digha agama 28 (10)
TC Nguyen
VIII. Who was ordained monk in this sutta ?
The Chinese Agama said that Po.t.thapa-da asked to be ordained monk,
since in
the Pali canon, it's Citta who asked to be ordained monk.
When I read this... sutta in Chinese Agama, I see some words not in use
in the
Pali Canon, like Wu Wei. I think this collection is under influence of
Chinese,
and be corrupted by them too. And many passages are obscure,
incomprehensible, illogical. I must conclude that Chinese Agama is much
more
corrupted than the Pali canon, and I have showed the proof, not
assertation.
As I know, the Indian have tendence to argue, they display the logic in
what they
say. The Chinese like the pill, they don't like to argue. I like all two
methods.
J.Klee
TC Nguyen <dw...@freenet.carleton.ca> schreef in berichtnieuws
383151...@freenet.carleton.ca...
A. Von Störenfried
> When I read this... sutta in Chinese Agama, I see some words not in use
> in the
> Pali Canon, like Wu Wei. I think this collection is under influence of
> Chinese
FWIW, *wu-wei*, as I understand, is generally considered to be the
cognate of nirvana by Chinese translators.
Best regards,
AvS
tjn
>
> In article <383151...@freenet.carleton.ca>, dw...@freenet.carleton.ca wrote:
>
> }When I read this... sutta in Chinese Agama, I see some words not in use
> }in the
> }Pali Canon, like Wu Wei.
>
or "without activity"
> What might an equivalent term in pre-Chinese, Buddhist literature be?
it is impossible to say without the passage.... the Agamas were
translated realtively early duringthe period when there was
experimentation with using Taoist terms. the best match would be if it
were a Mahayana text, "wishlessness" implying the idea of nonfabrication
could possible be rendered by wu wei.
just taking a wild guess: nirodha meaning cessation. there are other
possibilities....
Bardo Bill
>TCNguyen:
>
>> When I read this... sutta in Chinese Agama, I see some words not in use
>> in the
>> Pali Canon, like Wu Wei. I think this collection is under influence of
>> Chinese
>
>
>FWIW, *wu-wei*, as I understand, is generally considered to be the
>cognate of nirvana by Chinese translators.
>
In cajun slang, "Wu-Wee" is an explative that means
"it stinks", as in "Wu-wee! That $#!+ sure stinks!"
--
It's alright if you head's in the clouds so
long as your feet are still on the ground.
Mr. Minkfoot
}When I read this... sutta in Chinese Agama, I see some words not in use
}in the
}Pali Canon, like Wu Wei.
Isn't "Wu Wei" a Taoist term? Meaning without struggle, effort, strain?
What might an equivalent term in pre-Chinese, Buddhist literature be?
---The Lone Fool
Mr. Minkfoot
}> Isn't "Wu Wei" a Taoist term? Meaning without struggle, effort, strain?
}
}or "without activity"
Glad you're around. I have a question I've been meaning to ask you. Isn't
"wu" also a technical term meaning "emptiness"? As in Japanese "ku"? Now
"wu" was Chao-chou's response in the famous koan, rendered in Japanese as
"mu". Are these two different "wu"s? If not, why is it never mentioned
that Chao-chou's reply could mean "emptiness" as well as "no" or "not",
probably even more so?
Am I misinformed about "wu" meaning "emptiness", or is it a differently
toned word, or what?
---The Lone Fool
tjn
>
> In article <3831AE70...@worldnet.att.net>, ryu...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> }> Isn't "Wu Wei" a Taoist term? Meaning without struggle, effort, strain?
> }
> }or "without activity"
>
> Glad you're around. I have a question I've been meaning to ask you. Isn't
> "wu" also a technical term meaning "emptiness"? As in Japanese "ku"? Now
> "wu" was Chao-chou's response in the famous koan, rendered in Japanese as
> "mu". Are these two different "wu"s? If not, why is it never mentioned
> that Chao-chou's reply could mean "emptiness" as well as "no" or "not",
> probably even more so?
There are two characters being confused:
1) Chinese - Wu, Japanese pronunciation Mu: often used informally to
refer to emptiness, it is strictly speaking a form of negation that
means "lacking", "without". (There is a different character Ch. Pu that
means "no", "not". This is the character in the koan of Chao-chou's
puppy.
2) Chinese - Hsu, Japanese pronunciation Ku: used formally to refer to
emptiness. If (:-)) you know of the Ch'an master Hsu-yun that is the
character in "Empty Cloud". This character also appears in the Heart
Sutra to represent "emptiness". "Form is emptiness, emptiness is form"
is "Shiki fu i ku, ku fu i shiki". The "ku" is not the same character as
the "mu" in the koan.
> Am I misinformed about "wu" meaning "emptiness", or is it a differently
> toned word, or what?
Does the above help?
Mr. Minkfoot
}Mr. Minkfoot wrote:
}>
}> In article <3831AE70...@worldnet.att.net>,
ryu...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
}>
}> }> Isn't "Wu Wei" a Taoist term? Meaning without struggle, effort, strain?
}> }
}> }or "without activity"
}>
}> Glad you're around. I have a question I've been meaning to ask you. Isn't
}> "wu" also a technical term meaning "emptiness"? As in Japanese "ku"? Now
}> "wu" was Chao-chou's response in the famous koan, rendered in Japanese as
}> "mu". Are these two different "wu"s? If not, why is it never mentioned
}> that Chao-chou's reply could mean "emptiness" as well as "no" or "not",
}> probably even more so?
}
}There are two characters being confused:
}
}1) Chinese - Wu, Japanese pronunciation Mu: often used informally to
}refer to emptiness, it is strictly speaking a form of negation that
}means "lacking", "without". (There is a different character Ch. Pu that
}means "no", "not". This is the character in the koan of Chao-chou's
}puppy.
Well, poo!
}2) Chinese - Hsu, Japanese pronunciation Ku: used formally to refer to
}emptiness. If (:-)) you know of the Ch'an master Hsu-yun that is the
}character in "Empty Cloud". This character also appears in the Heart
}Sutra to represent "emptiness". "Form is emptiness, emptiness is form"
}is "Shiki fu i ku, ku fu i shiki". The "ku" is not the same character as
}the "mu" in the koan.
}
}> Am I misinformed about "wu" meaning "emptiness", or is it a differently
}> toned word, or what?
}
}Does the above help?
Very much, thank you!
---The Lone Fool
tjn
>
> In article <3832E6E5...@worldnet.att.net>, ryu...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> }Mr. Minkfoot wrote:
> }>
> }> In article <3831AE70...@worldnet.att.net>,
> ryu...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> }>
> }> }> Isn't "Wu Wei" a Taoist term? Meaning without struggle, effort, strain?
> }> }
> }> }or "without activity"
> }>
> }> Glad you're around. I have a question I've been meaning to ask you. Isn't
> }> "wu" also a technical term meaning "emptiness"? As in Japanese "ku"? Now
> }> "wu" was Chao-chou's response in the famous koan, rendered in Japanese as
> }> "mu". Are these two different "wu"s? If not, why is it never mentioned
> }> that Chao-chou's reply could mean "emptiness" as well as "no" or "not",
> }> probably even more so?
> }
> }There are two characters being confused:
> }
> }1) Chinese - Wu, Japanese pronunciation Mu: often used informally to
> }refer to emptiness, it is strictly speaking a form of negation that
> }means "lacking", "without". (There is a different character Ch. Pu that
> }means "no", "not". This is the character in the koan of Chao-chou's
> }puppy.
>
> Well, poo!
woops. rereading this i garbled it by including too much information and
a punctuation slip.
