Freedom From Buddha Nature by Thanissaro Bhikkhu & Zen Master Dogen

[Johnny Dangerous]

I can't quite put my finger on it, but something tells me that Thanissaro Bhikkhu has an overly simplistic understanding of Buddha-nature. He might be a good teacher in other ways, but I think he's shortsighted when it comes to the meaning of Buddha-nature.

....he's a Theravadin. He has no reason to even value the notion of Buddha Nature, let alone a drive to understand it, it's not part of his way of seeing things. Kind of the wrong person to read on the subject of Buddha nature.

I think your point is clearly not a valid one. It's a passive-aggressive position.

It's a statement of fact, with nothing passive about it. Why would anyone be interested in what Theravadins have to say about a subject which is not part of their doctrine, which most of them reject? I wouldn't spend my time reading Christians writing on the Talmud either.

[Dharma Flower]

....he's a Theravadin. He has no reason to even value the notion of Buddha Nature, let alone a drive to understand it, it's not part of his way of seeing things. Kind of the wrong person to read on the subject of Buddha nature.

I think your point is clearly not a valid one. It's a passive-aggressive position.

It's a statement of fact, with nothing passive about it. Why would anyone be interested in what Theravadins have to say about a subject which is not part of their doctrine, which most of them reject? I wouldn't spend my time reading Christians writing on the Talmud either.

Part of right speech should be accurately portraying the teachings of other Buddhist paths when a Buddhist is writing about them. I don't think that when certain Theravadins and Mahayanists inaccurately portray the teachings of each other's paths is right speech, which is why I started this thread to counter Thanissaro Bhikkhu's article. Dogen addressed many of the article's misconceptions long ago.

[Johnny Dangerous]

I think your point is clearly not a valid one. It's a passive-aggressive position.

It's a statement of fact, with nothing passive about it. Why would anyone be interested in what Theravadins have to say about a subject which is not part of their doctrine, which most of them reject? I wouldn't spend my time reading Christians writing on the Talmud either.

Part of right speech should be accurately portraying the teachings of other Buddhist paths when a Buddhist is writing about them. I don't think that when certain Theravadins and Mahayanists inaccurately portray the teachings of each other's paths is right speech, which is why I started this thread to counter Thanissaro Bhikkhu's article. Dogen addressed many of the article's misconceptions long ago.

Right, I get it...it just seems like there is no point in trying to "counter" someone with a point of view that excludes the whole subject of Buddha Nature, and who likely wouldn't consider Dogen an authority on anything. I mean Thanissaro is an interesting dude, I read him and enjoy some of his work, but on a subject like Buddha Nature....naw.

[Dharma Flower]

Right, I get it...it just seems like there is no point in trying to "counter" someone with a point of view that excludes the whole subject of Buddha Nature, and who likely wouldn't consider Dogen an authority on anything. I mean Thanissaro is an interesting dude, I read him and enjoy some of his work, but on a subject like Buddha Nature....naw.

I just wish that Mahayanists and Theravadins could appreciate each other as Buddhists and not tell false things about each other.

[Anonymous X]

Why would Buddhanature not be impermanence?

Because it is a contradiction in terms. Buddhanature is not a conditioned thing. Therefore, it cannot be impermanent.

Buddha nature is not any 'thing'. It can never be separated from what arises, and what arises is impermanent by nature. So I say Buddhanature is Impermanence. This is a truly non dual teaching where there is no separation from anything, nothing to attain, nothing to know. Your literal physical appearance is Buddhanature. It can be called by whatever name one chooses but it will never be found separate from all universes.

[Anonymous X]

Right, I get it...it just seems like there is no point in trying to "counter" someone with a point of view that excludes the whole subject of Buddha Nature, and who likely wouldn't consider Dogen an authority on anything. I mean Thanissaro is an interesting dude, I read him and enjoy some of his work, but on a subject like Buddha Nature....naw.

I just wish that Mahayanists and Theravadins could appreciate each other as Buddhists and not tell false things about each other.

The only way that this can happen is to stop being a Mahayanist or Theravadin. Identity is always going to cause separation.

[Cianan]

Why would Buddhanature not be impermanence?

Because it is a contradiction in terms. Buddhanature is not a conditioned thing. Therefore, it cannot be impermanent.

Buddha nature is not any 'thing'. It can never be separated from what arises, and what arises is impermanent by nature. So I say Buddhanature is Impermanence. This is a truly non dual teaching where there is no separation from anything, nothing to attain, nothing to know. Your literal physical appearance is Buddhanature. It can be called by whatever name one chooses but it will never be found separate from all universes.

The Buddha taught all that is conditioned to be impermanent contrary to nirvana. Nirvana isn't anything besides Buddhanature, and if Buddhanature were itself impermanent it couldn't be that unchanging reality. It's neither permanent nor impermanent. The teaching that buddhanature is impermanent is dualistic. Impermanence is dualistic.

[Malcolm]

Why would Buddhanature not be impermanence?

Because it is a contradiction in terms. Buddhanature is not a conditioned thing. Therefore, it cannot be impermanent.

Buddha nature is not any 'thing'. It can never be separated from what arises, and what arises is impermanent by nature. So I say Buddhanature is Impermanence. This is a truly non dual teaching where there is no separation from anything, nothing to attain, nothing to know. Your literal physical appearance is Buddhanature. It can be called by whatever name one chooses but it will never be found separate from all universes.

What exactly do you think "buddhanature" is?

[DGA]

Right, I get it...it just seems like there is no point in trying to "counter" someone with a point of view that excludes the whole subject of Buddha Nature, and who likely wouldn't consider Dogen an authority on anything. I mean Thanissaro is an interesting dude, I read him and enjoy some of his work, but on a subject like Buddha Nature....naw.

