error. In reality, the form grasped as object is nothing other than the manifestation of the clarity aspect of the mind while the I-subject is nothing other than the emptiness aspect of the same mind. Within the mechanics of illusion, one finds oneself in the situation of looking at oneself as other. It is a little like walking in tthe sun; our shadow is detached from us and appears as other.
The externally grasped object and the internally grasping subject who clutches it, in truth, are never separated: there is no duality. The subject and object are not two; but because we do not realize it, we enter into a duality with ourselves. This causes the play of conflicting emotions and illusory thoughts.
Therefore, one must purify oneself of this polarity of I-other.
Emptiness is not non-experience or nothingness.

User avatar
PuerAzaelis
Posts: 826
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 1:37 pm

Re: Can buddha nature be proved?

Post by PuerAzaelis » Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:19 pm

Right. So how can “you experience emptiness”?
And nobody in all of Oz. No Wizard that there is or was.

User avatar
Monlam Tharchin
Posts: 1539
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:11 am
Location: Oregon

Re: Can buddha nature be proved?

Post by Monlam Tharchin » Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:33 pm

There is relief from suffering for sentient beings. That is the Third Noble Truth.
Such a realization takes place for, is experienced and known by, a being bound by afflictions.
Emptiness of appearances doesn't negate the appearances, it merely releases the bonds of suffering caused by fundamental ignorance of the nature of those appearances.

(As a side note, Bokar Rinpoche's teaching above is also applied to appearances and circumstances generally, later in the book.)

User avatar
PuerAzaelis
Posts: 826
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 1:37 pm

Re: Can buddha nature be proved?

Post by PuerAzaelis » Sat Oct 28, 2017 6:05 pm

This conversation has proven that I need to go take an Advil.
And nobody in all of Oz. No Wizard that there is or was.

User avatar
Monlam Tharchin
Posts: 1539
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:11 am
Location: Oregon

Re: Can buddha nature be proved?

Post by Monlam Tharchin » Sat Oct 28, 2017 8:43 pm

It's proven to me I'm not as skilled at explaining things as I hoped :smile:

If you're interested in exploring the matter from a different angle, check out the lojong slogan Examine the nature of unborn awareness. The letters across the top left of the page (under the Web Archive banner) contain commentaries from different teachers on what I think you're grappling with. It's also today's slogan in the Daily Lojong thread.

You're basically trying to come at the nature of mind, which is not necessarily an intuitive matter, given our conditioning.

Best of luck!

User avatar
PuerAzaelis
Posts: 826
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 1:37 pm

Re: Can buddha nature be proved?

Post by PuerAzaelis » Sat Oct 28, 2017 11:22 pm

Hm, ty for the tip.
And nobody in all of Oz. No Wizard that there is or was.

Tolya M
Posts: 219
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2016 7:26 pm

Re: Can buddha nature be proved?

Post by Tolya M » Sun Oct 29, 2017 12:12 am

Anonymous X wrote:
Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:00 am
When something is explained, such as Buddhanature, the explanation often is of what is talked about, what is named. If you want to equate an explanation with 'proof', go ahead.
Proof by reasoning. Ju Mipham did not just write a book because there was nothing to do... :thinking:
Anonymous X wrote:
Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:00 am
But this is not really proof as most people have come to understand as proof. The world was once thought of as flat. The 'proof' was to travel to the horizon and to discover that you did not fall off. Real proof, not deduction or speculation, can only be had by the direct experience of something.
Why to care what run-of-the-mill-persons think? For the most part they stand on the position of the Charvaka / Lokayata schools and the value of the inference is incomprehensible to them.
Anonymous X wrote:
Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:00 am
Since Buddhanature is not a thing, it cannot be proved to exist or not exist.
All Buddhadharma is beyond bhava\abhava dichotomy but this does not prevent it from being justified.
Anonymous X wrote:
Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:00 am
It is of a different category that is often left alone as there are much more pressing matters such as greed, hatred, and such, to come to terms with. That's all I'm saying.
So all the tibetan teachers talk about it. Are they mistaken? If the nature of water is not defined as pure how then can it be cleansed? But everyone knows about water. It is useful to know about it's nature.