1) Chinese - Wu, Japanese pronunciation Mu: often used informally to
refer to emptiness, it is strictly speaking a form of negation that
means "lacking", "without". (There is a different character Ch. Pu that
means "no", "not".) This is the character in the koan of Chao-chou's
puppy.
that is to say it is the Wu that is in Chao-chou. the Pu is the
additional information about a different negation.
> }2) Chinese - Hsu, Japanese pronunciation Ku: used formally to refer to
> }emptiness. If (:-)) you know of the Ch'an master Hsu-yun that is the
> }character in "Empty Cloud". This character also appears in the Heart
> }Sutra to represent "emptiness". "Form is emptiness, emptiness is form"
> }is "Shiki fu i ku, ku fu i shiki". The "ku" is not the same character as
> }the "mu" in the koan.
> }
> }> Am I misinformed about "wu" meaning "emptiness", or is it a differently
> }> toned word, or what?
> }
> }Does the above help?
>
> Very much, thank you!
just to make sure it is clear. sorry for the confusion.
Mr. Minkfoot
Then I was less confused before your earlier post.
So why is it not mentioned that Joshu was using an ambiguity, stating the
poor impoverished puppy has no Buddha nature on the one hand, yet perhaps
thundering "emptiness" as well? Would this not be an important aspect of
the koan? Or is it usually presented as such, and I am "wu" in my reading?
}> }2) Chinese - Hsu, Japanese pronunciation Ku: used formally to refer to
}> }emptiness. If (:-)) you know of the Ch'an master Hsu-yun that is the
}> }character in "Empty Cloud". This character also appears in the Heart
}> }Sutra to represent "emptiness". "Form is emptiness, emptiness is form"
}> }is "Shiki fu i ku, ku fu i shiki". The "ku" is not the same character as
}> }the "mu" in the koan.
}> }
}> }> Am I misinformed about "wu" meaning "emptiness", or is it a differently
}> }> toned word, or what?
}> }
}> }Does the above help?
}>
}> Very much, thank you!
}
}just to make sure it is clear. sorry for the confusion.
That <close parenthesis> earned you a few kalpas in hell, which you have
now redeemed. Again, thank you.
---Weasel Tracks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"This mask is on the side of Truth!"
<http://home.earthlink.net/~weaseltrax/trip99>
tjn
the Koan as presented in Mumonkan is actually incomplete. in the
Shoyoroku (Book of Serenity) a second monk asks Joshu if the dog has
Buddha Nature and Joshu responds "U" meaning "exists" or "is present".
this is not the opposite of "emptiness". it establishes that the primary
meaning of the "Mu" is "not present" in the first response which is
contradicted in the second response. if the primary meaning of Mu were
simply emptiness the second response would not be as great a
contradiction of the first.
translating Mu as emptiness only kinda sorta works if you ignore the
other response Joshu made. if you are working on the koan in English
then the best monosyllabic translations are "No" for "Mu" and "Yes" for
"U".
> }> }2) Chinese - Hsu, Japanese pronunciation Ku: used formally to refer to
> }> }emptiness. If (:-)) you know of the Ch'an master Hsu-yun that is the
> }> }character in "Empty Cloud". This character also appears in the Heart
> }> }Sutra to represent "emptiness". "Form is emptiness, emptiness is form"
> }> }is "Shiki fu i ku, ku fu i shiki". The "ku" is not the same character as
> }> }the "mu" in the koan.
> }> }
> }> }> Am I misinformed about "wu" meaning "emptiness", or is it a differently
> }> }> toned word, or what?
> }> }
> }> }Does the above help?
> }>
> }> Very much, thank you!
> }
> }just to make sure it is clear. sorry for the confusion.
>
> That <close parenthesis> earned you a few kalpas in hell, which you have
> now redeemed. Again, thank you.
since i have vowed rebirth in hell, i am sorry to hear that ;-)
Ned Ludd
writes:
> translating Mu as emptiness only kinda sorta works if you ignore the
> other response Joshu made. if you are working on the koan in English
> then the best monosyllabic translations are "No" for "Mu" and "Yes"
> for "U".
>
Well thank God. Here's how Joshu said it in Record of Chao Chou:
A monk asked, "Does a dog have a Buddha nature or not?"
Chao-chou said, "Not!"
The monk said, "Above to all the Buddhas, below to the crawling
bugs, all have Buddha-nature. Why is it that the dog has not?"
Chao-chou said, "Because he has the nature of karmic delusions."
- Record of Chao-chou, #132
A monk asked, "Does a dog have Buddha-nature or not?"
Chao-chou said, "The door of every house leads to the capital."
- Record of Chao-chou, #363
tjn
thanks Ned.
i think that the "Record" has one of the oldest forms of these koans.
the Chinese simplified them when compiling the Mumonkan and the
Shoyoroku. there is also a more extended version of #363 in one of the
larger collections that also has a "why" and a further response from
Joshu.
when actually using these cases for kanna-zen (koan introspection zen)
it is important to have a monosyllabic response. since the "No" or "Not"
is monosyllabic is is useful since the koan is interiorized by matching
the single syllable with the breathing. using "Emptiness" in this way is
less appropriate than "No" since the mind moves more with a three
syllable word than with a single syllable.
Wu/Mu (Chinese/Japanese) means according to Matthews Chinese dictionary:
without, apart from, none. Nelson's Japanese dictionary has: nothing,
nil, none. the sense of "emptiness" does not appear even in Soothill's
Dictionary of Chinese Buddhist Terms. which is not to say that there is
not a basis for Maggie's saying that it is used in an informal sense to
refer to emptiness. it is just that that is a rather remote reference.
to add to the confusion of words there is another character Wu which is
used to mean enlightenment. some writers have confused this with the
character in the koan. now remember that Japanese has at least two
different pronunciations for each character. one is their way of
representing Tang dynasty Chinese pronunciation and the second is an
indigenous Japanese pronunciation. for the Chinese character "Wu" that
means enlightenment the Japanese pronouce it as "Go" and as "satori".
so we have:
1) Chinese Wu (second tone) and Japanese Mu (na, nai, nashi, nakattera)
meaning "none".
2) Chinese Wu (fourth tone) and Japanese Go (satori) meaning
"enlightenment".
3) Chinese Hsu\" (first tone) and Japanese Ku (no indigenous Japanese
pronunciation, character also simplified) meaning "empty, hollow, void,
unreal".
there is of course a danger of taking emptiness in a nihilistic light if
one over insists on (1) meaning exactly emptiness. it is, after all, a
negation. in the Heart Sutra character (1) is only used for the
negations and never for emptiness while character (3) is used
exclusively for "emptiness". BTW unless you have a Japanese and a
Chinese edition of the Heart Sutra it would be very hard to recognize
that the Japanese character is a simplified form of the Chinese, they
are that dissimilar in appearance.
tjn
the Heart Sutra in Kanji:
tjn wrote:
[del]
we have:
1) Chinese Wu (second tone) and Japanese Mu (na, nai, nashi, nakattera)
meaning "none".
2) Chinese Wu (fourth tone) and Japanese Go (satori) meaning
"enlightenment".
3) Chinese Hsu\" (first tone) and Japanese Ko (no indigenous Japanese
pronunciation) meaning "empty, hollow, void, unreal". this is the
character for "emptiness that appears in Hsu-yun's name.
4) Chinese K'ung (first tone) and Japanese Kuu (no indigenous Japanese
pronunciation) meaning "emptiness".
