Talk:Buddha-nature/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Buddha-nature. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

I have tagged this section since it is ill-informed nonsense. As time allows, I may get around to writing something a little more reliable.--Stephen Hodge 01:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

---

What does this say about the user? Mitsube (talk) 04:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Mitsube, crystals are employed throughout the tradition: what does your ignorance and implication as to the quality of my edits say about you? Instead of reverting other peoples work and just to try something different, why don't u meditate AND read? Even better, meditate with a non-human friend such as a rock or a plant...it's called meditating with a support and an elemental support such as an earthy stone is canonical...

Sticks & stones...

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

oh, and if u don't rekon Shakyamuni meditated with elements of non-human nature...omg PLEASE don't call urself a Buddhist! what gave the buddha shelter thru the long night[s] of meditative vigil? the tree and the morning star...what supported him? the special grass upon which he meditated ... kusha grass... btw, sticks and stones are amongst the 9 metaphors of the Buddha-element, but i rekon u didn't know that either...a pearl of great price, like pearl before swine...

Irons (2008: p.64) states:

"Chingying Huiyan (523-592) considered Buddha nature to be true consciousness, the fruit of Buddhahood (the Dharmakaya), and that which is recognized or comprehended by Buddha's consciousness. Buddha nature is thus present in all objects, sentient and nonsentient." ^[1]

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Arrow has removed sourced content.[2] Can he/she explain himself?Bless sins (talk) 06:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Here BS uses an edit summary that ignores my edit summary points regarding the fact that the MPNS view is an extreme minority view, and here he does it again. His talk page post sounds like I gave no justification. Arrow740 (talk) 06:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that say that the view is "an extreme minority view"?Bless sins (talk) 07:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't insert personal interpretation of primary sources into this article without understanding the subject matter. In response to your question, you can get started by reading anatta. If you have further questions I can direct you to some websites or books detailing the views of Buddha-nature held by various Buddhist sects. Arrow740 (talk) 08:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Please direct me to reliable source. A wikipedia article is not a reliable source.Bless sins (talk) 08:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The article contains a good introduction to the issues involved, BS. I'm afraid your insistence that I provide you with a reliable source for background reading is unreasonable. Please don't insert personal interpretation of primary sources into this article without understanding the subject matter. In response to your question, you can get started by reading anatta. If you have further questions I can direct you to some websites or books detailing the views of Buddha-nature held by various Buddhist sects. Arrow740 (talk) 08:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Arrow740, you must provide reliable sources for all claims you will make on wikipedia. You must. It's not optional. Similarly you can hold me accountable for providing sources for all claims I make.Bless sins (talk) 08:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you can show me the section of the guideline that you're referring to? I'm afraid your insistence that I provide you with a reliable source for background reading is unreasonable. Arrow740 (talk) 08:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not asking you for "background" reading. You have removed content from the article, have you not? You said it was a minority view? But only you say it is a minority view. I have not seen reliable scholars says that this is a minority view.Bless sins (talk) 09:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

So? Arrow740 (talk) 09:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Making claims and not backing them up with sources is also a violation of WP:NOR. And if you don't provide reliable sources, I'm under no obligation to consider the viewpoint a minority one.Bless sins (talk) 09:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying these things in a talk page, BS. Arrow740 (talk) 10:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we remind ourselves of Wikipedia policy here? Anything, particularly anything controversial, as much of this article seems to be, should be backed up by citations from reliable sources, which most of this article seems not to be. Citations must be verifiable, which means, as explained in the policy page, that any reader with access to the source cited, but without any specialist knowledge, except knowledge of the language in which that source is written, can easily & straightforwardly verify that the source does indeed say what the areticle says it says. This means NO INTERPRETATION. All interpretations must themselves be cited, &, if controversial, be ascribed in the article proper, not just in the footnote, to the relevant source. Peter jackson (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain whether "Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra" is a reliable source on the topic? It doesn't seem to be.Bless sins (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not Indian and some people reject it but it is a very important scripture for lots of schools. Doesn't everyone agree with that? Can't anything on that sutra be qualified easily with that??

