Comment by denton-scratch | Hacker News Reader

Comment by denton-scratch | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

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?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com