[del]
when i wrote:
>BTW unless you have a Japanese and a Chinese edition of the Heart Sutra it would be >very hard to recognize that the Japanese character is a simplified form of the Chinese, >they are that dissimilar in appearance.
i was incorrect. the similarity of the Japanese phonetics had me
confused. in the Heart Sutra there are two characters for "emptiness"
neither are simplified characters but one is much more simple. sorry for
the confusion.
Ned Ludd
writes:
Toshu:
>> translating Mu as emptiness only kinda sorta works if you ignore the
>> other response Joshu made. if you are working on the koan in English
>> then the best monosyllabic translations are "No" for "Mu" and "Yes"
>> for "U".
Ned:
> Well thank God. Here's how Joshu said it in Record of Chao Chou:
>
> A monk asked, "Does a dog have a Buddha nature or not?"
> Chao-chou said, "Not!"
> The monk said, "Above to all the Buddhas, below to the crawling
> bugs, all have Buddha-nature. Why is it that the dog has not?"
> Chao-chou said, "Because he has the nature of karmic delusions."
>
> - Record of Chao-chou, #132
>
> A monk asked, "Does a dog have Buddha-nature or not?"
> Chao-chou said, "The door of every house leads to the capital."
>
> - Record of Chao-chou, #363
Toshu:
> so we have:
> 1) Chinese Wu (second tone) and Japanese Mu (na, nai, nashi,
> nakattera) meaning "none".
> 2) Chinese Wu (fourth tone) and Japanese Go (satori) meaning
> "enlightenment".
> 3) Chinese Hsu\" (first tone) and Japanese Ko (no indigenous
> Japanese pronunciation) meaning "empty, hollow, void, unreal".
> this is the character for "emptiness that appears in Hsu-yun's
> name.
> 4) Chinese K'ung (first tone) and Japanese Kuu (no indigenous
> Japanese pronunciation) meaning "emptiness".
> there is of course a danger of taking emptiness in a nihilistic
> light if one over insists on (1) meaning exactly emptiness. it
> is, after all, a negation. in the Heart Sutra character (1) is
> only used for the negations and never for emptiness while
> character (3) is used exclusively for "emptiness".
>
It is, after all, a negation.
Two things amaze me about discussions of this story. In all
the reading I've done in the koan collections and Zen Buddhist
literature, I have almost never encountered a master or teacher
dwelling on the fine shades of meaning of the words Wu and Mu
as being an 'important' issue of the koan.
Conversely, in 6 years on the Net in a.z. and a.b.s.f.g,
during the several times that this koan has been discussed,
I would conservatively estimate that 90% of the discussion
revolves around various posters' attempting to prove that
Joshu's Mu does not mean 'no', and that he was not saying
that the dog lacked Buddha nature.
I generally interpret all such efforts as indicators that the
poster is desperately trying to defend the idea of a soul,
and that they have a soul, and that Buddha nature is something
(ie. a THING) inside them, which they possess, and which will
do for a soul, within their preferred religion, Buddhism.
Ned
tjn
>
[del]
>
> It is, after all, a negation.
>
> Two things amaze me about discussions of this story. In all
> the reading I've done in the koan collections and Zen Buddhist
> literature, I have almost never encountered a master or teacher
> dwelling on the fine shades of meaning of the words Wu and Mu
> as being an 'important' issue of the koan.
it is certainly not an important issue in practicing the koan. the
mental-physical act of swallowing entire the negating monosyllable of
your choice whether Wu, Mu, No, None is the practice.
> Conversely, in 6 years on the Net in a.z. and a.b.s.f.g,
> during the several times that this koan has been discussed,
> I would conservatively estimate that 90% of the discussion
> revolves around various posters' attempting to prove that
> Joshu's Mu does not mean 'no', and that he was not saying
> that the dog lacked Buddha nature.
i would generally assume that Joshu was not saying that the dog lacked
manifesting Buddha nature. after all, there is also Joshu's "yes".
> I generally interpret all such efforts as indicators that the
> poster is desperately trying to defend the idea of a soul,
> and that they have a soul, and that Buddha nature is something
> (ie. a THING) inside them, which they possess, and which will
> do for a soul, within their preferred religion, Buddhism.
i think that does not necessarily follow. it is a possible
interpretation but not the only one. it simply is a mistake to think
that Buddha Nature has the least thing to do with a possession of any
sort, let alone a soul.
pardon the speculation on Joshu that follows.
now say Joshu is being asked the question by one who is looking for
justification to undertake just such a misunderstanding, someone who
wants Buddha Nature to be a soul or their possession or characteristic.
then it is necessary to answer "No". the question can be answered that
way because indeed the dog doesn't _have_ Buddha Nature, rather Buddha
nature has the dog. Buddha Nature is nothing other than impermanence
itself. the only thing unborn and undying about Buddha Nature is that
impermanence is the permanent state of affairs.
now say that someone asks the question who has already understood the
futility of looking for a self or a soul. to such a one Joshu can safely
say "Yes". or the more poetic "all roads lead to the capital".
the seemingly contradictory responses from Joshu are a reflection of the
condition of the questioner and not the question. Buddha Nature is the
absence of a foundation, a basis, a soul. so how one answers the
question depends on how the questioner thinks of Buddha nature. it is a
function, not a substance. so in this light Joshu's "No" is the same as
Dogen's "all things (walls, pebbles, tiles, fence, grasses, trees) are
Buddha Nature".
there is also a tendency to mistake it as "the Good". there are even old
texts that take it that way. but there are (IMO) better old texts that
refuse to identify Buddha Nature with "Good". but let's leave that one
for another day....
tjn
>
> In <383485D9...@worldnet.att.net> tjn <ryu...@worldnet.att.net>
> writes:
>
> Ned:
> > Two things amaze me about discussions of this story. In all
> > the reading I've done in the koan collections and Zen Buddhist
> > literature, I have almost never encountered a master or teacher
> > dwelling on the fine shades of meaning of the words Wu and Mu
> > as being an 'important' issue of the koan.
>
> > it is certainly not an important issue in practicing the koan. the
> > mental-physical act of swallowing entire the negating monosyllable
> > of your choice whether Wu, Mu, No, None is the practice.
>
> the 'no'.
that is precisely the point where practicing it begins.
> >> Conversely, in 6 years on the Net in a.z. and a.b.s.f.g,
> >> during the several times that this koan has been discussed,
> >> I would conservatively estimate that 90% of the discussion
> >> revolves around various posters' attempting to prove that
> >> Joshu's Mu does not mean 'no', and that he was not saying
> >> that the dog lacked Buddha nature.
> >
> > i would generally assume that Joshu was not saying that the dog
> > lacked manifesting Buddha nature. after all, there is also
> > Joshu's "yes".
>
> Which number is that in "Record of Chao-chou"? I take it as
> a "no", despite protestations to the contrary. And I'll even
> accept your "yes", in the appropriate circumstance.
the "yes" is perhaps not in the record. it is in the Shoyoroku and
another collection. likely the "yes" is an alternate version of the "all
roads lead to the capital" response.
> >> I generally interpret all such efforts as indicators that the
> >> poster is desperately trying to defend the idea of a soul,
> >> and that they have a soul, and that Buddha nature is something
> >> (ie. a THING) inside them, which they possess, and which will
> >> do for a soul, within their preferred religion, Buddhism.
> >
> > i think that does not necessarily follow. it is a possible
> > interpretation but not the only one. it simply is a mistake to
> > think that Buddha Nature has the least thing to do with a
> > possession of any sort, let alone a soul.
> > pardon the speculation on Joshu that follows.
