Buddha Nature

Today in my morning practice I was thinking about "Buddha Nature." When I returned to my computer I found this email from a friend of mine about the same topic. Vipāka? Perhaps. So, I thought I would share this with my Chess Sangha. I look forward to your comments and input as well.

I discovered what felt great about math around the same time as I discovered the Buddha Dharma. I fell out of love with math when being 16 collided with San Francisco and trigonometry all in the same time frame. But before trig, there were algebra and imaginary numbers.

Years later I learned that zero wasn't a numerical concept in Western civilization until its introduction by Moorish mathematicians, and recently I learned that the Maya had a zero concept even before the Arabs.

Infinity is something else again. Amida is almost a direct translation if infinite. Amida means without measure. Infinite means without limit.

So if I take zero as Buddha nature and infinity as Buddha, the puzzle of where I fit in is pretty well solved: Space junk, just like all other matter, subject to change, recombination, decay. Made up of absurdities, i.e. sub-sub-sub-sub (ad infinitum) atomic particles[?], whose existence is questionable.

Imaginary numbers are generated when you divide a number by zero. It can't be done in "real" life, but it can be done as a math problem. That was the most exciting thing about math for me. I guess I was too jaded to be turned on by zero. If I'm not mistaken, imaginary numbers are what led physicists to look for anti-matter.

Circling back to what this means to me, it is this: Certainty is a trap. Confusion and the impossibility of knowing are liberating. This is why I'm not terribly bothered by the use of Buddha Nature as a catch-all name for the inexplicable. It's not something you can bottle and sell. It's just a label for all the stuff we don't know. You could just as easily call it Dark Matter or Black Box or the Void. It wouldn't get you any closer to knowing what it is. But, like imaginary numbers, you know it's there, because the math is do-able, even if the results are impossible.

My thoughts on the email were as follows;

I remember as a child being told that no one can understand infinity. My grandfather was a protestant Minister, so I imagine that fit in with their belief system. But, I felt then that we are all part of the infinite and if you know yourself then you know the infinite. I still feel this way today. Yes, my calculator gives me an error if I divide 4/0 but I understand that there is an answer just not one that can be defined by our current understanding/knowledge.

It is human nature to try and explain the unknown and that is what makes us unique and also quite dangerous.

To me Buddha Nature is accepting that all things are divisible by zero and we are all part of infinity.

Hmmm.  Think on this I must.  It's true that among the volumes of teachings describing buddha nature (tathagathagarbha) it is said to be ineffable.  Still, I'm not sure that leads necessarily to the conclusion that certainty is a trap.  Perhaps it is a trap when viewed from the pov of relative truth, but I suspect there could be no greater certainty then realization from the pov of ultimate truth.

I've never heard buddhadharma discussed in terms of math.  Interesting. 

Deep, I'm gonna have to read a couple of more times and think for awhile. I agree with you, our nature of attempting to explain the unkown does make us unique and dangerous,

Unbelievable thread. Thanks for posting it Key.

First off, anyone interested in the history/importance of "zero," I highly recommend the book "Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea." Friendly to both those mathematically and non-mathematically inclined.

Feel I could write pages, but for fear of boring others, will try to be succinct and coherent. Will take a numbered approach to keep things clean.

1) One of the biggest drawbacks to Western thinking was the refusal of the concept "zero." Using zero mathematically automatically implies that an "infinity" exists. (read the book mentioned above for further clarification.) And if infinity exists, according to most Christian scholars during the first millenia, the existence of God could be brought into question. It wasn't until Newton used "zero" to develop calculus that "zero" was truly accepted by the west.

2) Buddha nature. First off, will state that I studied Buddhism in general throughout my twenties, then became firmly engrossed in the Indo-Tibetan tradition in my thirties, with intensive study, practice and meditation. Not saying this out of pride, just putting this out there so you know where I'm coming from before I write anything else.

3) From what I've seen, studied and witnessed, I believe the term "Buddha nature" is probably one of the most widely misused and misunderstood terms here in the West. People seem to think that since it's supposedly "undescribable," it's just open to interpretation, which couldn't be further from the truth.

