Hacker News Reader

Comment by denton-scratch | Hacker News Reader

> make it a priority to seek understanding of ”Buddha-nature”

Seriously? Buddha-nature teachings are regarded as heretical by many Buddhists. They assert that all beings have this buddha-nature innately, and that it is indestructible, because it does not arise dependent on causes and conditions.

That is very much a religious view, and in direct conflict with the traditional teaching that ALL phenomena without exception arise dependent on causes and conditions.

View on HN

> They assert that all beings have this buddha-nature innately, and that it is indestructible, because it does not arise dependent on causes and conditions

Yes.

> in direct conflict with the traditional teaching that ALL phenomena without exception arise dependent on causes and conditions

With all due respect, make it a priority to seek understanding of ”Buddha-nature”.

Try the Koans.

Studying koans is not a very good way of gaining understanding of something like Buddha Nature; they're designed to create confusion. I wasn't in a Zen tradition, and I'm no longer a Buddhist; I appreciate your respect, but I'm not about to start trying to figure out koans. [Edit: aren't you supposed to have a master, when you're working with koans?]

Note that I'm not declaring Buddha Nature teachings to be heretical; in general, I think the really deep divisions between the various Buddhist philosophical positions were (are?) more political than anything else, and I've never considered them important.

I've studied both the Uttaratantra and the Uttaratantrashastra, under the direction of a western academic who specialized in the subject (and also happens to be an ordained Buddhist nun). I've also done meditation practices designed to deepen understanding of Yogacara-style thought. I think I have a reasonably good understanding of the subject, for a lazy, lay practitioner.

The accusation of heresy is because it's very easy to misinterpret Tathagatagarbha teachings as monism.

> aren't you supposed to have a master, when you're working with koans?

Buddha is my master, teacher and guide, etc. This is all sorts of hilarious from a Zen perspective; interpreting Tathagatagarbha as monism, or Buddha as anything, heh.

“A teacher when one is required, no teacher when one is not required,“ or something like that. :) The Buddha is an existence proof of the possibility of direct independent observation and understanding.

A unique point of evidence, 3,500 years old. Not really "proof" of anything.

And as a teacher, The Buddha has certain limitations - like when you ask him "I'm having problems - am I doing this right?" - answer came there none.

What about pratyekabuddhas? And why would one expect The Buddha to have an answer other than The Buddha?

Sincerely, a stream-enterer.

I was told that pratyekabuddhas are rather odd, and very rare.

Rarity is a matter of perception — at the time of the Teaching, the population of the world was a hundred times smaller. Oddity can be attested to, but what was once a rarity is now a minority statistic. As much as the population has multiplied, the number of pratyekabuddhas must have risen in tandem: to suggest otherwise would be to assign pratyekabuddhahood to external entities or mechanisms as something bestowed upon someone, but as it is, pratyekabuddhas arise independently — were that not the case, would they still be pratyekabuddhas?

Regarding anything as heretical is a religious view. Discard it and check yourself through experiential practice and logical exercise. There are many Buddhist/Bön teachers who will never insist on you accepting any idea/dogma nor judge you for thinking different and only guide you to how to actually see it, without harming yourself. Needless to say, as a rather-rational thinker, this is the kind of gurus I prefer. Orthodox dogmatists are there for a different kind of minds. People are different and there are to be ways and teachers optimal for all kinds of them.

> Discard it and check yourself through experiential practice and logical exercise.

Discard what? I have said elsewhere in this thread that I am a lapsed Buddhist. I hold no religious dogmas. It's not me that considers buddha-nature teachings to be heretical.

And what are "experiential practice" and "logical exercise"? These sound like some kind of private jargon you are using to support your "rather-rational" approach.

I mean you don't have to agree to dogmatic and mystical parts of what a practitioner teaches to still consider and use some techniques and/or philosophical ideas you can also find in their teachings.

Experiential practice is when you do something and experience the result. Rub your hands and feel warmth appear - this is an experiential practice of experiencing warmth in your hands. Meditating a certain way you can experience a particular state of mind. This is important because some things are either impossible or useless to describe - you have to experience them and a particular practice may trigger the experience.

Logical exercise is when you exercise logic and come to conclusions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com