I see that it has been proposed that the two entries, "Tathagatagarbha" and "Buddha-nature" be merged. While I can see why this might be suggested, I do believe (as a major contributor to those two articles) that it is best to keep the two articles distinct, as they contain quite a lot of separate material. I think it is better for people searching for information on the Internet about either Tathagatagarbha or Buddha Nature to be able to see two self-contained (though linked) articles on these two closely related concepts. I think keeping the two entries as they currently stand is not causing harm of any kind - so I would vote to maintain things as they are. Best wishes. From Tony. TonyMPNS 23:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I am in agreement with the above: no merger ! Although there is a degree of overlap, tathagata-garbha and buddha-nature are not conceptually identical. Also, if they were to be mergered, there would also be a considerable amount of work needed to rewrite the article to include all the material currently distributed in the two articles.--Stephen Hodge 02:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's time to revisit this question. As the article stands now, most of it is actually about Tathagatagarbha and the two terms are treated as perfect synonyms. Either some clear distinction between the two concepts must be made, or the articles should be merged.Sylvain1972 (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You are quite right, are you willing to do the merging? Mitsube (talk) 06:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Stephen Hodge and Tonympns above: merging the two is not necessary; a merger would involve unnecessary work and time. The two articles seem fine to me as they currently are. No need to start interfering with them in a major way and rewriting them. Time could better be spent elsewhere, IMHO. Regards. Suddha (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

They should be merged. The fact that this would take time and effort is a minus. That's true. However, many articles link to one or the other indiscriminately. Just because a merger is decided on doesn't mean it has to be done overnight. Moonsell (talk) 02:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the perfectly acceptable information that user Mitsube imperiously and unreasonably (here as elsewhere) took it upon himself to remove - simply because he/she finds the ideas unappealing. Yet what was deleted (and what I have re-placed) is simple factual reporting of basic Buddha-nature tenets found in the early tatagatagarbha sutras. This material was not some editor's own 'personal opinion', but straight and accurate reporting of what can be found by anyone who cares to look at the primary sources. To essay other explanations of these teachings is indeed to stray into the field of 'personal interpretation', rather than objective, dispassionate reporting of primary texts (and there is NO Wikipedia embargo on summarising or quoting primary texts). The 'terminator' attitude evinced by Mitsube - i.e. deleting anything that does not accord with Mitsube's own limited understanding and knowledge of tathagatagarbha and buddha-nature doctrines - should not be allowed to continue. No wonder that scholars get sick and tired of trying to place information on Wikipedia and leave in disgust at the childish behaviour of some of its intolerant and ignorant 'editors'. Suddha (talk) 06:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The language is metaphorical as you well know. As Bless Sins says above, the MPNS is not a reliable source. Mitsube (talk) 06:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not. If you had any first-hand knowledge of the texts in question, you would know that they specifically state that they are not "metaphorical". The Buddha is depicted in them as saying that these are his absolute, true and final words on the matter. Even a quick glance shows that this is repeated on almost every other page of the Nirvana Sutra and its related texts. You seem to have good company in the form of Bless Sins -- he/she probably knows even less than you. Please, just save everybody else a lot of time and energy -- take a good hard look at yourself in the mirror and say to yourself, "My knowledge of Buddha-nature doctrines is very limited". Then we all might be able to get on with our lives. -- अनाम गुमनाम 22:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

What?! Is this intended as a joke? This last remark by Mitsube (referncing another editor) is so utterly ludicrous and risible as almost to require no comment. But I will make one comment here: the Mahaparinirvana Sutra is recognised by the preponderance of informed scholars and Mahayana Buddhists alike as an important source of buddha-nature teachings. To suggest otherwise is like saying that one of the Four Gospels of Christianity is not a reliable source for basic beliefs encountered in major areas of the Christian religion. Suddha (talk) 06:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a source for the teachings, but exactly what it says is a matter of great debate. For this text as I have indicated, quoting it out of context is misleading and you are doing so to forward a personal interpretation. Mitsube (talk) 06:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no 'personal interpretation' of these ideas, contrary to what you mistakenly claim about me (and you know nothing about me, anyway). I am not interested in 'personal interpretations' or putting forward suchlike at all. I like to see Wikipedia reporting the facts, objectively and accurately. Not censoring information, which is what you are heavily into. As for quotes taken 'out of context', I fear that the only 'context' that would satisfy you would be the whole 1,000 pages of the Mahaparinirvana Sutra beng placed in the article - but then of course that would meet with your disapproval, as it is one of those intolerable and inconvenient 'primary texts' that, at innumerable points, happen to refute your jaundiced views about the Buddha nature. Discussion on Wikipedia, yes; a plurality of viewpoints, yes; but censorship on Wikipedia - no. Suddha (talk) 07:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The sutras define the terms in an idiosyncratic, non-essentialist way. See the articles of King and Shih. Mitsube (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Apart from these two authors, have you read anything whatsoever on these texts ?? You really do not know what you are talking about -- it's so embarrassing.