4) One can describe the moon, write pages and pages and pages about it, but still...reading about it or hearing about it is not the same as actually seeing it/having an experiential awareness of it. The key thing is, if you don't have those pages and pages describing it, or people who have actually experienced it telling you what it's all about, you wouldn't know how to look for the moon, or what it was when you finally saw it. Without one's own reasoning skills and the experience, knowledge and wisdom of those who've gone before us, one could then mistakenly think that the sun or Venus were the moon. Same applies to Buddha Nature. It's not something that each and every individual can just define on their own.

5) Within the Indo-Tibetan tradition, there are very precise descriptions and definitions of Buddha Nature, and countless terms in relation to it...Dharmakaya, Rupakaya, Sambogakaya, Tongpanyi, etc. Again, all important to know, but obviously, not the same as having a direct experience of it.

6) When I managed a retreat center, I learned after a year that late night conversations regarding Buddha Nature, or qualities of a Buddha, were almost pointless. Kind of like gradeschoolers discussing graduate level physics. Unless I'd known that someone had been studying/practicing/meditating for years, if not decades, I wouldn't discuss the topic with them.

7) In my youth, math was never my strong suit...more of a "word and music" kind of person. But after having become deeply engrossed in the study of Madyamika-Prasangika philosophy of ancient India, and all that entails regarding the true nature of reality and Buddha Nature, found myself becoming deeply, deeply fascinated with math, physics, astronomy, etc. What I came to discover is that Madyamika-Prasangika shared more in common with modern physics than any other Western Belief system.

8) One point of contention that I do have with many people who like to throw around the term "Buddha Nature" is as follows: "We are all already Buddhas because we have Buddha Nature." Logically, that couldn't be further from the truth. Yes, we have Buddha Nature simply by the fact that we share the same ultimate nature as anything else in existence..."tongpa nyi" in Tibetan or "Shunyata" in Sanskrit, or "emptiness" or "lack of inherent existence from it's own side" in English. But that doesn't mean we're all already Buddhas. If we were, none of us would be suffering. We all have Buddha nature, and therefore the potential to become Buddhas, it doesn't mean we already are.

Ok. Am supposedly at work, so should wrap things up and stop there.

Again Key, thanks for starting this thread.

Beautiful.

I think as a trap the person meant it in the sense of Dukkha or attachment. If you become attached to something then you are trapped.

Did I miss something Key?

No offense, Key, but IMHO: human nature really is neither unique nor dangerous - that is Ego putting on airs.

Human nature is Buddha nature - how can it be apart or otherwise?

And certainty is only a trap to Schrödinger's cat.

As far as Zero goes, I think The Smashing Pumpkins had it pretty accurate, if a bit convoluted: 

Emptiness is Loneliness
And Loneliness is Cleanliness
And Cleanliness is Godliness
And God is Empty
Just like me.

Their lyrics and my pedantics aside, I too thank you, Keyif, for the thread... and everyone's contribution.

Having never really participated in a thread here before, should I take it as serious debate and pursuit of truth, or just enjoy various view points?

Human nature is Buddha Nature? Quoting Billy Corgan to give substantiation to a mathematical/philosophical view?

Wow.

My approach to forums (in general, not necessarily this group's) is as long as its friendly and courteous, its fair game.

Now, elsewhere my posts have ranged from very scholastic, to artistic, to unorthodox. And while I am an oft whimsical contributor to the Public forums, here I meant to be serious.

I respect and agree with your views you expressed in points 6 & 8, Dude, about 'campfire dharma talks' as it were. I too get more than just-a-little miffed about 'armchair meditators' that dabble in Deep Theology, but that's just because I had formal education in the field and - habitually albeit unjustifiably - bristle at uninformed opinion.

So sure, Billy Corgan was a wild pitch. But I don't the believe the 'human' can be taken from the 'Buddha'. My reference to Schroedinger's cat alludes that the observer influences the results of the experiment. The parallel that my moon-pointing-finger was trying to lead to is: Human Nature is the observer, the experiment is meditation, and the observed phenomena in Enlightenment is Buddha Nature. 

To quote Roshi Richard Baker: “Enlightenment is an accident. Meditation makes you accident prone.” 