> > now say Joshu is being asked the question by one who is looking
> > for justification to undertake just such a misunderstanding,
> > someone who wants Buddha Nature to be a soul or their possession
> > or characteristic. then it is necessary to answer "No". the
> > question can be answered that way because indeed the dog doesn't
> > _have_ Buddha Nature, rather Buddha nature has the dog.
>
> Buddha nature isn't necessary to make the whole thing work.
it depends on whether you regard Buddha Nature as something extra.
> > Buddha Nature is nothing other than impermanence itself. the only
> > thing unborn and undying about Buddha Nature is that impermanence
> > is the permanent state of affairs.
>
> Only a crazy man would depend on impermanence.
it is actually quite reliable. as for craziness, well perhaps, but a
healthy form....
> > now say that someone asks the question who has already understood
> > the futility of looking for a self or a soul. to such a one Joshu
> > can safely say "Yes". or the more poetic "all roads lead to the
> > capital".
> > the seemingly contradictory responses from Joshu are a reflection
> > of the condition of the questioner and not the question. Buddha
> > Nature is the absence of a foundation, a basis, a soul. so how one
> > answers the question depends on how the questioner thinks of Buddha
> > nature. it is a function, not a substance. so in this light Joshu's
> > "No" is the same as Dogen's "all things (walls, pebbles, tiles,
> > fence, grasses, trees) are Buddha Nature".
>
> Only in the sense that Joshu's "No" is the same as no Buddha nature,
> no having, no being.
there is at this point no difference between Buddha Nature and
emptiness.
> > there is also a tendency to mistake it as "the Good". there are
> > even old texts that take it that way. but there are (IMO) better
> > old texts that refuse to identify Buddha Nature with "Good". but
> > let's leave that one for another day....
>
> So, why did Buddha open his mouth?
it was his nature to do so.
Ned Ludd
Ned:
> Two things amaze me about discussions of this story. In all
> the reading I've done in the koan collections and Zen Buddhist
> literature, I have almost never encountered a master or teacher
> dwelling on the fine shades of meaning of the words Wu and Mu
> as being an 'important' issue of the koan.
Toshu:
> it is certainly not an important issue in practicing the koan. the
> mental-physical act of swallowing entire the negating monosyllable
> of your choice whether Wu, Mu, No, None is the practice.
>
Well, the point is that you stop practicing it. Ie. stop practicing
the 'no'.
>> Conversely, in 6 years on the Net in a.z. and a.b.s.f.g,
>> during the several times that this koan has been discussed,
>> I would conservatively estimate that 90% of the discussion
>> revolves around various posters' attempting to prove that
>> Joshu's Mu does not mean 'no', and that he was not saying
>> that the dog lacked Buddha nature.
>
> i would generally assume that Joshu was not saying that the dog
> lacked manifesting Buddha nature. after all, there is also
> Joshu's "yes".
>
Which number is that in "Record of Chao-chou"? I take it as
a "no", despite protestations to the contrary. And I'll even
accept your "yes", in the appropriate circumstance.
>> I generally interpret all such efforts as indicators that the
>> poster is desperately trying to defend the idea of a soul,
>> and that they have a soul, and that Buddha nature is something
>> (ie. a THING) inside them, which they possess, and which will
>> do for a soul, within their preferred religion, Buddhism.
>
> i think that does not necessarily follow. it is a possible
> interpretation but not the only one. it simply is a mistake to
> think that Buddha Nature has the least thing to do with a
> possession of any sort, let alone a soul.
> pardon the speculation on Joshu that follows.
> now say Joshu is being asked the question by one who is looking
> for justification to undertake just such a misunderstanding,
> someone who wants Buddha Nature to be a soul or their possession
> or characteristic. then it is necessary to answer "No". the
> question can be answered that way because indeed the dog doesn't
> _have_ Buddha Nature, rather Buddha nature has the dog.
>
Buddha nature isn't necessary to make the whole thing work.
> Buddha Nature is nothing other than impermanence itself. the only
> thing unborn and undying about Buddha Nature is that impermanence
> is the permanent state of affairs.
>
Only a crazy man would depend on impermanence.
> now say that someone asks the question who has already understood
> the futility of looking for a self or a soul. to such a one Joshu
> can safely say "Yes". or the more poetic "all roads lead to the
> capital".
> the seemingly contradictory responses from Joshu are a reflection
> of the condition of the questioner and not the question. Buddha
> Nature is the absence of a foundation, a basis, a soul. so how one
> answers the question depends on how the questioner thinks of Buddha
> nature. it is a function, not a substance. so in this light Joshu's
> "No" is the same as Dogen's "all things (walls, pebbles, tiles,
> fence, grasses, trees) are Buddha Nature".
>
Only in the sense that Joshu's "No" is the same as no Buddha nature,
no having, no being.
> there is also a tendency to mistake it as "the Good". there are
> even old texts that take it that way. but there are (IMO) better
> old texts that refuse to identify Buddha Nature with "Good". but
> let's leave that one for another day....
>
So, why did Buddha open his mouth?
Ned
tjn
>
> On Thu, 18 Nov 1999 14:45:39 -0600, tjn <ryu...@worldnet.att.net>
> wrotd:
>
> > sorry for the confusion
>
> that's what they all say
not all...
tjn
>
> Ned Ludd wrote:
> >
[del]
> >
> > So, why did Buddha open his mouth?
>
of course another answer would be:
"who?"
but that would be for another...
Brian Drummond
>Ned Ludd wrote:
>>
>[del]
>pardon the speculation on Joshu that follows.
it's so good it's unpardonable...
>now say Joshu is being asked the question by one who is looking for
>justification to undertake just such a misunderstanding, someone who
>wants Buddha Nature to be a soul or their possession or characteristic.
>then it is necessary to answer "No". the question can be answered that
>way because indeed the dog doesn't _have_ Buddha Nature, rather Buddha
>nature has the dog.
which gets back to Dogen ... buddha nature IS the jowls of a donkey
(the red-hot iron ball that sticks in a buzzard's throat...)
>Buddha Nature is the
>absence of a foundation, a basis, a soul. so how one answers the
>question depends on how the questioner thinks of Buddha nature. it is a
>function, not a substance.
EXCELLENT! and functions, evaluated in different contexts, produce
different answers...
>so in this light Joshu's "No" is the same as
>Dogen's "all things (walls, pebbles, tiles, fence, grasses, trees) are
>Buddha Nature".
shudda read the whole thing, shouldn't I!
>there is also a tendency to mistake it as "the Good". there are even old
>texts that take it that way.
probably a useful mistake to make a lot of the time...
and quite well supported ... e.g. "stains are adventitious, qualities
inherent" or my favourite, the first pair of verses in the Dhammapada,
where good qualities are as tightly bound to you as your shadow, but
evil ones can, like the ox-cart, be unhitched.
>but there are (IMO) better old texts that
>refuse to identify Buddha Nature with "Good". but let's leave that one
>for another day....
again, same function in different contexts I suppose...
- Brian
mayoi
br...@shapes.demon.co.uk (Brian Drummond) wrote:
[...]
Toshu:
>>there is also a tendency to mistake it as "the Good". there are even
>>old texts that take it that way.
>
Brian:
> probably a useful mistake to make a lot of the time...
>
> and quite well supported ... e.g. "stains are adventitious, qualities
> inherent" or my favourite, the first pair of verses in the Dhammapada,
> where good qualities are as tightly bound to you as your shadow, but
> evil ones can, like the ox-cart, be unhitched.
