I have read many Tibetan Buddhist books, they always talk about the one "Buddha nature" that is immortal. That "buddha nature" is said to be just witness and infinite awareness, it is said to be the same as Atman of Hinduism, "divine spark"/Pneuma in Gnosticism/Mysticism and "ruh" in Sufism. It is said to be essential in all kind of esoteric/mystic traditions.
If that's the case, isn't that condradicts with "no self" doctrine?
Can "Buddha Nature" of Mahayana Buddhism be reconciled with "no self" doctrine?
I have read many Tibetan Buddhist books, they always talk about the one "Buddha nature" that is immortal. That "buddha nature" is said to be just witness and infinite awareness, it is said to be the same as Atman of Hinduism, "divine spark"/Pneuma in Gnosticism/Mysticism and "ruh" in Sufism. It is said to be essential in all kind of esoteric/mystic traditions.
If that's the case, isn't that condradicts with "no self" doctrine?
Can "Buddha Nature" of Mahayana Buddhism be reconciled with "no self" doctrine?
Of course it can. Buddha nature has no identity - it (in my limited understanding to date) might be better described as a field of force, like a magnetic field or a gravity field. Within the influence of that field of force, certain specific types of interactions are possible. No "identity" is required, and thus a self (whether temporary and subject to conditional existence or not) is not a component of this field. Selves can come into existence and interact within the influence of this field, however; it's presence may even be a requirement for them to do so. This point requires much more study.
Some Buddhist scriptures do personify this field, but in my mind this is a teaching tool (skillful means) to help people of varying capacities understand rather than an accurate description of what is actually occuring.
These are my own interpretations at this time, and not to be confused with actual Buddhist teachings.
No rudeness detected. Not that I would mind anyhoo as I'm a natural magnet for undue punishment and abuse. In my mind anyway.
The "problem" with this is you will find one cannot elaborate further as cognitive thinking only takes you so far when dealing with our aspect nature as human beings. Thinking helps, yet you need to directly realize those questions pertaining to things like Buddha nature and no-self in a manner that doesn't require requiring cognisant thought. AKA direct practice.
Rinzai (as other schools like Soto but mostly Rinzai) has a Koan asked of Master Joshu from a monk, "Does a dog have Buddha nature or not?" to which Master Joshu, replied "Mu (no)" One discovers for him/herself that this cannot be intellectually answered no matter how you slice it, and through the frustrations of thinking your way to complete and utter exhaustion, the answer will eventually become obvious and clear as a bell. Its a natural and automatic revelation and in order to elaborate further, you just need to sit it out literally until your mind completely exhausts itself of all intellectualizing. The answer does come about, but not by giving a yes or no nor reconciling it in some fashion through one's intellect.
Thank you for sharing, Nowhere Man. It was interesting to read what you have written.
I don't wish to start a debate or anything like that, but I too would like to answer the OP, as I've been practising Buddhism for a while, even before I added Hinduism into the mix (hence why I've changed my religion to "Dharmic Syncretism") I've been practising Buddhism since I was 14 except for a while during my brief flirtation with Christianity, yet my views are different to most here.
If anyone doesn't want to read this budhu's post for whatever reason (like I'm too unorthodox), I've spoilered it because I'm nice like that.
In my opinion, the buddhadhatu of Vajrayana and Mahayana Buddhism does seem to be somewhat similar to the atman of Hinduism, however I think there are some differences - but it's worth noting there is talk of an atman in the Mahapaninirvana Sutra. This "atman" is different to the "atman" of the skandhas, the mundane, physical world, that the skandha-atman is more similar to the "temporary self" or "ego" of other paths.
Within Hinduism, the atman is eternal, but Buddhism says "immortal"; I think there is a difference between something being immortal and something being eternal. Plus, it's worth noting the atman of today's Hinduism is not the same as the pre-Buddhist Upanishads of the time, which was more of a dualistic "I am". Buddha disagreed with various ideas, including nihilism/materialism and eternalism and taught a concept of Middle Way, as we know: but what we do not know is, how do we know we are correctly holding his teachings on what anatta is? The problem is, what was meant by nihilism, and what was meant by eternalism? Words change, as do meanings.
For example, Pakudha Kaccayana said:
There are these seven substances — unmade, irreducible, uncreated, without a creator, barren, stable as a mountain-peak, standing firm like a pillar — that do not alter, do not change, do not interfere with one another, are incapable of causing one another pleasure, pain, or both pleasure and pain. Which seven? The earth-substance, the liquid-substance, the fire-substance, the wind-substance, pleasure, pain, and the soul as the seventh.