Is the problem with the term human nature is because it is exclusionary?  That is, only humans have whatever it is?  My understanding of buddha nature is that it is present equally in all sentient beings without exception or exclusion.

Even the term buddha nature seems rather proprietary for something that describes a universal quality.  I know that buddha means awakened, but most who hear the term for the first time think it is a name or a label and buddha nature takes on the feel of a 'brand.' It's the buddhist brand for truth!  LOL

I like Pema Chodron & Chogyam Trungpa's terminology better when they call it basic goodness.

Writch,

"No offense, Key, but IMHO: human nature really is neither unique nor dangerous - that is Ego putting on airs."

None taken. Thank you for allowing me to clarify.

Let me further explain what I mean about both terms.

1. Unique: By this I meant that the chances of being born a human, with the exposure to Buddhism, with the right inclination to study Buddhism, and the opportunity to study Buddhism is very unique. The Buddha taught this, or so I have heard. I present the following:

Buddhism teaches that being born human is a privileged opportunity that we should rejoice in.  “Receiving human form is difficult, but I have already received it.” These are the eminent words of Sakyamuni Buddha which express the joy of being born human; that which is so difficult. One day, Sakyamuni Buddha asked his disciple Anan, “What do you think about being born as a human being?” “I’m very grateful,” answered Anan. In order to teach how rare it is to be born human, Sakyamuni Buddha created the following parable:

“Suppose that at the bottom of a vast sea lives one blind turtle. The turtle rises to the surface of the water just once every hundred years. And suppose that in that vast sea floats one piece of driftwood, with a small hole in its center. The wood drifts in different directions at the sport of the wind. How likely is it that, when the turtle surfaces, his head will surface through the hole in the driftwood?”

Anan was taken by surprise and said, “That  is impossible!” Sakyamuni Buddha then asked, “Are you absolutely certain that it is impossible?” “It may happen perhaps in the time frame of millions or billions of years. But the chances are so slim, that it would be nearly impossible,” answered Anan. “The truth is, Anan, it is even more difficult for us to be born human than for the turtle to put his head through the driftwood. It is something that rarely happens.”

2. Dangerous:

Let's say that you do accomplish everything in the aforementioned parable and are now a human ;) Can you break free of attachment? Can you gather Merit? Can you practice the four Noble truths? Can you reach enlightment? Can you release the Buddha in you?

I say that being Human is dangerous because even though we are a Buddha there are many things that can stop us from realizing it.

The other part of our danger is the Ego as you said. How many beings have suffered because humans thought we are the Top of the food chain. I just point to the oil spill in the Gulf right now.

Writch,

As for Schrodinger's Cat the lack of certainty lies in the observer. The cat knows if it is dead or alive. It is only when observed that the observer then knows too. The same happens with Light. It is both a particle and a wave but until observed the state stays in flux. This is described by the Photo-Electric effect. But I digress.

Neither the Cat or Light care what form the are in. It is a human that "observes" and then decides what their State is. Buddha Nature just accepts that whatever State you are in, that is the State you Should be in.

If you like Quantum mechanics take a look at the below link for more. I also suggest Brian Green's work as he has done quite a bit to help make this area more accessible to those without a higher Math degree. (like me) ;)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm

PhotoElectric effect
http://spectroscopyonline.findanalytichem.com/spectroscopy/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=337288

And now back to Chess

LOL sorry one more.

As for "Zero" I see it as full of opportunities. What is absent is just as important as what is present. When you look at a famous painting it is also the space that is empty that makes the painting what it is. The painting below by Rembrandt is a good example of this.

There are many examples of this and I would like to see what others come up with.

Cheers

Well, now, lookie here!

Mixing unorthodox and flip gets not one... not two... but three very well thought out and argued responses!

That should answer your questions from post #9 ^^, right, Dude?

Consider also the very letters you are reading and the screen background. Without the contrast, how could the patterns we call letters emerge and thus be effective, and thereby the words they form affective?

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Q.E.D.

Oh, and kudos, Keyif, for your Ontological and Epistemological points with dead cats knowing they're dead and the apathy of light.