See "Encyclopedia of Buddhism" (Oxford University Press 2003) under Tathagata-garbha (p296) "According to the position adopted by these sutras, the Tathagata-garbha is a real and eternally existing essence that is primordially replete with all the qualities of a Buddha". That clear enough for you ?? I can get you more of the same if you want. The only idiosyncratic thing around here seems to be your understanding of the sutras. -- अनाम गुमनाम 22:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That is the old understanding. Feel free to quote reliable sources, attribute where there is disagreement. Mitsube (talk) 04:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I see. And could you give me some references or titles where I can read about the "new understanding". Thank you. -- अनाम गुमनाम 22:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Do please let me have a reply to this when you have a moment. -- अनाम गुमनाम 02:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

"Professor Jeffrey Hopkins translates several passages from the sutra in which the Buddha speaks of this topic, and defines the Buddha-nature as pure, eternal, truly real Self." What is the exact language with which Hopkins states that the sutra defines the Buddha-nature to be pure, eternal, truly real Self? Mitsube (talk) 04:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• [3] "There is no such thing as a culturally-biased enlightened person."

I love it! Please: can some expert of wikipedia politics tell me how to insert it best? According to my jugdement it goes well with the following: "Independent lay yogi lineage of Dzogpachenpo by Chögyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche identifies and asserts the primordial non-dual awareness itself as the Buddha Nature, the only non-fabricated and pristine element of our existence." But it is not he who has used those words. What to do?

Austerlitz -- 88.72.10.120 (talk) 11:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

a weblink I've inserted [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.72.18.42 (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC) what's the difference between the link I've inserted and the information here [5]?

Austerlitz -- 88.72.18.42 (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The existence of such an element is only postulated by a minority of Tibetan thinkers. Mitsube (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"such an element": what element are you talking about? the primordial non-dual awareness?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.221.68 (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

A "non-fabricated and pristine element." Why don't you get an account? Mitsube (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

What for? :Austerlitz -- 88.75.64.119 (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

i'm not sure about 'non-fabricated' [permanent and non arising?] but the buddha nature is meant to be free from defilement. this is from a academic book on the sri-mala sutra, which is not controversial right? i can find a quote later am sort of busy! thanks. e.g. "there appears to be textual inconsistency... buddha natures to be conditioned or constructed, and at another... unconditioned or unconstructed... the sutra itself does not explain or expand upon this rather isolated and somewhat problematic statement, the noted inconsistency is not critical to the coherence of the sri-mala doctrine... OK that's probably not so helpful but it seems that there is one occasion where it is claimed they are constructed and otherwise [? I have not read that scripture of finished this particular book] they are claimed unconstricted. i hope this has helped i'm not so literate!

The following paragraph was the first of the lede, and though it is material that needs to be in the lede, I found it to be so confusing and hard to comprehend for anyone interested in learning what the word 'Buddha-nature' means that I moved it to the etymology section for now until an expert can clarify these translation issues. If you are an expert then please help, please! The moved portion follows,

"Often, Buddha-nature (Classical Chinese: 佛性, modern pinyin fó xìng), literally corresponds to the Sanskrit, Buddha-dhātu - "Buddha Element", "Buddha-Principle", but seems to have been used most frequently to translate the Sanskrit "Tathāgatagarbha", meaning "the one thus gone"'s referring to the Buddha womb", which would be more directly translated into Chinese as 如来藏). Another term for the Buddha-nature is Sugatagarbha."