Gyurme Kundrol
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 7:34 pm

Re: Can buddha nature be proved?

Post by Gyurme Kundrol » Sun Oct 29, 2017 2:00 am

I think that Buddha Nature can only be proven within the realm of ones own experience, or phenomenologically. If you want it proved with phenomenal science, this probably wont happen. Faith in it can be inspired by listening to teachers, reading teachings, meditation and so on, but the actual proof is in the direct experience and cognition of Tathagatagharba. One of the kinds of knowledge of a Buddha is the knowledge of their own realization. Buddhas know without error they are enlightened, they know when it happened, which teaching or realization caused it, and so on.

I know this isnt the Dzogchen forum, but I would just point to Garab Dorjes three teachings as a perfect answer for if it can be proven. The answer is yes. It is through first perceiving directly this nature by receiving teachings and pointing out instructions about it from a qualified teacher. Secondly you continually familiarize yourself with what this is and learn to see this nature in/as all phenomenal appearances. Thirdly you abide in that realization without any doubt that is it Buddhahood, and that is the point at which its "proven". The signs are like indications that the experiment is going right. If it was a material science experiment, the various signs that arise on the path are like the "sigma" levels of proof. We could say that a glimpse of Rigpa is a low sigma rating indicating the possibility of enlightenment, some stabilization is higher indicating enlightenment is more likely, and stabilization of Rigpa (for example, stabilization of Trekchod) is high enough that it becomes "fact" and enlightenment is secured. Completion of the four visions of Togal (for example) is the point at which the sigma is high enough that for that person its irrefutable. Its fact at that point for that being in their mind stream and experience, regardless of what the perceptions and beliefs of other beings are doing.

Anonymous X
Posts: 813
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
Location: Bangkok

Re: Can buddha nature be proved?

Post by Anonymous X » Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:41 am

Tolya M wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 12:12 am
Anonymous X wrote:
Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:00 am
When something is explained, such as Buddhanature, the explanation often is of what is talked about, what is named. If you want to equate an explanation with 'proof', go ahead.
Proof by reasoning. Ju Mipham did not just write a book because there was nothing to do... :thinking:
Anonymous X wrote:
Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:00 am
But this is not really proof as most people have come to understand as proof. The world was once thought of as flat. The 'proof' was to travel to the horizon and to discover that you did not fall off. Real proof, not deduction or speculation, can only be had by the direct experience of something.
Why to care what run-of-the-mill-persons think? For the most part they stand on the position of the Charvaka / Lokayata schools and the value of the inference is incomprehensible to them.
Anonymous X wrote:
Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:00 am
Since Buddhanature is not a thing, it cannot be proved to exist or not exist.
All Buddhadharma is beyond bhava\abhava dichotomy but this does not prevent it from being justified.
Anonymous X wrote:
Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:00 am
It is of a different category that is often left alone as there are much more pressing matters such as greed, hatred, and such, to come to terms with. That's all I'm saying.
So all the tibetan teachers talk about it. Are they mistaken? If the nature of water is not defined as pure how then can it be cleansed? But everyone knows about water. It is useful to know about it's nature.
I think you are missing my point. I am not in disagreement about Buddhanature itself, and am certainly not thinking Mipham was wasting his time. We are talking about proof. Maybe your definition is different than most people's. Can you prove that you are your identity? According to the Buddha, you cannot because there is not self anywhere to be found, but we still talk about it. I don't think proof is applicable in this case or even necessary. But, we can still talk about it.

Tolya M
Posts: 219
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2016 7:26 pm

Re: Can buddha nature be proved?

Post by Tolya M » Sun Oct 29, 2017 1:57 pm

Ju Mipham discuss three points from Mahayana-Uttaratantra:

1) Because the body of the perfect Buddha is radiant,

2) Because thusness (de bzhin nyid ) is indivisible,

3) Because of possessing heritage;

Therefore, all beings always possess the essential nature of Buddha.

For ex., if one thinks that people can not change (which is very common opinion) so this is already a kind of false view influencing all human actions.

Tolya M
Posts: 219
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2016 7:26 pm

Re: Can buddha nature be proved?