My favorite discussion of the precious human birth...

http://www.bodhionline.org/ViewArticle.asp?id=191

Extrapolation on an Old Buddhist Image: The Likelihood of Being Born Human

Our thoughtful turtle huge and hoary

Dragging harpoons and anchor chains

A train of seaweed sixteen coaches long

One eye blind, the other missing

For aeons through some shoreless ocean

Arises—

Breaks the surface for a single breath.

And what if

In that instant of replenishment

Its head rose up

Through a pink and white striped Hoola Hoop

Vintage 1957

Flung from the pier at Coney Island

The day after Thanksgiving

By a girl who would grow up

To be your mother's best friend in college

Drifting with the currents and winds

Of all that time

The odds of that?

Ahhh

Our precious human birth.

To quote the legendary Chris Farley, "Holy Schnikees!"

It's been years since I've seen a thread, anywhere, this coherent, intelligently written, and devoid of any trash talk.

Bravo to everyone!

Can write pages, and most likely will do so later when at home, later this evening.

For now just want to address "Buddha Nature" in relation to things/people.

In the tradition I've studied/practiced, there are varying definitions, terms to be used dependent upon specific situations etc.

Of the different types of "emptiness" out there, which according to my tradition is synonymous with "Buddha nature," there is something called "Natural Nirvana." That is the ultimate nature that all things/objects have, simply by the fact that they exist, are composed of parts and are conceptually designated by a subject.

"Natural Nirvana" shares similar characteristics with, but is NOT the same as the state of a fully enlightened being. (please keep in mind, I'm speaking from the Indo-Tibetan tradition. Obviously, terms, definitions, etc. vary from culture to culture and tradition to tradition. Void where prohibited. Offer not valid in Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico and the Territory of Guam. Use Caution when opening. And please, ladies and gentlemen, no wagering.) 

Art, Science AND humor.  Exxxxcellent.

Again, everyone, wow!

Key, some beautiful, beautiful stuff.

And Writch, I wholeheartedly agree re: "arm chair" Buddhists, or what I sometimes refer to as "Buffet Buddhists"...people who just pick and choose stuff from here and there, but never seeming to present anything coherent.

As I go through life, and when interacting with others, I operate on two levels...there's the functional and the philosophical. The latter is what motivates, and the former is the result in interacting with others.

Ultimately, what anyone else's philosophy is, doesn't mean beans to me. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, "Whether you believe in one god, twenty gods, or no god, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." If someone wants to worship eldeberry bushes and paint themselves purple as a form of worship, more power to them...as long as it somehow leads them to helping, or at least not harming others. Along those same lines, if someone wants to pick and choose from different belief systems, and use that to help them and others be happy, then again, it's not for me to judge.

The thing that does put sand in the vaseline for me is when someone puts something forth, and claims it's Buddhism, when it's not. Each tradition, whether you're discussing Cha'n, Zen, Theravadan, Indo-Tibetan, etc. has been around for centuries, if not millenia. And to me, I find much comfort that they've kept certain truths alive in their own unique forms. But, if I ever hear someone putting something forth that's supposedly "Buddhist," but when what they say has absolutely no basis in the tradition that's been around for a couple thousand years, that's when my claws and fangs come out!

Kind of like someone running around saying "I've come to discover that Hebrew Law says it's ok to serve meat and dairy on the same plate." Most in our culture would realize that's not true, and would dismiss such claims. The problem with Buddhism is, it's still relatively new to our culture, and it's very easy for others to misrepresent what it's all about.

And as for using Billy Corgan lyrics, my initial reaction was "Is this guy trying to put pop music forth as Buddhism?" <laughing> Fortunately, I've learned the importance of lightening up over the years.

To be honest, that's one of my favorite pass-times. I have the uncanny ability to be able to translate any song I hear into dharma.

The thing is, I do it for myself. If I ever found myself asked to teach a class on Buddhism, would I use lyrics by U2 or Nine Inch Nails to do so? Nope. Would just stick to what has been taught by an unbroken lineage going back thousands of years, and let each person hearing those truths "translate" it into their own world.

So, again, excellent thread. Am happy to be part of this whole process. What's sad to me though is, there's so much beautiful information being put forth, it's hard to keep up and comment/question/relate to everything that's being put forth. But just so everyone knows, it's all being read and appreciated.

Thanks folks!