This was called eternalism (sassatavada). Buddha disagreed with this view. Is this what one whom someone would call an eternalist what they would believe now? Somehow, I doubt it would be easy to find someone who holds this view.
And Ajita Kesakambali's:
There is no such thing as alms or sacrifice or offering. There is neither fruit nor result of good or evil deeds...A human being is built up of four elements. When he dies the earthly in him returns and relapses to the earth, the fluid to the water, the heat to the fire, the wind to the air, and his faculties pass into space. The four bearers, on the bier as a fifth, take his dead body away; till they reach the burning ground, men utter forth eulogies, but there his bones are bleached, and his offerings end in ashes. It is a doctrine of fools, this talk of gifts. It is an empty lie, mere idle talk, when men say there is profit herein. Fools and wise alike, on the dissolution of the body, are cut off, annihilated, and after death they are not.
This was considered nihilistic (ucchedavada). Buddha disagreed with this view.
That is just my view. I don't think it affects my belief in anatta. But, maybe I'm just weird. I know my views are not always liked by some of the sangha and some do not consider me to even be a Buddhist, sadly. But they miss out on my awesomeness.
That is just my view. I don't think it affects my belief in anatta. But, maybe I'm just weird. I know my views are not always liked by some of the sangha and some do not consider me to even be a Buddhist, sadly. But they miss out on my awesomeness.
Don't sweat it. I've come across actual transmitted clergy representing various schools of Buddhism who at many times and occasions are accused of the same things you mention by way they are not-Buddhist based on their personal inputs. It really makes me chuckle now over it a bit, yet folks have to get it through their systems through some manner. Its all quite normal rest assured.
The left over rabble just likes drinking tea and sweeping up. :coffee2::camp:
Here is a Zen answer to what is the Buddha nature. A student asked the master, "What is the Buddha nature?" and the master replied,"Have a cup of tea!"
I have read many Tibetan Buddhist books, they always talk about the one "Buddha nature" that is immortal. That "buddha nature" is said to be just witness and infinite awareness, it is said to be the same as Atman of Hinduism, "divine spark"/Pneuma in Gnosticism/Mysticism and "ruh" in Sufism. It is said to be essential in all kind of esoteric/mystic traditions.
If that's the case, isn't that condradicts with "no self" doctrine?
Can "Buddha Nature" of Mahayana Buddhism be reconciled with "no self" doctrine?
This is my understanding of it: The Buddha nature is inherent in all sentient beings, although most are not aware of it. The Buddha nature can be likened to pantheistic views, although the Buddha nature is not deified. As it is inherent in all sentient beings, it links all sentient beings in an intimate way. This Buddha nature is the true nature of each person. This is the thrust, or the end result, of the doctrine of no-self. No-self teaches that each person does not have a separate, individual ego or identity. You are not who you think you are; you are not yourself. When you realize emptiness, you understand that you are a part of a greater whole, of which is called the Buddha nature. This is also linked to the Five Skandhas. We think that we are separate, individual egos because of the Five Skandhas. When we understand that the Five Skandhas are not actually "I", but are just emptiness, we understand that we are no-self. This leads to an understanding of the Buddha nature.
I view Buddha Nature as the original nature or state of the Mind. Its as simple as that. Its neither self nor non-self. I dont like the doctrine of self or no-self because both are real in their own sense. In a way, there is a self. We can explain our existence and how we exist because, well, we do exist. Therefore there is somewhat of a self. But because everything is empty, this takes away a truly inherent self from existing. So there is a self, but it is not inherent. This is where self and no-self meet, this is the middle. (in my view)
Buddha-nature is like the stream flowing into the ocean, but the stream becoming aware that it flows into the ocean, and is the same water as the ocean, and is one with the ocean.
Buddha-nature is like the stream flowing into the ocean, but the stream becoming aware that it flows into the ocean, and is the same water as the ocean, and is one with the ocean.
In Tibetan Vajrayana Buddhism, we actually believe that Buddha's keep their individuality in a relative sense. So they are still individual, but they realize the non-dual emptiness of all phenomena. What this means is, in Buddhism there is not a super Consciousness, or an ocean of bliss. Simply a vast emptiness, which encompasses all.
In Tibetan Vajrayana Buddhism, we actually believe that Buddha's keep their individuality in a relative sense. So they are still individual, but they realize the non-dual emptiness of all phenomena. What this means is, in Buddhism there is not a super Consciousness, or an ocean of bliss. Simply a vast emptiness, which encompasses all.
