Buddha nature vs Soul
Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
And he gladdened the assembly.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
-
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 8:41 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
Or as summarised by Thich Nhat Hanh:Malcolm wrote:...smcj wrote:...
“Before practicing meditation, we see that mountains are mountains.
When we start to practice, we see that mountains are no longer mountains.
After practicing a while, we see that mountains are again mountains.
Now the mountains are very free. Our mind is still with the mountains,
but it is no longer bound to anything.”
-
- Posts: 7885
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
Ok, then in English I'll say that the 3 natures are imaginary, dependent, and ultimate, with the ultimate as being empty of anything other than its own innate pure qualities and Buddha Nature.
Pretty standard Shentong view and terminology.
Pretty standard Shentong view and terminology.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
No, the three natures are the imputed (parikalpita kun brtags), the dependent (paratantra, gzhan dbang), and the perfected nature (paraniṣpanna, yongs grub) .smcj wrote:Ok, then in English I'll say that the 3 natures are imaginary, dependent, and ultimate, with the ultimate as being empty of anything other than its own innate pure qualities and Buddha Nature.
Pretty standard Shentong view and terminology.
The way the Tibetans who follow gzhan stong understand things such as Kongtrul, Khyentse Wangpo, and so on understand things — the perfected nature refers to the luminosity of the mind, which is considered to have infinite, ultimate qualities. It does not however refer something apart from the mind.
Khyentse Wangpo states:
- From among the three natures, both the imputed and dependent nature are temporary phenomena, i.e., the intrinsically empty relative. The two aspects of perfected nature are the pristine consciousness of the dharmadhātu, the extrinsically empty ultimate meaning.
Among the outer, inner, and alternate; the external container universe and the inhabiting sentient beings are the mutable, temporary dharmin, i.e., the intrinsically empty relative. The alternate is the sugatagarbha, the unchanging fundamental dharmatā, i.e., extrinsically empty ultimate meaning.
In general, among the basis, path, and result, the basis is the sugatagarbha, the pristine consciousness of the all-basis, the basis of the transformation of all samsara and nirvana— 1) the basis of purification of the aspect of faults and 2) the basis of manifesting the aspect of qualities.
The path is the method of exhausting the aspect of faults in that basis, and the method of manifesting the aspect of qualities, accompanied by the two accumulations. The accumulation of pristine consciousness removes the covering obscuration of the qualities of the dharmakāya that have always existed as naturally perfected from the beginning. The accumulation of merit gradually develops the qualities of the rūpakāya which did not previously exist.
The result is 1) the result of separation, the dharmakaȳa, the ultimate meaning, the suchness kāya, and 2) the generated result, the rūpakāya, the symbolic, relative kāya, which exist as the abundance of one's own benefit and other's benefit.
-
- Posts: 7885
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
That's the Mind Only perspective.Malcolm wrote:This is all a discussion of one's own dharmatā, not a soul, nor an overarching universal pleroma.
As you well know, the same terminology is used in Mind-Only (Cittamatra/Yogacara) and Empty-of-Other (Shentong/Great Madhyamaka). I don't need to tell you this. And I don't need to tell you that (most, but not all, versions of) Shentong has a position that resembles Advaita Vedanta.
In a 2010 post you wrote:
https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f ... eg#p102251Malcolm wrote:I once forced Khenpo Tsultrim Gyatso to admit (I have a witness, incidentally) that there was no substantial difference between Advaita Vedanta and Gzhan stong in terms of how they presented their view.
You know Mind Only and Shentong use the same terminology. You know that Shentong posits a universal ground. You know it. I know you know it. You know I know you know it. I know you know I know you know it. Then why do you insist on playing ignorant about it? How is that supposed to work? We've been over this time and again. Do you think that all those old points have been invalidated since they have not been referenced in a while? You'd be better off and more credible saying, "I don't like it" or "I disagree" or "it is the Advaita heresy" than saying "Shentong doesn't say that" when in fact it does.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
I know no such thing. You are completely wrong in your understanding of gzhan stong. Dolbupa is laughing at you right now from whatever Buddhafield he is in.smcj wrote:[You know that Shentong posits a universal ground. You know it.
Honestly, you should just stop playing at philosophy and do another Ngondro to repair the traces of wrong view you have allowed to infect your mind.
Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
Correct, there is a structural similarity with respect to how their arguments are framed. There is no similarity in terms of the basis, path, and result, that was the essence of Khenpo Tsultrim's reply, and I agree with him. There is no buddhahood in Advaita.smcj wrote:https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f ... eg#p102251Malcolm wrote:I once forced Khenpo Tsultrim Gyatso to admit (I have a witness, incidentally) that there was no substantial difference between Advaita Vedanta and Gzhan stong in terms of how they presented their view.
-
- Posts: 7885
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
smcj wrote:You know that Shentong posits a universal ground. You know it. I know you know it. You know I know you know it. I know you know I know you know it. Then why do you insist on playing ignorant about it?
Malcolm in [u]2017[/u] wrote:I know no such thing.
Ok, well in that case...Malcolm in [u]2010[/u] wrote:I once forced Khenpo Tsultrim Gyatso to admit (I have a witness, incidentally) that there was no substantial difference between Advaita Vedanta and Gzhan stong in terms of how they presented their view
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
smcj wrote:smcj wrote:You know that Shentong posits a universal ground. You know it. I know you know it. You know I know you know it. I know you know I know you know it. Then why do you insist on playing ignorant about it?Malcolm in [u]2017[/u] wrote:I know no such thing.Ok, well in that case...Malcolm in [u]2010[/u] wrote:I once forced Khenpo Tsultrim Gyatso to admit (I have a witness, incidentally) that there was no substantial difference between Advaita Vedanta and Gzhan stong in terms of how they presented their view
Yes, there are structural similarities, but a similarity does not mean an absolute equivalence. For example, both a pot and cup are structurally similar in that they both have a bottom, a mouth, and are containers, but pots and cups are not the same thing.
You are taking this notion of no "substantial difference" the wrong way. What I mean is that in Advaita, nirguna brahman is empty of saguna brahmin, it is empty of anything you might call a relative entity. Likewise, in gzhan stong, it is argued that the perfected nature is empty of the two relatives natures. In this way there is a structural similarity between the two systems. But it does not mean, nor did I ever assert that Advaita and gzhan stong were equivalent in every respect. After all, it was my question and I assume I have a better memory of asking it than you do.
-
- Posts: 7885
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
I'm a Buddhist, not an Advaita Vedantan. We haven't been talking about the similarities in the Path per se. That's a whole other subject which I don't think is very interesting.There is no similarity in terms of the basis, path, and result, that was the essence of Khenpo Tsultrim's reply, and I agree with him. There is no buddhahood in Advaita.
Nor have I.But it does not mean, nor did I ever assert that Advaita and gzhan stong were equivalent in every respect.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
If you assume that the basis of Advaita and gzhan stong are similar, you have really erred in your view.smcj wrote:I'm a Buddhist, not an Advaita Vedantan. We haven't been talking about the similarities in the Path per se. That's a whole other subject which I don't think is very interesting.There is no similarity in terms of the basis, path, and result, that was the essence of Khenpo Tsultrim's reply, and I agree with him. There is no buddhahood in Advaita.
-
- Posts: 7885
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
Malcolm in 2017 wrote: If you assume that the basis of Advaita and gzhan stong are similar, you have really erred in your view.
Do you think that post of yours from 2010 was written in disappearing ink? I don't get how you think you can now put forward a different narrative.Malcolm in 2010 wrote:I once forced Khenpo Tsultrim Gyatso to admit.....that there was no substantial difference between Advaita Vedanta and Gzhan stong in terms of how they presented their view
I don't have it in front of me, but Brunnhölzl's "When Clouds Part" has over 100 pages of various spins Karma Kagyu masters have said about this. One strange one was Mikyo Dorje HHK VIII. He said that since Buddha Nature is empty of anything other than its own Buddha Qualities, that meant that defiled sentient beings were what the Buddha Nature is NOT. Therefore you could not say that sentient beings either had or were a part of Buddha Nature. That can't fit that into your (current) narrative.
Now that is extreme, and I consider that view an outlier. Buddha Nature was originally taught to say that sentient beings were fundamentally pure. Then came the "empty of other" interpretation of the Buddha Nature teachings. Then Mikyo Dorje took the empty of other idea and put sentient beings on the outside again. It came full circle.
