Is the teaching of "Buddha Nature" dangerous?
In a recent article I read on the net I came across a view that the teaching of Buddha nature is "very dangerous" (relevant excerpt is below). Well, Is the Buddha nature a concept that we should best ignore/avoid or is it an important teaching by the Buddha? Personally I do not concern myself too much about Buddha nature as I believe in only three things in sofar as Buddhism is concerned; "practice, practice, practice". My questions;
Did the Buddha make mention of Buddha nature or is it some cultural development during later years?
Will a "believe" in Buddha nature not make people lazy to practice and prevent them from realising Enlightenment?
Below is the article I refer to.
"THE TRIUMPH OF THE WILL
The above-mentioned notion of the conscious will as being the over-riding agent of spiritual transformation is another example of Sangharakshita's fearless critique of the Buddhist tradition - in particular of the Tathagatagarbha, or Buddha-Nature, doctrine. This doctrine holds, on a metaphysical level, that we are already Enlightened, and simply need to wake up to it. Sangharakshita has declared this doctrine to be "very dangerous", as ordinary, unevolved individuals like ourselves are likely to take it on a merely psychological level to mean that we need make no effort - we just need to realise what is there already.
Proponents might reply that no, its practical corollary is that there is something in all of us that we can trust, that we can listen to, that is ultimately the voice of the Buddha, and if we learn to listen to it and act on it for long enough, we will eventually become Buddhas. One could further argue that this approach is a remedy to the Protestant work ethic and to the doctrine of Original Sin, both of which western conditionings have led us to mistrust and dislike ourselves, and make us easily controlled by external authorities, whether secular or spiritual.
But no, at the end of the day, as Buddhists, we have to listen to the voice of the Tibetan Wheel of Life, which goes back to the Buddha, and which declares that at the heart of our conditioned beings are Greed, Hatred and Delusion: the so-called voice of the Buddha can so easily, with our infinite capacity for self-deception, be the clamour of these demons.
Better, therefore, not to trust the siren voice of Intuition - better to trust the classical architectonics of spirituality laid out from the Buddha onwards, with their straightforward and irrefutable declarations of 'Morality, Meditation & Wisdom' or (from Sangharakshita) 'Provisional, Effective and Real Going for Refuge'. At least we can trust, from experience, the originators of these teachings &, starting with a solid basis in reason, transform the remaining unregenerate darkness that, without continual striving, threatens once again to swallow us up.
But, arguing back, isn't the Dharma a raft? Are we not confusing the goal with the raft if we place too much reliance on the teachings? At what point do we say OK, I've been to spiritual primary school, I've oriented myself in the right direction. I'm not likely to go too far off course, now it's time to take seriously the teaching that Enlightenment is part of my human potential, and I must therefore find it for myself outside of any particular and contingent articulation of the Path? At what point do I stop trying to follow my teacher's tracks through the wilderness and find my own pathway?
Such arguments are typical of the modern, individualistic approach to spirituality, shorn of the traditional appreciation of faith in the teacher. If we look at the great Tibetan yogi Milarepa, his faith in his teacher Marpa was the bedrock of his spiritual practice. In the same way, the Dharma as articulated by Sangharakshita has been deeply considered and thought through, so why quibble with it? Can it not lead us, step by step, through its levels of institutional responsibility all the way to Enlightenment itself? Is not the serene unquestioning faith of his seniormost disciples enough to convince us?"
What is the FWBO and who is Sangharakshita?
"The FWBO, ('the Movement'), was founded in 1967 by Sangharakshita, an Englishman who spent 20 years in the East studying and practicing Buddhism. He is thus a bridge between Buddhism in its traditional forms, and the new forms it is inevitably giving rise to in the West. It is his unique vision of the Dharma that has inspired, and continues to inspire, members of the FWBO through the communities they have set up, the Buddhist businesses they run, and the urban Buddhist Centres that have come into being. "
Downloaded from "this site.
Would gladly hear/read about other peoples views in this regard?
Did the Buddha make mention of Buddha nature or is it some cultural development during later years?
Will a "believe" in Buddha nature not make people lazy to practice and prevent them from realising Enlightenment?
Below is the article I refer to.
"THE TRIUMPH OF THE WILL
The above-mentioned notion of the conscious will as being the over-riding agent of spiritual transformation is another example of Sangharakshita's fearless critique of the Buddhist tradition - in particular of the Tathagatagarbha, or Buddha-Nature, doctrine. This doctrine holds, on a metaphysical level, that we are already Enlightened, and simply need to wake up to it. Sangharakshita has declared this doctrine to be "very dangerous", as ordinary, unevolved individuals like ourselves are likely to take it on a merely psychological level to mean that we need make no effort - we just need to realise what is there already.
