Well, I stand corrected, then. Some Chan teachers still teach this. I can’t help but suspect that Yogācāra reasoning underpins it moreso than the notion that insentient things constitute a Buddha of sorts.
Same essence but separate from of manifestation ~ Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche
If our buddha nature is beyond delusion and liberation, can’t we also say that we are in essence primordially enlightened? We could possibly succeed in convincing ourselves with such a philosophical trick, but it’s not really true, because we have already strayed onto the path. If we had never fallen into confusion, we could rightfully claim to be primordially enlightened. But unfortunately it is too late to make that claim. Our precious wish-fulfilling jewel has already fallen into the stinking mud. Primordial enlightenment means that ground and fruition are identical and there is no path of delusion to be cleared away. This is definitely different than the situation of us who have already strayed onto the path and therefore need to clear away delusion in order to reach fruition. Take the example of a myriad of jewels: some are covered with mud, some are clean. All of them are jewels, but each one is distinctly individual. Sentient beings’ minds cognize individually, so we have to say that they are separate. This is quite a good example, to view all beings and buddhas as countless jewels, some covered with dirt, some clean. They are not identical even though they have the same qualities. If the minds of all sentient beings were one, then when one individual attains enlightenment, everybody else would be liberated at the same moment. But if you attain enlightenment it doesn’t mean that I will be enlightened. Understand it this way: although beings have similar qualities, we are not one. We have the same essence, which is empty and cognizant, but our form of manifestation is separate, distinct from that of another sentient being. If I recognize buddha nature and attain enlightenment it doesn’t mean that another person also recognizes and attains enlightenment. Sorry about that! If beings shared both the same essence and manifestation, when one reached enlightenment everyone else would too. We are like pure gold scattered in different places: equal quality, but separate pieces. Likewise with water: the properties of water are identical, but there is water in many diverse locations in this world. Or think of space inside our different houses - the same space but with various shapes. The empty cognizance is identical, but the ‘form’ around it is distinctly individual. Some jewels were lucky, others fell in the mud. – Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche from the book “Repeating the Words of the Buddha” ISBN: 978
1 Like
We find our inner self when NAMU-AMIDA-BUTSU is pronounced once and for all. My conclusion is that Amida is our inmost self (Buddha-nature), and when that inmost self is found, we are born in the Pure Land. - D. T. Suzuki
From an ultimate perspective, Amida Buddha is indistinct and inseparable from our true nature. The ultimate relationship between Amida Buddha and ourselves is non-duality. Why believe in a theistic god who is wholly other from his creation, standing above us?
Now, this is Chan and Zen specific. And I know I won’t be wrong on this matter, this true-self language.
Eternal Amidabuddha ends with the progression into a true Self.
1 Like
“True self” is a metaphor to reach our everyday understanding. Our “true self” is Buddha-nature, and Buddha-nature is non-self (non-ego).
It’s also worth noting that if Amida Buddha’s light fills all directions, then enlightenment is, in some sense, within all things.
Can I just ask if true self / Buddha-nature in this context is to be seen as potential to become enlightened? All beings / things have the potential for enlightenment? Am I getting the right gist here?
In most Mahāyāna Buddhisms, including most Chinese Buddhisms to the exclusion of Chan, the Mahāyānamahāparinirvāṇasūtra’s identification of 4 ennobling qualities of the dharmakāya, (1) purity, (2) eternity, (3) ecstasy, and (4) identity, is taken as a neyartha Dharma, specifically for the purpose of correcting nihilistic interpretations of the 4 marks of existence, which are opposite the 4 marks of the dharmakāya.
Some Chinese and Japanese Buddhisms take the sūtra literally.
A questionable methodology for correcting nihilism
Mahākāśyapa Bodhisattva asked the Buddha to speak: “Bhagavān! I from today start in obtaining samyagdṛṣṭi. Bhagavān! Until now, we all entirely abided in mithyādṛṣṭi. Bhagavān! In the twenty five existences, is there ātman definitely?” The Buddha said: "Kulaputra! Ātman, prompt and exact, is tathāgatagarbha in meaning. All sentient beings in entirety have the Buddha’s nature, prompt and exact, ātman is it’s meaning. Thus so, ātman’s meaning is, from root proceeding onwards, constantly without limit under kleśāḥ covered, therefore sentient beings cannot obtain sight of it.
(V Dharmakṣema Parnirvāṇa Vaipulya T374.407b6)
On the matter of identity vs selflessness in Mahāyāna, IMO we can consult Venerable Vimalākṣa’s commentary, here, on Venerable Nāgārjuna’s ātmaparīkṣā, or ātma-analysis, which can be found at the 18th section of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (only a short snippet of the ātmaparīkṣā is in that thread linked to).
Then we can discuss, if it please you and others here, the relation of this line of thinking to the Buddhism of the EBTs.
That depends on who you ask. My favorite interpretation of Buddha-nature is from Zen master Dogen:
Eihei Dogen (1200-1253) “made a paradigm shift when he translated a phrase rendered in the Chinese version of the Nirvana Sutra from ‘All sentient beings have Buddha nature’ to ‘All existents are Buddha nature,’” wrote Buddhist scholar Paula Arai in Bringing Zen Home, the Healing Heart of Japanese Women’s Rituals . “Moreover, by removing an explicit verb the whole phrase becomes an activity. The implications of this grammatical shift continue to reverberate. Some could interpret this move as the logical conclusion of a nondualistic philosophy.”