EXCELLENT yourself! I must have read the lines...
well, a whole lotta times:
Phenomena are preceded by the heart, ruled by the heart,
made of the heart. If you speak or act with a corrupted
heart, then suffering follows you --
as the wheel of the cart, the track of the ox that pulls it.
Phenomena are preceded by the heart, ruled by the heart,
made of the heart. If you speak or act with a calm,
bright heart, then happiness follows you,
like a shadow that never leaves.
... and understood the metaphor, but only saw the closely following
behind of the oxcart or the shadow, not that one can be "unhitched"
while the other cannot. Never put it together with "stains are
adventitious, qualities inherent" before.
Thanks, Brian and Toshu!
Karen
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ned Ludd
writes:
Toshu:
>> it is certainly not an important issue in practicing the koan. the
>> mental-physical act of swallowing entire the negating monosyllable
>> of your choice whether Wu, Mu, No, None is the practice.
Ned:
>> Well, the point is that you stop practicing it. Ie. stop practicing
>> the 'no'.
Toshu:
> that is precisely the point where practicing it begins.
>
Sure, as long as you stop practicing it.
>>> i would generally assume that Joshu was not saying that the dog
>>> lacked manifesting Buddha nature. after all, there is also
>>> Joshu's "yes".
>>
>> Which number is that in "Record of Chao-chou"? I take it as
>> a "no", despite protestations to the contrary. And I'll even
>> accept your "yes", in the appropriate circumstance.
>
> the "yes" is perhaps not in the record. it is in the Shoyoroku and
> another collection. likely the "yes" is an alternate version of the
> "all roads lead to the capital" response.
I think that answer clearly indicates that there is no necessity
for practice - that no matter what you pick, no matter what you
decide, you end up just as enlightened as you always were. Kind
of like "knock on any door", etc.
>>> the question can be answered that way because indeed the dog
>>> doesn't _have_ Buddha Nature, rather Buddha nature has the dog.
>>
>> Buddha nature isn't necessary to make the whole thing work.
>
> it depends on whether you regard Buddha Nature as something extra.
If you are carrying it, it is extra.
>>> Buddha Nature is nothing other than impermanence itself. the only
>>> thing unborn and undying about Buddha Nature is that impermanence
>>> is the permanent state of affairs.
>>
>> Only a crazy man would depend on impermanence.
>
> it is actually quite reliable. as for craziness, well perhaps, but
> a healthy form....
It is no more reliable than permanence. You can't stand on either.
>>> Buddha Nature is the absence of a foundation, a basis, a soul.
>>> so how one answers the question depends on how the questioner
>>> thinks of Buddha nature. it is a function, not a substance. so
>>> in this light Joshu's "No" is the same as Dogen's "all things
>>> (walls, pebbles, tiles, fence, grasses, trees) are Buddha Nature".
>>
>> Only in the sense that Joshu's "No" is the same as no Buddha nature,
>> no having, no being.
>
> there is at this point no difference between Buddha Nature and
> emptiness.
Goodness! Another empty dharma. What a shock.
>>> there is also a tendency to mistake it as "the Good". there are
>>> even old texts that take it that way. but there are (IMO) better
>>> old texts that refuse to identify Buddha Nature with "Good". but
>>> let's leave that one for another day....
>>
>> So, why did Buddha open his mouth?
>
> it was his nature to do so.
> of course another answer would be:
> "who?"
> but that would be for another...
>
Some of the Ch'an patriarchs referred to Buddha as a 'chatterbox'.
I don't think so. I think he only spoke in response to things
and conditions which he felt needed addressing.
Ned
Don James
can you truly enjoy the splendors of existence?
--
See your favorite poster at:
http://www.ntr.net/~oak/altzen/altzen.html
tjn
>
> In <3834D5A7...@worldnet.att.net> tjn <ryu...@worldnet.att.net>
> writes:
>
> Toshu:
> >> it is certainly not an important issue in practicing the koan. the
> >> mental-physical act of swallowing entire the negating monosyllable
> >> of your choice whether Wu, Mu, No, None is the practice.
>
> Ned:
> >> Well, the point is that you stop practicing it. Ie. stop practicing
> >> the 'no'.
>
> Toshu:
> > that is precisely the point where practicing it begins.
>
> Sure, as long as you stop practicing it.
well it is in fact impossible to stop practicing unless you are already
dead. each choice and decision is practicing to manifest the
consequences. so even if one's practice is nonpractice practice
continues.
> >>> i would generally assume that Joshu was not saying that the dog
> >>> lacked manifesting Buddha nature. after all, there is also
> >>> Joshu's "yes".
> >>
> >> Which number is that in "Record of Chao-chou"? I take it as
> >> a "no", despite protestations to the contrary. And I'll even
> >> accept your "yes", in the appropriate circumstance.
> >
> > the "yes" is perhaps not in the record. it is in the Shoyoroku and
> > another collection. likely the "yes" is an alternate version of the
> > "all roads lead to the capital" response.
>
> I think that answer clearly indicates that there is no necessity
> for practice - that no matter what you pick, no matter what you
> decide, you end up just as enlightened as you always were. Kind
> of like "knock on any door", etc.
i disagree. Joshu practiced without practicing ceaselessly. also he was
most careful about continuing to practice his practices until he was
ready for practiceless practice. how many years did he train before he
settled down?
> >>> the question can be answered that way because indeed the dog
> >>> doesn't _have_ Buddha Nature, rather Buddha nature has the dog.
> >>
> >> Buddha nature isn't necessary to make the whole thing work.
> >
> > it depends on whether you regard Buddha Nature as something extra.
>
> If you are carrying it, it is extra.
it is impossible to carry Buddha Nature. if one thinks it is possible to
carry it one should set that thought aside.
> >>> Buddha Nature is nothing other than impermanence itself. the only
> >>> thing unborn and undying about Buddha Nature is that impermanence
> >>> is the permanent state of affairs.
> >>
> >> Only a crazy man would depend on impermanence.
> >
> > it is actually quite reliable. as for craziness, well perhaps, but
> > a healthy form....
>
> It is no more reliable than permanence. You can't stand on either.
who wants to stand? Simon Of the Desert? his pillar is dust now....
> >>> Buddha Nature is the absence of a foundation, a basis, a soul.
> >>> so how one answers the question depends on how the questioner
> >>> thinks of Buddha nature. it is a function, not a substance. so
> >>> in this light Joshu's "No" is the same as Dogen's "all things
> >>> (walls, pebbles, tiles, fence, grasses, trees) are Buddha Nature".
> >>
> >> Only in the sense that Joshu's "No" is the same as no Buddha nature,
> >> no having, no being.
> >
> > there is at this point no difference between Buddha Nature and
> > emptiness.
>
> Goodness! Another empty dharma. What a shock.
can you show a non empty dharma?
> >>> there is also a tendency to mistake it as "the Good". there are
> >>> even old texts that take it that way. but there are (IMO) better
> >>> old texts that refuse to identify Buddha Nature with "Good". but
> >>> let's leave that one for another day....
> >>
> >> So, why did Buddha open his mouth?
> >
> > it was his nature to do so.
> > of course another answer would be:
> > "who?"
> > but that would be for another...
> >
>
> Some of the Ch'an patriarchs referred to Buddha as a 'chatterbox'.
> I don't think so. I think he only spoke in response to things
> and conditions which he felt needed addressing.
and it is time for me to shut up for a while....
tjn
> which gets back to Dogen ... buddha nature IS the jowls of a donkey
> (the red-hot iron ball that sticks in a buzzard's throat...)
truly something swallowed that some would spit out.
why not simply digest it?
