Śūnyatā

Some say that Emptiness' nihilism is tempered by the idea of Buddha-nature. And yet, there are others that say buddha-nature as a concept is anti-buddhist. Read and comment.

From the Wikipedia article:

According to Matsumoto Shiro and Hakamaya Noriaki, this is an un-Buddhist idea. Their "Critical Buddhism" approach rejects what it calls "dhatu-vada" (substantialist Buddha nature doctrines). Dr. Jamie Hubbard writes:

According to Matsumoto, Buddhism is based on the principles of no-self and causation, which deny any substance underlying the phenomenal world. The idea of tathagata-garbha, on the contrary, posits a substance (namely, tathagata-garbha) as the basis of the phenomenal world. He asserts that dhatu-vada is the object that the Buddha criticized in founding Buddhism, and that Buddhism is nothing but unceasing critical activity against any form of dhatu-vada.

The critical Buddhism approach has, in turn, recently been characterised as operating with a restricted definition of Buddhism. Professor Paul Williams comments:

It seems to me that where someone wishes to argue (as in the case of the Critical Buddhism movement) that a development within Buddhism (in terms of its own self-understanding) is not really Buddhist at all, that person or group is working with an intentionally and rhetorically restricted definition of "Buddhism" ... One issue is how legislative the teachings of not-Self and dependent origination, or the Madhyamika idea of emptiness, are for Buddhist identity. Clearly, from the point of view of a description of Buddhist doctrinal history, as Buddhism has existed in history, these doctrines cannot be. At least some ways of understanding the tathagatagarbha contravene the teachings of not-Self, or the Madhyamika idea of emptiness. And these ways of understanding the tathagatagarbha were and are widespread in Mahāyāna Buddhism. Yet by their own self-definition they are Buddhist.

 

Here's some more on these Critical Buddhists, as they call themselves and their issue with Buddha-Nature.

http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/CriticalZen/What_and_why_of_Critical_Buddhism_1.pdf

It really sounds like each group seeks to define the other group using its own terms -- that seldom leaves anyone feeling happy with the other group.

My only comment, based on my limited (very) understanding, is that absolute truth/emptiness/shunyata is ineffable and the act of conceptualizing (using words to describe it) it in any way is inherently inaccurate.

That said, I believe the two schools described are the ones that are called Rangtong Madhyamaka and Shentong Madhyamaka in my tradition. 

Rangtong never really posits anything while refuting everything.  The Rangtong view is best defined in the teachings of Nagarjuna.  I believe this is what the Critical Buddhist view described above is espousing.

Shentong refutes everything except buddha nature/tathagathagarbha.  Shentong was most famously promoted by Taranatha and it nearly got him killed!

Interestingly, in His Holiness Dalai Lama's recent teachings on the Heart Sutra in Indianapolis, he really didn't address the apparent contradiction of these two schools although the Gelug tradition has historically held to the Rangtong.  His Holiness Karmapa, head of the Karma Kagyu, I am told is very open to the Rangtong view although the Karma Kagyu tradition has historically held to the Shentong view.

I once had the opportunity to ask Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso how to resolve the apparent contradiction and he said (maddeningly), "you should practice and see for yourself."

So there you go, vehement views on the ineffable.  The best thing I've heard about this is that those to originally composed these views were looking at the same thing and describing it differently.  Just because we describe a tree differently doesn't mean we're not looking at the same tree or that one of us is wrong!

Jamgon Kongtrul is supposed to have said that with students who tend toward eternalism, he teaches them the Rangtong view.  Those who tend toward nihilism, he teaches the Shentong view.  Brilliant!

To say that one view is or isn't "Buddhism" would seem to be rather pointless, in my opinion.  The Buddha taught how to end suffering and was unconcerned about labels, from what I can tell.

What do you think?

Could write pages, but will simply say this:

Any views on the ultimate should really just be between one's self, one's teachers, and MAYBE other students that have the same teacher.

From all my experiences related to this topic, 90% of the people out there who claim to know anything about it, don't.

And you have to have a teacher. Just reading books about the ultimate nature of things is just like trying to become a virtuoso on the violin by just trying to read books.

Am walking away from this topic now.

Have a nice day.

<laughing>

Dude,

No offense, but i don't think we're trying to teach or learn anything in these forum topics - we're just kicking around ideas to feel our own comfort with the material and sharing other ways to look at it or tips to "play" it, to use your violin virtuoso analogy.

In fact, to expand on your musician metaphor, we're all just hanging out here in an amateurs' jam session - not here to entertain any one else. So who cares if our instruments are out of tune and we hit some mighty sour chords?

I think I'm with Rich. I've heard it said that discussing one's practice and practice experiences with others is inappropriate unless it is with your teacher or other students of your teacher doing the same practice.  And even that is open to debate, for sure!  I don't think anyone was aiming to assert rightness and wrongness here, and I for one am open to correction and clarification!

I've made it a little way into the paper that Rich directed me too and it's a pretty tough slog. It is interesting to me, if I'm reading it right, that the Critical Buddhist view is said to hold the 12 Links (Salistamba Sutra) and the teachings on karma as the defining features of anatman and therefore, Buddhist.

I probably have it wrong, but my basic understanding of interdependent origination and karma is that they are provisional!  That is, descriptions of relative truth that is ultimately transcended.

I may have to stop, I'm getting dizzy! 

This discussion - and our conclusions here and elsewhere - about things ultimately being relative reminds me of a quote from Robert Thurman (which happened to be about Śūnyatā):

"...[Śūnyatā] does not mean nothingness, but rather that all things lack intrinsic reality, intrinsic objectivity, intrinsic identity or intrinsic referentiality. Lacking such static essence or substance does not make them not exist —- it makes them thoroughly relative."

Thoroughly relative. I love that phrase!

It's up there with that oft paraphrased quote attributed to Zen master Roshi Richard Baker: "Gaining enlightenment is an accident. Spiritual practice simply makes us accident-prone."

The Buddha himself used different teachings and techniques to reach the individual and help them reach/move toward enlightment. I accept that many paths lead to enlightment.

I came across this text that formed my thoughts for the above posting.

"All teachings are just to cure an illness. Different illnesses require different cures. This is why sometimes it is said there is only Buddha and sometimes that there is no Buddha. True teachings cure the illness. If the cure works, the teachings are true. If they don't cure the illness, the teachings are false. True teachings are false if they create opinions. False teachings are true if they destroy delusions. The illness is an illusion anyway, so all the cures are also illusions."

William, I am sure we can all agree on that.  If I failed to convey that sentiment in my postings, I failed in communicating.