Very simply, Dogen’s point is that Buddha Nature is not something we have , it is what we are . And this something that we are is an activity or process that involves all beings.
Buddha Nature: The Fundamental Nature of All Beings
2 Likes
How do you know this to be the case?
I’m pretty confident that no Chinese Buddhist outside of influence from Chan or the now-defunct Huayan school (which is where Chan geta interpenetrating insentient Buddhahood IMO) would say that there is a Buddha outside of yourself that constitutes all phenomenal reality.
I’m confident because, in my opinion, it is a fairly unique dharma-perspective in Buddhism.
I left out mention of Japanese Buddhism, you will notice.
How’s that? Did I cover myself enough? 
The Dharmakaya isn’t a literal flesh and blood Buddha. It’s instead the ultimate nature of Buddhahood that’s both within all things and constituting all things.
Even though he’s a lapsed Buddhist, I highly recommend reading Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations by Paul Williams.
I disagree, however, with Williams when he says that the Eternal Buddha of the Lotus Sutra isn’t intended to be interpreted as the Dharmakaya.
1 Like
I’ve read it, and I disagree with a lot of it, but also agree with a fair amount. Ultimately it’s a matter for DharmaWheel, though.
I also disagree, though, I don’t remember him saying this. Maybe I ought to reread it.
I think he was taking that the Lotus Sūtra predates the 3 bodies too far. It doesn’t pre-date the 2 bodies (rūpakāya, dharmakāya).
Buddha nature- Atman -Pure Land,
Brahma - Atman - Union
god - soul- heaven??
Atman and Buddha-nature are not one and the same, and neither are Brahman and the Dharmakaya. There are definite similarities between Hinduism and Mahayana Buddhism, but they may have historically been due to Mahayana influence on Hinduism, rather than the other way around.
If Amida turned out to not be a historical Buddha, Pure Land Buddhists would have lost nothing.
Amida is, on the level of ultimate truth, the formless reality of Suchness itself, rather than a literal flesh and blood Buddha.
This is from The Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana:
Any corporeal aspects [such as the marks of the Buddha] that are visible are magic-like products of Suchness manifested in accordance with the mentality of men in defilement. It is not, however, that these corporeal aspects which result from the suprarational functions of wisdom are of the nature of nonemptiness [i.e., substantial]; for wisdom has no aspects that can be perceived.
thezensite:The Awakening of Faith in Mahayana
Please compare this to the following words of Shinran:
As the essential purport of the Vow, [Amida] vowed to bring us all to become supreme Buddha. Supreme Buddha is formless, and because of being formless is called jinen (Suchness). Buddha, when appearing with form, is not called supreme nirvana. In order to make it known that supreme Buddha is formless, the name Amida Buddha is expressly used; so I have been taught. Amida Buddha fulfills the purpose of making us know the significance of jinen.
5 - The Collected Works of Shinran
If the virgin birth and the physical resurrection of Christ turned out to be untrue historically, then traditional Christianity would be refuted.
Mahayana Buddhism, however, isn’t so dependent on literal historicity, due to such concepts as upaya and the two-truths doctrine:
The highest truth (paramarthasatya) is beyond words or description, i.e. beyond the reach of conceptual understanding and yet it was presented by the Buddha Shakyamuni as his teaching so that our conceptual understanding could grasp it. It is in this sense that the teaching is regarded as an ‘expedient means’ (upaya), often likened to a finger pointing to the moon. What is crucial about this metaphor is that the finger and the moon are mutually reflexive. Without the finger, the moon would not be known. Without the moon, there would be no need for the finger pointing to it.
Muryoko: Journal of Shin Buddhism
Hmm, I’m afraid I would disagree with this!
- I do not think that traditional Christianity exists. An important principle to keep in mind when studying religion asserts that religions are internally diverse. Not only do different sects exist, but sects itself exhibit differences in religious expression. Individual members of a religion also exhibit differences, following their own “idioligion,” their necessarily idiosyncratic expression of their religion.
- Therefore, the notion of “refutation” seems to bring conceptual problems with it. Take evolution for example. Scientists have found overwhelming evidence for evolution. Yet different Christians have responded differently to the evidence. Some have tended to Young Earth creationism, others have accepted the evidence.
1 Like
By traditional Christianity, I am referring to the denominations and sects which historically affirm the Nicene Creed or at least its basic substance.
Denial of the virgin birth and the physical resurrection of Christ are modern developments in Christianity, aside from ancient “heresies.”
Buddhist scriptures, however, aren’t so dependent on literal historicity. They are an aid to realizing the ultimate truth, rather than ultimate truth in and of itself.
@Kensho " If the virgin birth and the physical resurrection of Christ turned out to be untrue historically, then traditional Christianity would be refuted. "
This is not completely accurate. The virgin birth is a specifically Roman Catholic belief and dogma; other traditional Christian denominations might not require this.
However, physical ressurrection of Jesus Christ does qualify as a required tenet. But there are active practicing Catholics, and others who do question it. Also… I am not sure how it might be disproved, or proved; and as it is a matter of faith, proof is almost irrelevant, merely a worldly concern or argument.
"Denial of the virgin birth and the physical resurrection of Christ are modern developments in Christianity, aside from ancient “heresies.”
Heresy (edit: or more accurately, heresies), whether ancient or contemporary, were believed by many. Only the authority of Church and State in alliance, stamped them out by argument and slaughter. It does not seem appropriate to affirm these judgements and actions.