Thanks. makeswell (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, if somebody could clarify how this word is used, and give us some better, very brief!, definitions then the merit that person would accumulate would be equal to all the sands in the Ganges river. :) makeswell (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

im pretty sure that buddha-nature is equal to what we in the west call soul, but its pretty hard to deifne or explain buddha-nature for that matter without mentioning karma and other important facts of buddhism.Special:Contributions/212.181.199.165|212.181.199.165]] (talk) 03:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC).--212.181.199.165 (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.181.199.165 (talk) 03:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The primary difference is that the Western (Greek) definition of the soul is that it is individual to the human being; an eternal entity having a separate existence from the physical body. However, the exact definition of "Buddha-nature" itself is not agreed upon within the various Buddhist schools of thought, and not least within Buddhist texts like the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana and Lankavatara sutras in regards to defining it as the "self." Buddha-nature, according to Mahayana doctrine in general, is said to be present in, and interconnects with, all things. Therefore, it is generally agreed upon that the Western definition of "soul", and the Buddhist notion of Buddha-nature are fundamentally different. -Ano-User (talk) 08:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

according to zen buddhism (see the writings of zen master Yasutani-Roshi) all thins, sentiant or non sentiant, has a buddha nature. "even dust has a buddha nature". if there isn't much dissagreement, I will edit the article to account for this Pjbeierle (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, it might be a good idea to add these ideas. They are not generally found in the foundational Buddha-nature sutras (such as the Tathagatagarbha, and Nirvana Sutra), but they are a feature of some Chinese and Japanese Buddhism. You might like to add the following section, which I have lifted from part of the 'Nirvana' article:

' Dogen explicitly says that the Buddha-Nature is had in some sense in the present even by non-Buddhas: actually equating the reality of the present moment (or "That without constancy") with the Buddha-Nature, including that of grass and trees as well as mind and body. For Dogen, to look at anything is to see the Buddha-Nature, whereas Chinul argues that it is in the body right now as smelling and vision and so on. The important Lankavatara Sutra states that all actions are actions of the Buddha-Nature, that it is their cause and the root of all karmic destiny.

'The Japanese Zen master, Dogen, has a distinctive interpretation of the Buddha-nature, in which 'whole-being' is viewed as Buddha-nature, and nothing (even inanimate objects) is separate or distinct from it. Buddha-nature is not a 'potential' for Buddhahood, but is the very nature of all things. All things in their impermanence are seen as Buddha-nature,[60] and do not constitute a seed of 'potential' for Buddha-nature. Dr. Masao Abe writes on this understanding:

'... in Dogen's understanding, the Buddha-nature is not a potentiality, like a seed, that exists within all sentient beings. Instead, all sentient beings, or more exactly, all beings, living and nonliving, are originally Buddha-nature. It is not a potentiality to be actualized sometime in the future, but the original, fundamental naure of all beings.'[61]

Dogen thus expands the notion of Buddha-nature and that of 'sentient beings' to embrace absolutely all things, which are seen to be alive, possessed of mind and to be the Buddha-nature itself. Dr. Masao Abe elucidates:

'... Dogen broadens not only the meaning of the term Buddha-nature, but also that of the term, sentient beings (shujo). In the "Bussho" fascicle, immediately after saying "Whole-being is the Buddha-nature", he continues, "I call one integral entity of whole-being 'sentient beings'" ... This means that Dogen broadens the meaning of shujo [sentient being], which traditionally referred to living or sentient beings, to include nonliving or nonsentient beings. In other words, he ascribes life to nonliving beings, sentiments to nonsentient beings, and ultimately mind and the Buddha-nature to all of them.'[62]

This might be worthy of its own section. We must always make sure, though, that we use correct grammar and spelling. Best wishes. Suddha (talk) 04:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