Post by Tolya M » Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:54 pm

Anonymous X wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:41 am
I think you are missing my point. I am not in disagreement about Buddhanature itself, and am certainly not thinking Mipham was wasting his time. We are talking about proof. Maybe your definition is different than most people's.
There two pramanas: cognition by senses and correct syllogism.
Anonymous X wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:41 am
Can you prove that you are your identity? According to the Buddha, you cannot because there is not self anywhere to be found, but we still talk about it.
You just emasculated the anatma-theory down to the yoke with pronouns and vague philosophical terms. This is not good.
Anonymous X wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:41 am
I don't think proof is applicable in this case or even necessary. But, we can still talk about it.
Anatma\sunyata has a direct relationship to the fact that it does not matter what I think or what you think. There is no sense In worldly skandhas. The meaning (arthalaksana) is not there. What is written in canonical works is important. No? )

Anonymous X
Posts: 813
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
Location: Bangkok

Re: Can buddha nature be proved?

Post by Anonymous X » Mon Oct 30, 2017 7:09 am

Tolya M wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:54 pm
Anonymous X wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:41 am
I think you are missing my point. I am not in disagreement about Buddhanature itself, and am certainly not thinking Mipham was wasting his time. We are talking about proof. Maybe your definition is different than most people's.
There two pramanas: cognition by senses and correct syllogism.
Anonymous X wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:41 am
Can you prove that you are your identity? According to the Buddha, you cannot because there is not self anywhere to be found, but we still talk about it.
You just emasculated the anatma-theory down to the yoke with pronouns and vague philosophical terms. This is not good.
Anonymous X wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:41 am
I don't think proof is applicable in this case or even necessary. But, we can still talk about it.
Anatma\sunyata has a direct relationship to the fact that it does not matter what I think or what you think. There is no sense In worldly skandhas. The meaning (arthalaksana) is not there. What is written in canonical works is important. No? )
I'm sorry, I can't follow what you are saying. Too intellectual for this dummy.

muni
Posts: 4303
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Can buddha nature be proved?

Post by muni » Mon Oct 30, 2017 9:10 am

If it could be proved, it would be then a conditioned object what a subject can prove.
Buddha said all is empty like my brain.
Let’s make a selfie!

Having meditated on love and compassion, I forgot the difference between myself and others. Yogi Milarepa.

Tolya M
Posts: 219
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2016 7:26 pm

Re: Can buddha nature be proved?

Post by Tolya M » Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:13 pm

Anonymous X wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2017 7:09 am
Tolya M wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:54 pm
Anonymous X wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:41 am
I think you are missing my point. I am not in disagreement about Buddhanature itself, and am certainly not thinking Mipham was wasting his time. We are talking about proof. Maybe your definition is different than most people's.
There two pramanas: cognition by senses and correct syllogism.
Anonymous X wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:41 am
Can you prove that you are your identity? According to the Buddha, you cannot because there is not self anywhere to be found, but we still talk about it.
You just emasculated the anatma-theory down to the yoke with pronouns and vague philosophical terms. This is not good.
Anonymous X wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:41 am
I don't think proof is applicable in this case or even necessary. But, we can still talk about it.
Anatma\sunyata has a direct relationship to the fact that it does not matter what I think or what you think. There is no sense In worldly skandhas. The meaning (arthalaksana) is not there. What is written in canonical works is important. No? )
I'm sorry, I can't follow what you are saying. Too intellectual for this dummy.
rather my english is actually too bad )))

Anonymous X
Posts: 813
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
Location: Bangkok

Re: Can buddha nature be proved?

Post by Anonymous X » Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:10 am

Tolya M wrote:
Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:13 pm
Anonymous X wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2017 7:09 am
Tolya M wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:54 pm


There two pramanas: cognition by senses and correct syllogism.



You just emasculated the anatma-theory down to the yoke with pronouns and vague philosophical terms. This is not good.



Anatma\sunyata has a direct relationship to the fact that it does not matter what I think or what you think. There is no sense In worldly skandhas. The meaning (arthalaksana) is not there. What is written in canonical works is important. No? )
I'm sorry, I can't follow what you are saying. Too intellectual for this dummy.
rather my english is actually too bad )))
I find I have no interest in trying to prove any of this.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: javier.espinoza.t and 33 guests