Discover: Difference between revisions
((by SublimeText.Mediawiker)) |
((by SublimeText.Mediawiker)) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 217: | Line 217: | ||
<h1>The Traditions</h1> | <h1>The Traditions</h1> | ||
<div class="text-article px-3 px-md-4 | <div class="text-article px-3 px-md-4"> | ||
<h2>The Traditions</h2> | <h2 class="text-center border-0 position-relative py-lg-5">{{#widget:DivWithBackImg | ||
|classes=w-100 h-100 position-absolute opac-70 | |||
|src={{filepath:Buddha-2.jpg|1200}} | |||
|imageposition=50% 50% | |||
|styles=top: 0px; | |||
|imageSource= | |||
}} | |||
<div class="position-relative my-lg-5">The Traditions</div> | |||
</h2> | |||
<p class="drop-cap">The doctrine of buddha-nature—the innate enlightened nature of mind—is found in all Mahāyāna Buddhist traditions, but explaining what that really means differs considerably across traditions.<ref>The doctrine of buddha-nature in its full form was not present in early Buddhism and is not accepted by most contemporary Asian Theravada Buddhist traditions. In mainstream Theravada, consciousness is one of the five aggregates, the conditioned aspects of existence which are left behind upon the attainment of nirvāṇa. The notion of a mind that exists apart from the aggregates, which is primordially pure and somehow innately enlightened, would be heretical to most Theravada Buddhists. As the contemporary Western Theravadin teacher [[Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu]] has written, "The Buddha never advocated attributing an innate nature of any kind to the mind—good, bad, or Buddha." Not only are the buddha-nature teachings not true, he continues, but they hinder one's progress on the path: "If you assume that the mind is basically good, you'll feel capable but will easily get complacent." [https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/Head&HeartTogether/Section0016.html See "Freedom from Buddha Nature," para. 18–19, dhammatalks.org]. This is not a universal view; the Thai Forest tradition that began at the turn of the twentieth century espouses the view that the mind is "luminous" in the sense of being innately pure, nondual awareness, and that it continues to exist in nirvāṇa.</ref> All Mahāyāna traditions also teach that because all phenomena arise in dependence on other phenomena they are empty of any special nature. How to describe that emptiness and what it means for the Buddhist practitioner, however, is a matter of considerable disagreement and often defines key differences between traditions. Whereas Indian Yogācāra masters use positive language to describe the mind and the true nature of reality, in the ancient Indian Madhyamaka school of [[Nāgārjuna]] and his disciples, negative language is used to describe reality. "Because there are no phenomena that are not dependently arisen," Nāgārjuna wrote, "there are no phenomena that are not empty."<ref>''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' XXIV, 19</ref> Thus while buddha-nature is generally accepted in Yogācāra, in Madhyamaka it is considered either provisionally (that is, not literally) true or as a synonym for emptiness.</p> | <p class="drop-cap">The doctrine of buddha-nature—the innate enlightened nature of mind—is found in all Mahāyāna Buddhist traditions, but explaining what that really means differs considerably across traditions.<ref>The doctrine of buddha-nature in its full form was not present in early Buddhism and is not accepted by most contemporary Asian Theravada Buddhist traditions. In mainstream Theravada, consciousness is one of the five aggregates, the conditioned aspects of existence which are left behind upon the attainment of nirvāṇa. The notion of a mind that exists apart from the aggregates, which is primordially pure and somehow innately enlightened, would be heretical to most Theravada Buddhists. As the contemporary Western Theravadin teacher [[Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu]] has written, "The Buddha never advocated attributing an innate nature of any kind to the mind—good, bad, or Buddha." Not only are the buddha-nature teachings not true, he continues, but they hinder one's progress on the path: "If you assume that the mind is basically good, you'll feel capable but will easily get complacent." [https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/Head&HeartTogether/Section0016.html See "Freedom from Buddha Nature," para. 18–19, dhammatalks.org]. This is not a universal view; the Thai Forest tradition that began at the turn of the twentieth century espouses the view that the mind is "luminous" in the sense of being innately pure, nondual awareness, and that it continues to exist in nirvāṇa.</ref> All Mahāyāna traditions also teach that because all phenomena arise in dependence on other phenomena they are empty of any special nature. How to describe that emptiness and what it means for the Buddhist practitioner, however, is a matter of considerable disagreement and often defines key differences between traditions. Whereas Indian Yogācāra masters use positive language to describe the mind and the true nature of reality, in the ancient Indian Madhyamaka school of [[Nāgārjuna]] and his disciples, negative language is used to describe reality. "Because there are no phenomena that are not dependently arisen," Nāgārjuna wrote, "there are no phenomena that are not empty."<ref>''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' XXIV, 19</ref> Thus while buddha-nature is generally accepted in Yogācāra, in Madhyamaka it is considered either provisionally (that is, not literally) true or as a synonym for emptiness.</p> | ||
| Line 236: | Line 244: | ||
<h1>The People</h1> | <h1>The People</h1> | ||
<div class="text-article px-3 px-md-4 | <div class="text-article px-3 px-md-4"> | ||
<h2>The People</h2> | <h2 class="text-center border-0 position-relative py-lg-5">{{#widget:DivWithBackImg | ||
|classes=w-100 h-100 position-absolute opac-70 | |||
|src={{filepath:Buddha-statues-china-religion.jpg|1200}} | |||
|imageposition=50% 50% | |||