I just wish that Mahayanists and Theravadins could appreciate each other as Buddhists and not tell false things about each other.

Most do from what I've seen. I try to myself. At a minimum it's good to stay out of each other's way when and as possible.

[Anonymous X]

Because it is a contradiction in terms. Buddhanature is not a conditioned thing. Therefore, it cannot be impermanent.

Buddha nature is not any 'thing'. It can never be separated from what arises, and what arises is impermanent by nature. So I say Buddhanature is Impermanence. This is a truly non dual teaching where there is no separation from anything, nothing to attain, nothing to know. Your literal physical appearance is Buddhanature. It can be called by whatever name one chooses but it will never be found separate from all universes.

What exactly do you think "buddhanature" is?

I've always liked the expression of 'suchness' or 'thusness'. How would I go about explaining something that is not knowable as an experience? I don't think we need to explain it, or search for it. It seems you can only point to experience, not to what is not experienced.

[Malcolm]

Buddha nature is not any 'thing'. It can never be separated from what arises, and what arises is impermanent by nature. So I say Buddhanature is Impermanence. This is a truly non dual teaching where there is no separation from anything, nothing to attain, nothing to know. Your literal physical appearance is Buddhanature. It can be called by whatever name one chooses but it will never be found separate from all universes.

What exactly do you think "buddhanature" is?

I've always liked the expression of 'suchness' or 'thusness'. How would I go about explaining something that is not knowable as an experience? I don't think we need to explain it, or search for it. It seems you can only point to experience, not to what is not experienced.

Why do you insist that buddhanature is not knowable as an experience? Perhaps it is because you have never the experience of buddhanature?

[Anonymous X]

What exactly do you think "buddhanature" is?

I've always liked the expression of 'suchness' or 'thusness'. How would I go about explaining something that is not knowable as an experience? I don't think we need to explain it, or search for it. It seems you can only point to experience, not to what is not experienced.

Why do you insist that buddhanature is not knowable as an experience? Perhaps it is because you have never the experience of buddhanature?

I've said it before, there is no part of you that can separate and identify such a thing. You are only suggesting an experience of Mind, not buddhanature. If I said this very moment was a manifestation of buddhanature, would you be able to separate buddhanature from it? It's not a 'thing' and I don't try to experience it.

[Malcolm]

I've always liked the expression of 'suchness' or 'thusness'. How would I go about explaining something that is not knowable as an experience? I don't think we need to explain it, or search for it. It seems you can only point to experience, not to what is not experienced.

Why do you insist that buddhanature is not knowable as an experience? Perhaps it is because you have never the experience of buddhanature?

I've said it before, there is no part of you that can separate and identify such a thing. You are only suggesting an experience of Mind, not buddhanature. If I said this very moment was a manifestation of buddhanature, would you be able to separate buddhanature from it? It's not a 'thing' and I don't try to experience it.

No, I am not suggesting an experience of mind or Mind (whatever that is).

When you've met a person, you can always spot them in a crowd. So it is with buddhanature.

[Anonymous X]

Why do you insist that buddhanature is not knowable as an experience? Perhaps it is because you have never the experience of buddhanature?

I've said it before, there is no part of you that can separate and identify such a thing. You are only suggesting an experience of Mind, not buddhanature. If I said this very moment was a manifestation of buddhanature, would you be able to separate buddhanature from it? It's not a 'thing' and I don't try to experience it.

No, I am not suggesting an experience of mind or Mind (whatever that is).

When you've met a person, you can always spot them in a crowd. So it is with buddhanature.

The analogy doesn't work with this, Malcolm. This only works with what you know already and buddhanature is not in that category. I think what you are referring to is a state of mind. I am not saying there is anything wrong with that, but I don't agree that it is buddhanature. Many people experience kensho, glimpses, awakenings of all sorts. I'm not negating these kinds of experiences, they are states of mind.

Sorry for the capitalization. It wasn't meant to represent something special.

[Malcolm]

I think what you are referring to is a state of mind.

No. Definitely not.

[Anonymous X]

I think what you are referring to is a state of mind.

No. Definitely not.

OK.

[aflatun]

What exactly do you think "buddhanature" is?

I've always liked the expression of 'suchness' or 'thusness'. How would I go about explaining something that is not knowable as an experience? I don't think we need to explain it, or search for it. It seems you can only point to experience, not to what is not experienced.

Why do you insist that buddhanature is not knowable as an experience? Perhaps it is because you have never the experience of buddhanature?

Malcolm:

In Dzogchen, is it correct to say that buddha nature refers to the dharmata of the mind?

[Malcolm]

I've always liked the expression of 'suchness' or 'thusness'. How would I go about explaining something that is not knowable as an experience? I don't think we need to explain it, or search for it. It seems you can only point to experience, not to what is not experienced.

Why do you insist that buddhanature is not knowable as an experience? Perhaps it is because you have never the experience of buddhanature?

Malcolm:

In Dzogchen, is it correct to say that buddha nature refers to the dharmata of the mind?

You can say that.

[aflatun]

Why do you insist that buddhanature is not knowable as an experience? Perhaps it is because you have never the experience of buddhanature?

Malcolm:

In Dzogchen, is it correct to say that buddha nature refers to the dharmata of the mind?

You can say that.

Thank you, good enough for me for... now. I need to read your book (on my to do list) before I further embarrass myself

[PuerAzaelis]

Why do you insist that buddhanature is not knowable as an experience? Perhaps it is because you have never the experience of buddhanature?

How could it be an experience when cessation is the end of the aggregates? What is left to have any experience?