07-23-2010, 12:05 AM
Gonzo wrote:Tiff wrote
oes essential Zen talk about the Buddha-nature and if so what is its understanding of it?
Heh. May as well start at the end and work backwards.
Essential Zen says there's no such thing as Buddha-nature, just as there's no such thing as awakening.
Gonzo, where does essential Zen text explicitly state there is no such thing as Buddha-nature? I doubt it does and rather this is merely your interpreted conclusion. Even upon reading what you quote here I see no negation of the Buddha-nature.
As the quote goes, these are both notions that arise and delude folk. Rather than paraphrase, here it is from "The Blue Cliff Record":
TBCR wrote:In clear illumination, there is no such thing as awakening. The concept of "having awakened" turns around and deludes people. When you stretch out both feet and sleep, there's no false and no true - then there isn't a single concern in one's heart. When hungry, one eats; when tired, one sleeps. "there's no false and no true"
This just supports what I was saying, that there is the permanent Buddha-nature that is not dependent on sound or silence, light or dark, large or small, "true or false".
"then there isn't a single concern in one's heart."
Non-attachment to objects, just as Kuan Yin's meditation reveals to the practitioner non-attachment to sound-objects, which is expanded to include all objects.
A thing of interest is, I suspect most folk have some vague notion of what Buddha Nature is, rather like they also have a similar notion of "Higher Self", and "Spiritual Adept". A point I like to make, is if you know what the attributes of these labels are, you already have them, in your own unique way, which is what Essential Zen continually emphasizes. That is, Gautama did Gautama...that's fine...you aren't Gautama...you are you...so DO you....in that regard, enlightenment becomes a purely personal thing. This is further emphasized by don Juan when he says the goal is to achieve the totality of oneself. Nisargadatta emphasizes the same thing...answer the question, "Who am I?" - who that I is, is the perceiver, is the one that thinks, is the unique being of energy in the entire universe...back to Gautama's statement: "I alone am the honored one."
"In clear illumination, there is no such thing as awakening."
Cannot awaken because enlightenment IS, always was from beginningless time. However obscurations (ignorance) block this direct realization. "Clouds can obscure the ever-present Sun."
"I alone am the honored one."
And, according to TBCR (based on what you tell me), enlightenment is not awakened to, it just IS in all (sentient beings). So does this not point to no essential, individual and thus separate "I" if in each "I" are all that are enlightened? "I alone am the honored one" is reference to the permanent Buddha-nature. It has no essence to make it separate from anything. It is empty of essence and permanent in nature. No true, no false. Beyond dual perception.
oes essential Zen talk about the Buddha-nature and if so what is its understanding of it?Heh. May as well start at the end and work backwards.
Essential Zen says there's no such thing as Buddha-nature, just as there's no such thing as awakening.
Gonzo, where does essential Zen text explicitly state there is no such thing as Buddha-nature? I doubt it does and rather this is merely your interpreted conclusion. Even upon reading what you quote here I see no negation of the Buddha-nature.
As the quote goes, these are both notions that arise and delude folk. Rather than paraphrase, here it is from "The Blue Cliff Record":
TBCR wrote:In clear illumination, there is no such thing as awakening. The concept of "having awakened" turns around and deludes people. When you stretch out both feet and sleep, there's no false and no true - then there isn't a single concern in one's heart. When hungry, one eats; when tired, one sleeps. "there's no false and no true"
This just supports what I was saying, that there is the permanent Buddha-nature that is not dependent on sound or silence, light or dark, large or small, "true or false".
"then there isn't a single concern in one's heart."
Non-attachment to objects, just as Kuan Yin's meditation reveals to the practitioner non-attachment to sound-objects, which is expanded to include all objects.
A thing of interest is, I suspect most folk have some vague notion of what Buddha Nature is, rather like they also have a similar notion of "Higher Self", and "Spiritual Adept". A point I like to make, is if you know what the attributes of these labels are, you already have them, in your own unique way, which is what Essential Zen continually emphasizes. That is, Gautama did Gautama...that's fine...you aren't Gautama...you are you...so DO you....in that regard, enlightenment becomes a purely personal thing. This is further emphasized by don Juan when he says the goal is to achieve the totality of oneself. Nisargadatta emphasizes the same thing...answer the question, "Who am I?" - who that I is, is the perceiver, is the one that thinks, is the unique being of energy in the entire universe...back to Gautama's statement: "I alone am the honored one."
"In clear illumination, there is no such thing as awakening."
Cannot awaken because enlightenment IS, always was from beginningless time. However obscurations (ignorance) block this direct realization. "Clouds can obscure the ever-present Sun."
"I alone am the honored one."
And, according to TBCR (based on what you tell me), enlightenment is not awakened to, it just IS in all (sentient beings). So does this not point to no essential, individual and thus separate "I" if in each "I" are all that are enlightened? "I alone am the honored one" is reference to the permanent Buddha-nature. It has no essence to make it separate from anything. It is empty of essence and permanent in nature. No true, no false. Beyond dual perception.