Proponents might reply that no, its practical corollary is that there is something in all of us that we can trust, that we can listen to, that is ultimately the voice of the Buddha, and if we learn to listen to it and act on it for long enough, we will eventually become Buddhas. One could further argue that this approach is a remedy to the Protestant work ethic and to the doctrine of Original Sin, both of which western conditionings have led us to mistrust and dislike ourselves, and make us easily controlled by external authorities, whether secular or spiritual.
But no, at the end of the day, as Buddhists, we have to listen to the voice of the Tibetan Wheel of Life, which goes back to the Buddha, and which declares that at the heart of our conditioned beings are Greed, Hatred and Delusion: the so-called voice of the Buddha can so easily, with our infinite capacity for self-deception, be the clamour of these demons.
Better, therefore, not to trust the siren voice of Intuition - better to trust the classical architectonics of spirituality laid out from the Buddha onwards, with their straightforward and irrefutable declarations of 'Morality, Meditation & Wisdom' or (from Sangharakshita) 'Provisional, Effective and Real Going for Refuge'. At least we can trust, from experience, the originators of these teachings &, starting with a solid basis in reason, transform the remaining unregenerate darkness that, without continual striving, threatens once again to swallow us up.
But, arguing back, isn't the Dharma a raft? Are we not confusing the goal with the raft if we place too much reliance on the teachings? At what point do we say OK, I've been to spiritual primary school, I've oriented myself in the right direction. I'm not likely to go too far off course, now it's time to take seriously the teaching that Enlightenment is part of my human potential, and I must therefore find it for myself outside of any particular and contingent articulation of the Path? At what point do I stop trying to follow my teacher's tracks through the wilderness and find my own pathway?
Such arguments are typical of the modern, individualistic approach to spirituality, shorn of the traditional appreciation of faith in the teacher. If we look at the great Tibetan yogi Milarepa, his faith in his teacher Marpa was the bedrock of his spiritual practice. In the same way, the Dharma as articulated by Sangharakshita has been deeply considered and thought through, so why quibble with it? Can it not lead us, step by step, through its levels of institutional responsibility all the way to Enlightenment itself? Is not the serene unquestioning faith of his seniormost disciples enough to convince us?"
What is the FWBO and who is Sangharakshita?
"The FWBO, ('the Movement'), was founded in 1967 by Sangharakshita, an Englishman who spent 20 years in the East studying and practicing Buddhism. He is thus a bridge between Buddhism in its traditional forms, and the new forms it is inevitably giving rise to in the West. It is his unique vision of the Dharma that has inspired, and continues to inspire, members of the FWBO through the communities they have set up, the Buddhist businesses they run, and the urban Buddhist Centres that have come into being. "
Downloaded from "this site.
Would gladly hear/read about other peoples views in this regard?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Sherab Zangmo - Leigh Taylor on -
Well it seems that at least from the perspective of all the traditions the Buddha nature is the very nature that all sentient beings share in common (whether we acknowledge it or not)..i.e. the potential or quality let's say "not-yet-activated" but dormant quality in all beings.
The very thing that makes us sentient, from a mosquito to a king, we all share this.
Also right from the beginning i would definitley like to state that I don't actually claim in the slightest to know anything but just some ideas that I have heard but have a far way still to go to realise!
In my understanding, the very thing that makes Buddhism a non-dogmatic and creator-less path is that we can all be Buddha and in Vajrayana we are all Buddha (but do not as yet recognise this, Depends from which angle you prefer to look at it and which path is best suited for each individual. ...Like you say we need practice practice practice - or even in a way just to habituate ourselves with this state over and over again! ;-)
In one sense the Buddha was not a person but a realized state of mind. Or "fully awakened" as the common translation states. A being who had overcome the conceptual ideas of "I" and "mine" and made no seperation between "I" and "other". Fully realising his/her potential, fully free from dualistic thinking, I guess just fully completely free.
As one of my masters say "enlightenment is when you have completely gone beyond concepts" and also "at that time you will have no more hang-ups or inhibitions of any kind".
Enlightenment is our birthright, and the difference between practitioners and non-practioners are that some will actually devote their whole life whether outwardly or in secret to attain this goal and others probably dont even realize that this goal exists. I guess as a wanna-be Bodhisattva it is one's responsibility to attain enlightenment for all beings as you promise to do once you take the Bodhisattva vows.
There is some excellent reading material on www.khyentsefoundation.org on Buddha nature that is a free PDF download called UTTARATANTRA which is Maitreya's exposition on Buddha nature. Pretty complex stuff but amazing and very clarifying.
Also there is an excellent book published by Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche called "What make you NOT a Buddhist" - a very refreshing approach and clearly explains in a modern yet authentic way what the Buddha taught and how to make it true in our situation.