> >Buddha Nature is the
> >absence of a foundation, a basis, a soul. so how one answers the
> >question depends on how the questioner thinks of Buddha nature. it is a
> >function, not a substance.
>
> EXCELLENT! and functions, evaluated in different contexts, produce
> different answers...
usually...
[del]
> >there is also a tendency to mistake it as "the Good". there are even old
> >texts that take it that way.
>
> probably a useful mistake to make a lot of the time...
yes but one must be careful about use, it may be Wise but lack
Compassion.
> and quite well supported ... e.g. "stains are adventitious, qualities
> inherent" or my favourite, the first pair of verses in the Dhammapada,
> where good qualities are as tightly bound to you as your shadow, but
> evil ones can, like the ox-cart, be unhitched.
the stains are also Buddha Nature.
> >but there are (IMO) better old texts that
> >refuse to identify Buddha Nature with "Good". but let's leave that one
> >for another day....
>
> again, same function in different contexts I suppose...
if there is to be awakening of awakening it must divide to recombine.
Don James
> > >>> so how one answers the question depends on how the questioner
> > >>> in this light Joshu's "No" is the same as Dogen's "all things
> > >>> (walls, pebbles, tiles, fence, grasses, trees) are Buddha
Nature".
> > >>
> > >> Only in the sense that Joshu's "No" is the same as no Buddha
nature,
> > >> no having, no being.
> > >
> > > there is at this point no difference between Buddha Nature and
> > > emptiness.
> >
> > Goodness! Another empty dharma. What a shock.
>
> can you show a non empty dharma?
>
> > >>> old texts that refuse to identify Buddha Nature with "Good". but
> > >>> let's leave that one for another day....
> > >>
> > >
> > > it was his nature to do so.
> > > of course another answer would be:
> > > "who?"
> > > but that would be for another...
> > >
> >
> > Some of the Ch'an patriarchs referred to Buddha as a 'chatterbox'.
> > I don't think so. I think he only spoke in response to things
> > and conditions which he felt needed addressing.
>
> and it is time for me to shut up for a while....
>
your practiceless practice. Initially practice is specific, separate,
like zazen is different than typing at your pc. Eventually, breathing
is practice, walking is practice. Of course one needs to learn that one-
pointed complete attention that meditation or zazen teaches. But I
don't believe you necessarily have to do zazen for eternity.
tjn
>
[del]
>
> Damn Ned! I'm just agreeing with you all over the place. I agree with
> your practiceless practice. Initially practice is specific, separate,
> like zazen is different than typing at your pc. Eventually, breathing
> is practice, walking is practice. Of course one needs to learn that one-
> pointed complete attention that meditation or zazen teaches. But I
> don't believe you necessarily have to do zazen for eternity.
nothing is _necessary_ but zazen _is_ inexhaustible as long as you
practice carefree and easily. oh, there may be times when you feel as
though your bones are turning into dust, but coming out the outher side
is still ease and content. since the Buddha did zazen until he died, do
we think him greater than or less than ourselves by quitting?
A. Von Störenfried
[snip]
> > Buddha Nature is nothing other than impermanence itself. the only
> > thing unborn and undying about Buddha Nature is that impermanence
> > is the permanent state of affairs.
> >
>
> Only a crazy man would depend on impermanence.
Perhaps what John is struggling to get across is that 'mental
constructions' whether of Buddha-natue or Ned-nature are impermanent.
On second thought, re-reading John remarks, I have no idea what the hell
he is talking about! This is just more goofball Dôgen Zenji crap. LOL
Regards,
AvS
A. Von Störenfried
[snip]
> >Buddha Nature is the
> >absence of a foundation, a basis, a soul. so how one answers the
> >question depends on how the questioner thinks of Buddha nature. it is a
> >function, not a substance.
>
> EXCELLENT! and functions, evaluated in different contexts, produce
> different answers...
You can look at it this way, John is substantializing "function", making
it into a soul. How clever is that? Formerly, atman was "skandha".
Now atman is "function".
Regards,
AvS
Ned Ludd
writes:
Toshu:
>> Buddha Nature is nothing other than impermanence itself. the only
>> thing unborn and undying about Buddha Nature is that impermanence
>> is the permanent state of affairs.
Ned:
>> Only a crazy man would depend on impermanence.
Ardent:
> Perhaps what John is struggling to get across is that 'mental
> constructions' whether of Buddha-natue or Ned-nature are
> impermanent. On second thought, re-reading John remarks, I have
> no idea what the hell he is talking about! This is just more
> goofball Dôgen Zenji crap. LOL
>
Only a crazy man would depend on the impermanence of mental
constructions.
Ned
tjn
Ardent, i think you are having trouble reading the posts. sorry to
disturb.
tjn
>
> Ned to John wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > thing unborn and undying about Buddha Nature is that impermanence
> > > is the permanent state of affairs.
> > >
> >
>
> constructions' whether of Buddha-natue or Ned-nature are impermanent.
> On second thought, re-reading John remarks, I have no idea what the hell
> he is talking about! This is just more goofball Dôgen Zenji crap. LOL
oh it isn't goofball aat all. and although it is very Dogenesque Dogen
didn't invent it. there is excellent authority from a fine Indian
scholar-monk, none other than the redoubted Paramartha. in the Buddha
Nature Treatise tathagathagarbha is synonymous with Buddha Nature. in
this treatise which Paramartha says contains Vasubandhu's teaching we
have:
"Furthermore tathagathagarbha has three meanings:
"The first shows the incomparability of the true
realm, because apart from this realm of Thusness
there is no other realm that surpasses it.
"The second shows the incomparability of true
practice, because there is no other wisdom that can
surpass this wisdom.
"The third makes manifest the incomparability of the
true fruit of practice, because there is no fruit
that surpasses this one. This is why we speak of
incomparability. Because this fruit encompasses all
sentient beings, we say that sentient beings are
the tathagathagarba.
____Buddha Nature Treatise -796a- Vasubandhu / Paramartha
so the third point explicitly says that all sentitent beings, good, bad
or indifferent, wise, foolish or doubtful are Buddha Nature.
AvS (Ardie Von Störenfried)
[snip]
> "The third makes manifest the incomparability of the
> true fruit of practice, because there is no fruit
> that surpasses this one. This is why we speak of
> incomparability. Because this fruit encompasses all
> sentient beings, we say that sentient beings are
> the tathagathagarba.
> ____Buddha Nature Treatise -796a- Vasubandhu / Paramartha
>
> so the third point explicitly says that all sentitent beings, good, bad
> or indifferent, wise, foolish or doubtful are Buddha Nature.
>
The character of Buddha (buddha-dhātu) and tathāgatabarbha [TG] are not
quite the same, John. In the *Shri-Mālā Sūtra* there are two sorts of
conditions for the TG: 1) One is the TG covered with defilements; 2) The
other is the TG, that when becoming free of defilements, is no longer a
"garbha" and attains tathāgata (=Dharmakāya). As regards sentient
beings possessing Buddha-nature/buddhadhātu, the Buddha said in the
*Mahaparinirvana Sutra*:
Good sons! If it is said that the Buddha-nature abides in sentient
beings, it is wrong.
I think to harbor the view that sentient beings are the Buddha-nature
(Dōgen's position) is to miscontrue the intent of *Mahaparinirvana
Sutra*. And it certainly makes no sense to treat the TG as being
synonymous with Buddha-nature which also means, Buddha-hood.
Best regards,
AvS
tjn
>
> tjn wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > "The third makes manifest the incomparability of the
> > true fruit of practice, because there is no fruit
> > that surpasses this one. This is why we speak of
> > incomparability. Because this fruit encompasses all
> > sentient beings, we say that sentient beings are
> > the tathagathagarba.