A new introduction to the article has been written to conform the definition with the traditional understanding that was reached in Chinese schools from the middle ages onwards. This was the definition that was transplanted to Japan. Here, Buddha nature is equated with the concept of Tao, a concept that is equivalent with dharma. Reversion has already commenced with User:Suddha describing the changes as 'vandalism'. Any questions regarding the new definition, please don't be afraid to ask. best regards. 81.107.150.246 (talk) 10:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Hi 81.107. Sorry if I misconstrued your alterations to the Intro as vandalism. I did not realise that you had intended them seriously. Part of what you wrote in your change to the Intro was this: "The idea [of Buddha nature] has its origins in the concept of dharma which conceives the natural world to be populated by beings with their own unique nature. According to this idea it is the duty of beings to be true to the nature that Nature (or God) has bestowed upon them or that is appropriate to their particular level of evolutionary development. It is not the dharma of a hippopotamus to hunt Gazelle. Neither is it the dharma of a lion to spend the day wallowing in muddy waters and eating vegetation. The natures of the lion and the hippopotamus are different. Therefore each creature must live in accordance with its true nature which is to in effect become one with the dharma and therefore become completely natural."

(I have just seen that you have added a separate section under 'Concept' which covers the same ground). This idea of a separate and distinct 'nature' for each species of animal, etc., is very different from all that I have read on the Buddha nature in the sutras or in Buddhist commentarial literature. The notion of dharma as a species-specific 'nature' inside a being sounds to me more like Hinduism (although even here I am not so sure that this would be 'typical' of Hinduism) , rather than Buddhism. If you can supply some scriptural evidence for this viewpoint (evidence from the Buddhist sutras, or from secondary literature on Buddhism), I would be very interested to see it, as, I suspect, would other editors here. Also, the notion of Nature (with a capital 'N') and God 'bestowing' a nature upon beings is not one that I am familiar with from Buddhist texts. Again, I would be interested to hear what other editors think. I would suggest that we remove the new material under 'Concept', and keep the Intro as it now stands, unless reliable sutric or secondary-literature evidence can be adduced to back up what you, 81.107, have claimed. Best wishes - Suddha (talk) 12:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I revised this entry to avoid extreme redundancy with Tathāgatagarbha Sutras.LhunGrub (talk) 02:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I changed the order of the article.

Nikaya, tathagatagarba-sutra's and Lotus-sutra are under one header, all bein gpart of the history of the concept. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

All the Tibetan points of view are under the header of Tibetan Buddhism. To do this I cut up the part on buddha-nature vs. self. Apologies to the contributors who put their effort in that part! but this part seemed to double with the part 'Varying views on buddha-nature'. And there is a lot of Tibetan Buddhism in this article; it seemed logical to my mind to put those views together Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• I think you have a done a grand job, Joshua: the article reads much more clearly now. Well done - and thanks! Best wishes from 23:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suddha (talk • contribs)

Thanks! I'm very pleased to read it's being appreciated Joshua Jonathan (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I found the first addition by SafwanZabalawi, on Nichiren, clear and comprehensible, so I think it should be put back. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC) ..............................................................................................................

I would like to report an event of bias and inappropriate use of the Wikipedia by the side who deleted Nichiren Buddhism's view on the subject of the Buddha nature. It is inappropriate for any broadminded person to override the truth of contribution of whatever school of Buddhism to the concept. It is just shameful and contrary to the concept of Buddha nature itself to declare a "patent" on it as belonging just to some schools and delete others views. Wikipedia does not approve of this. When you delete something you should give the reason why, was it defaming you or anyone, was it abusive or was it without a reference? This misuse to Wikipedia must stop.

A similar deletion about the Lotus Sutra's metaphors of the Buddha nature and about Tiantai's work - this was done without giving a reason, and this means there was no ground and no justification for this deletion. Please be impartial. You enter the info from YOUR schools's point of view but to prevent others from the RIGHT TO EXPRESSION and presenting their referrenced information - this can be close to vandalism on Wikipedia.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)SafwanZabalawiSafwanZabalawi (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mann jess. Good cleaning up. But I have one objection, namnely the line with the Nanzan-reference:

Essentiality the disagreement is whether the buddha-nature is an essence underlying the flux of phenomena, or whether this idea is an aberration of the buddhist insight of anattaNanzan Institute: Pruning the Bodhi Tree

