Piss poor reasoning.Astus wrote:The reasoning is quite simple. All is mind - mind is buddha - rocks and trees are buddha.
N
Piss poor reasoning.Astus wrote:The reasoning is quite simple. All is mind - mind is buddha - rocks and trees are buddha.
That is not a reasoning at all.Namdrol wrote:Piss poor reasoning.
Astus wrote:"When self dissolves, everything is already awakened. Trees are awakened, rocks are awakened, birds are enlightened, and the clouds in the sky are enlightened. When the Buddha had this moment of complete realization, he discovered that this whole universe is already enlightened. More than that, he realized that every particle on the ground is enlightened. He saw that every particle is a Buddha paradise. In each particle there are billions and trillions of Buddha paradises. In each of those particles there are billions of buddhas residing. This whole universe becomes suddenly enlightened and perfect just as it is."
(Anam Thubten: No Self, No Problem, p. 46)
That's the same point as in Zen, Huayan, etc., it's just that they might call it dharmadhatu or mind or something similar.Namdrol wrote:Don't mistake poetry and rhetoric, like the above, for what is actual.
It simply means that all objects of knowledge are the display of one's own jñāna. It does not mean that rocks, trees, and such are independently awakened.
Mind is not jñ̄āna.Astus wrote:That's the same point as in Zen, Huayan, etc., it's just that they might call it dharmadhatu or mind or something similar.Namdrol wrote:Don't mistake poetry and rhetoric, like the above, for what is actual.
It simply means that all objects of knowledge are the display of one's own jñāna. It does not mean that rocks, trees, and such are independently awakened.
You may have noticed by now that terminology is not universal even within Buddhism. Mind (xin 心 - citta) in Zen is used not just for the deluded but the enlightened mind too, while other words like consciousness (shi 識 - vijnana) or intelligence (yi 意 - manas) are not used in both senses.Namdrol wrote:Mind is not jñ̄āna.
Nevertheless, Dzogchen and Zen are different and are in no way equivalent, even when one is confronted by very similar statements. The difference in these statements hinges on very subtle points. You need to seek out a teacher who can explain them to you.Astus wrote:You may have noticed by now that terminology is not universal even within Buddhism. Mind (xin 心 - citta) in Zen is used not just for the deluded but the enlightened mind too, while other words like consciousness (shi 識 - vijnana) or intelligence (yi 意 - manas) are not used in both senses.Namdrol wrote:Mind is not jñ̄āna.
If it were just that, than yes.LastLegend wrote:If Dozgchen teachings direct at seeing the nature of the mind, then it is Zen just like any other forms of Mahayana..
Just that...and different methods.Namdrol wrote:If it were just that, than yes.LastLegend wrote:If Dozgchen teachings direct at seeing the nature of the mind, then it is Zen just like any other forms of Mahayana..
No. But you should really visit with a Dzogchen master who can explain the differences to you.LastLegend wrote:Just that...and different methods.Namdrol wrote:If it were just that, than yes.LastLegend wrote:If Dozgchen teachings direct at seeing the nature of the mind, then it is Zen just like any other forms of Mahayana..
I think I agreed with you. Dozgchen employs complete different methods from Zen. Thats what I am saying.Namdrol wrote:
No. But you should really visit with a Dzogchen master who can explain the differences to you.
N
I'm not arguing that - at least not here - since the work quoted makes no mention of Dzogchen, and it doesn't have to. The topic of this thread is something else anyway.Namdrol wrote:Nevertheless, Dzogchen and Zen are different and are in no way equivalent, even when one is confronted by very similar statements. The difference in these statements hinges on very subtle points. You need to seek out a teacher who can explain them to you.
Not necessarily so. This logic only holds if one defines Buddha Nature the way you do.Namdrol wrote:Yes. Rocks and trees are not sentient beings, therefore, they cannot become buddhas.Acchantika wrote:
Dōgen Zenji said that rocks and trees have/are the buddha-nature. Is this a wrong view?
You mean like Rocky and Bullwinkle?Acchantika wrote:Does a rock have buddha-nature?
It is possible that anyone can define "Buddha Nature" in any way they desire, but that does not mean that their own personal definition is correct. If, as someone indicated earlier, Buddha Nature were merely "emptiness," then all phenomena could be potentially enlightened. I do not see this reflected in any scriptural or doctrinal sources, outside of some "Zen" teachings. I believe it is a given, in the vast majority of Buddhist thought, that only Sentient Beings can be potentially enlightened--thus, it is not merely "emptiness" which defines Buddha Nature, but also the quality of sentience.catmoon wrote:Not necessarily so. This logic only holds if one defines Buddha Nature the way you do.Namdrol wrote:Yes. Rocks and trees are not sentient beings, therefore, they cannot become buddhas.Acchantika wrote:
Dōgen Zenji said that rocks and trees have/are the buddha-nature. Is this a wrong view?
It is entirely possible that Dogen Zenji defined Buddha Nature differently than you do, for instance as not including sentience.
This does not make him wrong, it just means he is talking about a different thing than you are.