> > ____Buddha Nature Treatise -796a- Vasubandhu / Paramartha
> >
> > so the third point explicitly says that all sentitent beings, good, bad
> > or indifferent, wise, foolish or doubtful are Buddha Nature.
> >
>
> quite the same, John. In the *Shri-Mâlâ Sűtra* there are two sorts of
> conditions for the TG: 1) One is the TG covered with defilements; 2) The
> other is the TG, that when becoming free of defilements, is no longer a
> beings possessing Buddha-nature/buddhadhâtu, the Buddha said in the
> *Mahaparinirvana Sutra*:
>
> Good sons! If it is said that the Buddha-nature abides in sentient
> beings, it is wrong.
It _also_ says in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra:
"All beings totally have (are) Buddha Nature:
the Tathagatha abides in them constantly, without changing at all."
The verb is equally interpretable as "has" or "are". It has both
meanings.
> I think to harbor the view that sentient beings are the Buddha-nature
> (Dôgen's position) is to miscontrue the intent of *Mahaparinirvana
> Sutra*.
This is not very astute. Dogen's and Paramartha's position is in
complete accord with the passage I have cited. Your passage may well be
too, since the Mahaparinirvana is notorious for _seeming_
self-contradiction. I think that the problem may be the "abides in". One
can read the Mahaparinirvana as being internaly consistent if you simply
read "abides in" as being an incorrect view and "are" as being correct.
Then there is no contradiction! Dogen's position solves the problem of
the two contradictory passages!
Your position ignores a contradictory passage. Dogen's and Paramartha's
position harmonizes both. Thus their position is to be preferred. It
makes sense of the entire text, while yours ignores part.
> And it certainly makes no sense to treat the TG as being
> synonymous with Buddha-nature which also means, Buddha-hood.
You should really read Sallie King's book _Buddha Nature_ which contains
translated passages of Paramartha/Vasubandhu's Buddha Nature Treatise.
King shows that the treatise establishes that tathagathagarbha is
closely synonymous with Buddha Nature. The difference between them is
that of a larger concept with a slightly smaller component in the sense
that wherever tathagathagarbha is mentioned Buddha Nature can be
understood since tathagathagarbha is a component of Buddha Nature.
Cheers.
tjn
AvS (Ardie Von Störenfried)
>
> AvS (Ardie Von Störenfried) wrote:
> >
> > tjn wrote:
> >
> It _also_ says in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra:
>
> "All beings totally have (are) Buddha Nature:
> the Tathagatha abides in them constantly, without changing at all."
>
> The verb is equally interpretable as "has" or "are". It has both
> meanings.
I simply don't agree. That sentient beings are the actual Buddha is
rather an absurd conclusion for any Buddhist to hold…and that is what
your passage is saying because buddhadhâtu means character of Buddha.
This is supported by this passage from the Nirvana Sutra:
"By Buddha-nature, we mean the most perfect enlightenment."
> > I think to harbor the view that sentient beings are the Buddha-nature
> > (Dôgen's position) is to misconstrue the intent of *Mahaparinirvana
> > Sutra*.
>
> This is not very astute. Dogen's and Paramartha's position is in
> complete accord with the passage I have cited. Your passage may well be
> too, since the Mahaparinirvana is notorious for _seeming_
> self-contradiction. I think that the problem may be the "abides in". One
> can read the Mahaparinirvana as being internally consistent if you simply
> read "abides in" as being an incorrect view and "are" as being correct.
> Then there is no contradiction! Dogen's position solves the problem of
> the two contradictory passages!
There is a contradiction because Dôgen is confused as to the precise
difference between potential and actual (i.e., the acorn and the oak
tree). Yes, beings certainly may possess the *potential Buddha-nature*,
but to assert as he does that they are actual Buddhas (which includes
even a donkey's jowls) is to make oneself a laughingstock. But this is
not surprising for Dôgen who had talent for making a fool of himself. I
should also mention that Dôgen's Buddhism was not very popular with the
clerics of his day. If fact, his *Zen* was eventually branded as a
dangerous interpretation of Mahayana Buddhism by a body of judges from
Kyoto and Nara monasteries. Their verdict, I hasten to add, had
official sanction. This explains in part why his missionary efforts
pretty much failed.
> Your position ignores a contradictory passage. Dogen's and Paramartha's
> position harmonizes both. Thus their position is to be preferred. It
> makes sense of the entire text, while yours ignores part.
>
> > And it certainly makes no sense to treat the TG as being
> > synonymous with Buddha-nature which also means, Buddha-hood.
>
> You should really read Sallie King's book _Buddha Nature_ which contains
> translated passages of Paramartha/Vasubandhu's Buddha Nature Treatise.
> King shows that the treatise establishes that tathagathagarbha is
> closely synonymous with Buddha Nature. The difference between them is
> that of a larger concept with a slightly smaller component in the sense
> that wherever tathagathagarbha is mentioned Buddha Nature can be
> understood since tathagathagarbha is a component of Buddha Nature.
>
I am not really interested in the interpretations of Sallie King at this
point. I have a good deal of Charlie Patton's translation of the
Mahaparinirvana Sutra before me from whence the term "Buddha-nature" is
first used. In passage after passage it rings clear that sentient
beings are not the character of Buddha (buddhadhâtu). BTW, here is a
most interesting passage addressing the matter of potential v. actual
which I mentioned earlier:
"Good sons! It is just like a man who has coagulated milk at home. If
someone asks him, "Do you have butter?" he will reply, "I have." But
strictly speaking it is not milk. [Nevertheless, ] since using the
proper method, one will definitely obtain [butter from milk], the man
answers that he has butter, [even though all he has is milk]."
Best regards,
AvS
AvS (Ardie Von Störenfried)
[snip]
> > You can look at it this way, John is substantializing "function", making
> > it into a soul. How clever is that? Formerly, atman was "skandha".
> > Now atman is "function".
>
> Ardent, i think you are having trouble reading the posts. sorry to
> disturb.
Sorry John for my vexing reply. However you must know that I was using
"substance/ousia" in more or less of an Aristotelian sense. In that
regard, my understanding of your position was that the substance of
Buddha-nature is "function" rather than a sensible body which is a
separate part.
Best regards,
AvS
Mystic al
means all of you, will have to find this out
for yourselves if you haven't already :-)
tjn
>
> I'm sorry, but whoever is reading this, and that
> means all of you, will have to find this out
> for yourselves if you haven't already :-)
it is simple,
buddha nature is everyone reading this,
but not everyone reading this can show it.
tjn
>
>
> [snip]
>
> > > You can look at it this way, John is substantializing "function", making
> > > it into a soul. How clever is that? Formerly, atman was "skandha".
> > > Now atman is "function".
> >
> > Ardent, i think you are having trouble reading the posts. sorry to
> > disturb.
>
> Sorry John for my vexing reply.
no vexation at all.
> However you must know that I was using
> "substance/ousia" in more or less of an Aristotelian sense.
using Aristotelian meanings instead of a Hua-yen sense for substance and
function will only create confusion. but then what is Sto\"renfried for?
> In that
> regard, my understanding of your position was that the substance of
> Buddha-nature is "function" rather than a sensible body which is a
> separate part.
no this would be incorrect. Buddha Nature is an agency not something "as
such".
in terms of essential natures, Tathata is the essential nature of things
as they are, thusness, tathagathagarbha is the agency or activity of
Tathata, and the alayavijnana is the Tathata as acted upon.
tjn
>
> >
> > AvS (Ardie Von Störenfried) wrote:
> > >
> > >
> [del]
> > It _also_ says in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra:
> >
> > "All beings totally have (are) Buddha Nature:
> > the Tathagatha abides in them constantly, without changing at all."