|styles=top: 0px; | |||
|imageSource= | |||
}} | |||
<div class="position-relative my-lg-5">The People</div> | |||
</h2> | |||
<p class="drop-cap">Writings on buddha-nature can be divided into two main categories: those that are said to be the word of the Buddha and those that were composed by the great masters to explain the doctrine. The sūtras discussing buddha-nature are generally attributed to the Buddha although modern scholars date the sūtras in their current form from the beginning of the common era. These works are collectively known as the tathāgatagarbha sūtras and they contain conversations between the Buddha and followers such as Śrīmālādevī and Dhāraṇïśvararāja. They lay out the foundation for buddha-nature philosophy and practice.</p> | <p class="drop-cap">Writings on buddha-nature can be divided into two main categories: those that are said to be the word of the Buddha and those that were composed by the great masters to explain the doctrine. The sūtras discussing buddha-nature are generally attributed to the Buddha although modern scholars date the sūtras in their current form from the beginning of the common era. These works are collectively known as the tathāgatagarbha sūtras and they contain conversations between the Buddha and followers such as Śrīmālādevī and Dhāraṇïśvararāja. They lay out the foundation for buddha-nature philosophy and practice.</p> | ||
| Line 299: | Line 315: | ||
<div class="tsdwiki-depth-1 offwhite-bg rounded my-5 text-article p-3 p-md-4 p-lg-5"> | <div class="tsdwiki-depth-1 offwhite-bg rounded my-5 text-article p-3 p-md-4 p-lg-5"> | ||
<div class="h1 mt-0 pt-0 border-bottom-rightfade">Dharma Teachings</div> | <div class="h1 mt-0 pt-0 border-bottom-rightfade">Dharma Teachings</div> | ||
<div class="row"> | <div class="row"> | ||
Latest revision as of 11:00, 20 August 2024
Buddha-nature is the capacity for enlightenment and freedom present in every being, a fundamental core of goodness, wisdom, and compassion that is hidden by clouds of ignorance—so hidden in fact that we might never even suspect its presence. It is like the sun that continues to shine regardless of the clouds that may cover it. By clearing away those clouds of greed, anger, and selfishness we uncover a state of perfection that is, and always has been, our own true nature.
Although it may be difficult to completely overcome all our limitations and clear away those clouds, the fact that our nature is fundamentally the same as a buddha's is what makes the whole path to enlightenment possible. We already have everything we need to begin walking a path that leads to true happiness. We simply need to have confidence in the presence of our buddha-nature and the courage to begin the journey to uncover it.
Everyone has buddha-nature. The only difference between us and an enlightened being such as a buddha is that a buddha recognizes this nature and the rest of us do not. The goal of Buddhist practice is to allow our true nature to shine forth. We may not be perfect buddhas yet, but we have the capacity to develop wisdom and compassion and free ourselves from selfishness, greed, and hatred. Buddhist teachings and practices aim at revealing our true nature by cultivating the proper outlook and behavior, and by ceasing the negative habits that cause dissatisfaction and suffering. This website is focused on the teachings associated with traditions of training that lead to real liberation, and we hope that you can learn a great deal from reading and watching the content here. You can start by reading and watching the following introductory materials.
As the laughter died down, the Gyalwang Karmapa delivered a profound and reasoned teaching on Buddha-nature and the nature of mind. "All sentient beings are endowed with the potential for complete Buddhahood," he began.
They are inherently Buddhas, and inherently that Buddha-nature is completely free of any stains -- it is stainless, and perfect. Yet, at the level of relative or immediate experience, our experience is not this way. Our experience is that this perfectly pure Buddha-nature is veiled by our confused outlook.
Shifting the teaching to a deeper level, the Gyalwang Karmapa then described the dharmakaya, or the Buddha's enlightened mind. "Lord Gampopa said that the nature of thoughts is dharmakaya," he explained.
Thoughts and dharmakaya are inseparable. We have this dualistic approach of seeing dharmakaya as pure and thoughts as impure, but we need to understand the inseparability of thoughts and dharmakaya.
The Gyalwang Karmapa spoke directly in English as he continued:
Every moment that we have thought, every moment that thought arises, we have the opportunity to recognize the nature of thought as emptiness or dharmakaya, whatever you want to call it. Thought and the emptiness of its nature are inseparable. We can't make them separate; there's no separation. Because thought itself is emptiness that means actually in everyday life we have lots of opportunity to recognize and realize the nature of thought, or nature of emptiness, or dharmakaya. But we just follow the appearances, the illusions -- we don't look deeper.
The Gyalwang Karmapa then responded to several more questions from the audience, teaching briefly on the progressive views of emptiness within Tibetan Buddhism which culminate in the final Madhyamaka view. The final questioner echoed the thoughts of many gathered when she asked the Gyalwang Karmapa how his students could help and support him. "I feel energized and inspired by all the love and the support that I receive from all of you. That really is sufficient. I don't need anything more than your love and support," he replied, to resounding applause.
Continuing an annual tradition, the teaching took place at the request of the Root Institute for Wisdom Culture. The Gyalwang Karmapa taught to an overflowing gompa, with hundreds of students spilling out into the surrounding balconies and gardens. In addition to mostly international students, the audience also included local Indian children from the Root Institute's school.