But basically the empty of other is a positive presentation on reality, or as you've said, "Inert emptiness is not the view of the Vajrayana." Do you need me to source that posting of yours too?
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
You really don't understand the context of the conversation I had with KTG, nor why I asked the question. I have tried to explain this to you many times, but you refuse to listen.smcj wrote:Malcolm in 2017 wrote: If you assume that the basis of Advaita and gzhan stong are similar, you have really erred in your view.Do you think that post of yours from 2010 was written in disappearing ink? I don't get how you think you can now put forward a different narrative.Malcolm in 2010 wrote:I once forced Khenpo Tsultrim Gyatso to admit.....that there was no substantial difference between Advaita Vedanta and Gzhan stong in terms of how they presented their view
I will explain it one more time. I noticed a similarity in structure between Advaita and gzhan stong arguments, not a similarity in content. I asked him about this, and while he allowed there was a structural similarity, there was no similarity in content.
In other words, the basis is different, the path is different, the result is different.
Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
The classical Theravada understanding of that Sutta (i.e. the understanding of Buddhaghosa) is that this sutta is talking about the bhavanga citta, which is the low level of conciousness that the mind defaults to in between other mindstates. This bhavanga citta is pure, and so the mind only becomes defiled because defilement arises in other mindstates.Dan74 wrote:Sure thing, but the sutta in question is a Pali sutta, hence the relevance of Theravada view on it. But OK, happy to let this rest.Malcolm wrote:Dan74 wrote: On the other hand folks over at the other Wheel argued that this luminosity is simply an aspect of contact, and anything else is overreaching. You can have a look at the thread I linked.
_/|\_
Mahāyāna forum, Mahāyāna rules.
_/|\_
- Johnny Dangerous
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 17092
- Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
- Location: Olympia WA
- Contact:
Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
Wayfarer wrote:Malcolm wrote: The above sutta is precisely a teaching on tathāgatagarbha.
I'm sure that, from the Mahayana perspective, that verse can be taken to refer to Buddha Nature, but does the actual term 'tathāgatagarbha' appear in the Pali? And do you think a Theravadin would agree that that is what is meant by it?
Kind of a loaded question, they have just a partial a way of viewing their own scriptures as we do, it's not as if a Theravadin is necessarily the final say on the meaning on Pali scripture, nor as if there is uniform agreement amongst them at all. You can read Ajan Chah and he seems to talk about some concepts pretty close to BN.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
But I wasn't actually trying to make an arcane philosophical point. All I had said was 'buddha nature was not found in the early Buddhist texts'. And it wasn't. So, you can say that actually it was, that was what the 'luminous mind' sutta actually meant, which I guess is true, but it then drags the whole question into arcane interpretive issues. I was trying to keep it simple, although experience should tell me that this kind of question always ends up being anything but, on Dharma Wheel.
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi
Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
This is quite arguable. For example, Asanga claims that the bhavanga citta (which is pure, according to Buddhaghosha) is the ālayavijñāna, and the Lankāvatara Sūtra maintains that tathāgatagarbha is a name for the ālayavijñāna. Now, it may be argued that the bhavanga citta is not that early, but in any case, it is pretty clear that Mahāyānists understand the luminous citta to be what we are terming buddhadhātu.Wayfarer wrote:But I wasn't actually trying to make an arcane philosophical point. All I had said was 'buddha nature was not found in the early Buddhist texts'. And it wasn't.
What we can say is that Theravadins do not have interpretive authority over the Pali Canon, as much as they may wish to convince everyone this is the case.So, you can say that actually it was, that was what the 'luminous mind' sutta actually meant, which I guess is true, but it then drags the whole question into arcane interpretive issues.
Yes, you should definitely know better.I was trying to keep it simple, although experience should tell me that this kind of question always ends up being anything but, on Dharma Wheel. :
M
Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
There is a parallel to Buddha nature in the Thai Forest Tradition. They use the term original mind, and the interpretations of it vary quite a bit. The most outlandish understandings of which teach straight up atmavada.Johnny Dangerous wrote:You can read Ajan Chah and he seems to talk about some concepts pretty close to BN.
Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
Behoves us all to remember that when the Buddha was asked 'does the self exist, or not' that he didn't answer.
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi
Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
Wayfarer wrote:Behoves us all to remember that when the Buddha was asked 'does the self exist, or not' that he didn't answer.
Sure he did.