> >
> > The verb is equally interpretable as "has" or "are". It has both
> > meanings.
>
> I simply don't agree.
it doesn't matter.
> That sentient beings are the actual Buddha is
> rather an absurd conclusion for any Buddhist to hold…and that is what
> your passage is saying because buddhadhâtu means character of Buddha.
note the passage very carefully says:
"All beings totally have (are) Buddha Nature:
the Tathagatha abides in them constantly, without changing at all."
this is a far cry from your assertion that it says sentient beings are
the actual Buddha! it only says that sentient beings have/are Buddha
Nature.
> This is supported by this passage from the Nirvana Sutra:
>
> "By Buddha-nature, we mean the most perfect enlightenment."
which as long as one is as careful as Dogen is about original versus
realized enlightenment causes no contradiction.
> > > I think to harbor the view that sentient beings are the Buddha-nature
> > > (Dôgen's position) is to misconstrue the intent of *Mahaparinirvana
> > > Sutra*.
> >
> > This is not very astute. Dogen's and Paramartha's position is in
> > complete accord with the passage I have cited. Your passage may well be
> > too, since the Mahaparinirvana is notorious for _seeming_
> > self-contradiction. I think that the problem may be the "abides in". One
> > can read the Mahaparinirvana as being internally consistent if you simply
> > read "abides in" as being an incorrect view and "are" as being correct.
> > Then there is no contradiction! Dogen's position solves the problem of
> > the two contradictory passages!
>
> There is a contradiction because Dôgen is confused as to the precise
> difference between potential and actual (i.e., the acorn and the oak
> tree).
you misspeak. the contradiction is in your reading of the sutra. in
Dogen's reading of the sutra there is no contradiction. Dogen is very
scrupulously careful about the difference between potential and actual.
the confusions about such are yours.
> Yes, beings certainly may possess the *potential Buddha-nature*,
> but to assert as he does that they are actual Buddhas (which includes
> even a donkey's jowls) is to make oneself a laughingstock. But this is
> not surprising for Dôgen who had talent for making a fool of himself. I
> should also mention that Dôgen's Buddhism was not very popular with the
> clerics of his day. If fact, his *Zen* was eventually branded as a
> dangerous interpretation of Mahayana Buddhism by a body of judges from
> Kyoto and Nara monasteries. Their verdict, I hasten to add, had
> official sanction. This explains in part why his missionary efforts
> pretty much failed.
a body of judges, a committee with vested political and economic
interests has been corruptly wrong more than once especially when it
comes to interpretting the Mahaparinirvana Sutra! need i remind you that
Tao-sheng was exiled in China as a heretic because he opposed views that
were closer to yours than Dogen's. the basis was a partial translation
of the Mahaparinirvana Sutra. he was rehabilitated when a full
translation was produced. so there have been temporary attempts to
suppress one possible right Dharma. just like your attempts, they proved
evanescent.
> > Your position ignores a contradictory passage. Dogen's and Paramartha's
> > position harmonizes both. Thus their position is to be preferred. It
> > makes sense of the entire text, while yours ignores part.
> >
> > > And it certainly makes no sense to treat the TG as being
> > > synonymous with Buddha-nature which also means, Buddha-hood.
> >
> > You should really read Sallie King's book _Buddha Nature_ which contains
> > translated passages of Paramartha/Vasubandhu's Buddha Nature Treatise.
> > King shows that the treatise establishes that tathagathagarbha is
> > closely synonymous with Buddha Nature. The difference between them is
> > that of a larger concept with a slightly smaller component in the sense
> > that wherever tathagathagarbha is mentioned Buddha Nature can be
> > understood since tathagathagarbha is a component of Buddha Nature.
>
> I am not really interested in the interpretations of Sallie King at this
> point.
reading something that contradicts your views could deepen your views
even if you do not change them.
> I have a good deal of Charlie Patton's translation of the
> Mahaparinirvana Sutra before me from whence the term "Buddha-nature" is
> first used.
if you mean that the Mahaparinirvana Sutra is the first sutra to use the
term then you are quite wrong, it dates from the 4th century CE and the
Vimalakirtinirdesa Sutra is at least 2 centuries older and uses the
term.
> In passage after passage it rings clear that sentient
> beings are not the character of Buddha (buddhadhâtu). BTW, here is a
> most interesting passage addressing the matter of potential v. actual
> which I mentioned earlier:
>
> "Good sons! It is just like a man who has coagulated milk at home. If
> someone asks him, "Do you have butter?" he will reply, "I have." But
> strictly speaking it is not milk. [Nevertheless, ] since using the
> proper method, one will definitely obtain [butter from milk], the man
> answers that he has butter, [even though all he has is milk]."
this changes nothing. Dogen is not making a mistake about actual and
potential, it is you who are mistaken, IMO.
cheers
robinandlynne
be in the least surprised by yourself when you wake up. You will only
not be conditioned or limited. Nothing that has ever happened to you has
ever hurt you in any essential or eternal way. All sentient beings are
indeed Buddha nature and were before Lord Buddha turned the wheel of
darmha for this age.
AvS (Ardie Von Störenfried)
This is the position of many beginners. They incautiously presuppose
that the immediacy of the "I-form" is the Buddha-nature (or the same,
Buddhahood). But upon further examination, this I-form turns out to be
just the simple immediacy of the five aggregates. Hence, nothing is
really gained by way of an advance towards understanding Buddha-nature.
Much more has to be done.
Best regards,
AvS
tjn
>
> On Tue, 23 Nov 1999 14:26:57 -0600, tjn <ryu...@worldnet.att.net>
> wrotd:
ROTFL!
> lifes a tightrope anyway
Bardo Bill
>I'm sorry, but whoever is reading this, and that
>means all of you, will have to find this out
>for yourselves if you haven't already :-)
>
I found out already.
--
It's alright if you head's in the clouds so
long as your feet are still on the ground.
Mystic al
ryu...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> Mystic al wrote:
> >
> > I'm sorry, but whoever is reading this, and that
> > means all of you, will have to find this out
> > for yourselves if you haven't already :-)
>
> buddha nature is everyone reading this,
> but not everyone reading this can show it.
>
robinandlynne
Don James
us all. This is actually a simple idea, but really hard to
catch on to. A beginner's mind is like a childs'. It is still
enthusiastic and joyous and lives in the magicalness of life.
A beginner's mind doesn't know what things are, so it can experience
things anew. The problem with knowing what things are is that knowledge
is momentary and relative. Not to mention it might just be your opinion
and not even true :-) Or as Colonel Klink used to say "I know NOTHINK!"
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Mystic al
Dan Pixley
no such thing!
dan
Mike Nelson wrote:
> >> Only a crazy man would depend on impermanence.
>
> Impermanence == Change.
>
> Only a sane man would depend on change, mental, physical, otherwise.
--
While Eeyore frets...
...and Piglet hesitates
...and Rabbit calculates
....and Owl pontificates
...Pooh just is.
-"The Tao of Pooh" by Benjamin Hoff
Mike Nelson
Mike Nelson
> A beginner's mind is like a childs'. It is still
> enthusiastic and joyous and lives in the magicalness of life.
"Unless you become like a child, you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven."
- Joshua ben Joseph
> Or as Colonel Klink used to say "I know NOTHINK!"
Nope. The big kid himself, Sgt. Schultz, said that.