With humilty & respect - may the liberating dharma nectar of the Buddha quench the thirst of all beings!
-
Permalink Reply by Moona Perrotin on -
Hi all, this is an interesting discussion.
Practice, practice, practice ( of sitting meditation)
and the reading of the works of Josheph Campbell
made me jump up one day and write dowh a poem
which I titled 'Lightness'. I have just put it into the resource section, so feel free to see whether that in any way responds to your question.
Because I had very little teaching at the time of writing the poem I believe that enlightenment or the realization of Buddha Nature is open to all to attain if they so desire. As they say in Zen it is the unlearning of any conditioning.
-
Permalink Reply by Zi Zhui on -
Perhaps I am answering my own question, but here goes my understanding of Buddha nature and the dangers one should avoid:
As beings that are made up of various elements and parts we also have a dualistic nature; the so called "good" and "bad"; skilfull and unskilful etc. As humans we have inherently love, compassion and goodness in us, but we also also have an evil element. As selfish beings we act (action, speech and thought) in ignorance and become angery (experience hate and aversion) or become greedy and unskilfully attached to phenomena. This is also the "Hub" of the Wheel of Life (or perhaps rather Death). We need to renounce these qualities in our life, but inherent in us is also the potential to become Buddhas. In that sense the Buddha nature is a "saving grace". We have this quality because we are humans. The Buddha stated that humans are the only beings that can become enlightened. In that sense I would undersand Buddha Nature. Buddha nature is the seed to enligtenement. Thus; if you do not give it water (practice/cultivate it) it would not germinate and grow. Buddha nature would simply remain sterile.
-
Permalink Reply by Ryan Vong on -
Interesting read. There are many points that were brought up, but here's my take on a couple based on your question and I thought about it this way. If I were in a dream and this dream represented all that I know to be true, would I, at some point, want to escape from that dream to fully live in reality? I believe the search for truth or "Buddha Nature" as described is our natural propensity. Is it dangerous? It depends on they type of dream we are all living. For some, ignorance is bliss.
-
Permalink Reply by Moona Perrotin on
-
Is the teaching dangerous? Tibetan Buddhism requires initiation because practice can lead to delusions if one is not well grounded.
Is the atom bomb dangerous? Yes, and that's why Einstein was worried about releasing his formula, which eqals to the insight of nothingness or doesn't it?
-
Permalink Reply by Moona Perrotin on
-
Karma. Indeed. Most things or powers can be used for good or bad, to help or to destroy. Thanks for adding the concept of karma to our discussion. I must admit I have never fully thought it through nor have I received any deeper teachings on Karma.
And when I sounded in a previous comment like I was claiming to have a notion of enlightenment, sorry that it not what I meant to imply.
-
Permalink Reply by Dan on -
I think always being mindful of how you translate the teachings is key to not become delusional. As long as we are mindful of renouncation we stay on the straight and narrow. Sometimes I think though, renouncation has a bad conatation towards it meaning. It sound like your denying a part of you own being. Kind of like a catholic priest trying shut out bad thoughts. Which in turn, when you renounce I feel you are identifying something in you that is watering the seed of negativity and having compassion towards it.
-
Permalink Reply by Dan on
-
What I mean is if we are practicing mindfulness and we are not recieving the teachings in a way to solidify a position or
agenda of ours or to support our ego, then we will be protected from being delusional. It is all about our motives.
Renunciation
1. To declare against; to reject or decline formally; to refuse to own or acknowledge as belonging to one; to disclaim; as, to renounce a title to land or to a throne.
2. To cast off or reject deliberately; to disown; to dismiss; to forswear.
I guess the definition of Renunciation just seems conterintuitive to what buddhism stands for. Which means, I think when we meditate we view our thoughts as they come up and embrace them as only thoughts. If our ego starts to cling to something good or bad we smile at it and have compassion and understanding and even a sense of humor towards it, and then the thought passes. Basically somtimes I wish there was just a better word for it.
My point is our thoughts are a part of us and to reject or suppress them is to not have compassion for ones self.
Peace
Dan
-
Permalink Reply by Ryan Vong on
-
Palo,
Regarding Karma, I am often conflicted with the fact that in our current lifetime, we repay for past Karma. Yet, coming into this life, there is no memory or recollection of what that would be. It's almost like paying for "crimes" that you don't know that you've committed. Any thoughts on that?
-
Permalink Reply by Ryan Vong on
-
Palo,
Great points. I had to give it few days to sink in. Scary stuff indeed...not really scary, but definitely a "lightbulb" moment for me. There's a lot in what you have said and I'm glad it's concise enough to make an impact. Thank you.
Videos
© 2008 Created by Ryan Vong