This is what the article is about. Actually, it's a chapter of a whole book about this topic, which makes very interesting reading. And personally, I had no problem understanding what this line is saying. So I would prefer to put this line, and it's reference back. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that Joshua Jonathan makes a fair and valid point here. I also think that (some, at least) of Dolpopa's characterisations of ultimate Reality as 'the solid Self', 'the diamond Self', etc., should be restored: far from being uninteresting or of no use, those designations indicate how Buddhism cannot be neatly absolutised as a 'non-Self teaching'. That is the whole reason why the Buddha-nature sutras have been, and remain, controversial: they speak in a firm and cataphatic way of a True Self, or Buddha nature, which they on occasion identify with the Self of the Buddha. Of course there are scholars who interpret this in a particular, non-essentialist way. But that is only one side of the argument that has raged for centuries. The fact that Dolpopa, a highly significant monk-scholar of Tibetan Buddhism, was able to speak of the 'solid, immovable Self', etc., as something real and positive is surely of interest to the student of Buddhism in the context of this Buddha-nature article and should therefore not be expunged. Best wishes from Suddha (talk) 11:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Joshua. Okay, could you explain to me what that sentence means, or propose a new wording which is clearer? I removed it because, after reading it 6 or 7 times, I couldn't glean any meaning from it which would allow me to rewrite the sentence in a clearer format. There is no explanation of what "phenomena" we're discussing, or "flux of phenomena", so the entire "essence underlying the flux of phenomena" doesn't make any sense, nor is it sufficiently contrasted with "an aberration of the buddhist insight of anatta", whatever that means. I checked the source, but it only lists the ToC with no actual content. We also need an actual link for the source if we're going to put it back in.

@Suddha, I have no problem putting in Dolpopa's characterisations of ultimate reality, if that is important. However, we need some kind of explanation of what that means and why it's pertinent. Simply listing a bunch of labels he's coined isn't helpful to a reader not familiar with the topic. I imagine that this information may be more relevant (and we may have more space to expand) in a separate article. If one does not exist, and we have good secondary sourcing, we could create it, and place a Main article template at the top of our section here. Would that work? Thanks,   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Taking Kalupahana's "The Principles of Buddhist Psychology" on Vasubandhu's vijnaptimatrasiddhi as a reference, there is some clarification. Actually, "flux of phenomena" is indeed not the best statement. Kalupahana writes "flux of experience" (p.196). According to Kalupahana (who is explicitly anti-essentialist), there are no 'things' outside our sensory experience & the "transformations of consciousness" (=cognition).

It is Matsumoto Shiro who sees the idea of Buddha Nature as an 'abberration' (though I don't know if he uses this specific and polemical word)[6].

Kalupahana and Shiro see anatman as the original Buddhist standpoint, and the reification that takes place in some interpretations of Buddha Nature as a deviation.

Rereading the section on modern scholarship, I think it's fine so. Shiro is being mentioned, though with a reference to Sally B. King. I'll change that one. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 2:29 pm, Today (UTC−5)

@reformatting: Okay. Thought it might be useful, to keep an overview on who's responding to what. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries :) No harm done or anything. It just screwed up my sig, and split my reply in an odd way. The discussion should be easy enough to follow with just 3 people. I have a class to teach, so I haven't yet had a chance to reply. In short, do you have a source you could link to that is available online I could read which might cast some light on the meaning of that sentence? It's still not clear to me. I can expand later if needed. Thanks,   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you, Joshua Jonathan: you have really improved the 'Modern Scholarship' section - excellent work. I also think the 'flux of experience' is good to mention, as that is how Buddhism generally sees the shifting samsaric world. Thanks, too, to Mann Jess: I take your point. I think I'll later add two or three of the 'Self' references from Dolpopa in the Jonang section and try to contextualise them. Now I too must dash off to the university to give a lecture (oh, we are all such busy people - ha ha!). Best wishes to you both. From Suddha (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

@Links for "Flux of experience": not really. I really like Kalupahana's books. Google search on "flux of experience" and Kalupahana gives some links:

• David R Loy (1999), Language against its own mystifications: Deconstruction in Nagarjuna and Dogen
• Kalupahana, A history of Buddhist Philosophy, chapter 5
• Ming-Wood Liu (1985), The Yogaacaaraa and Maadhyamika Interpretation of the Buddha-nature Concept in Chinese Buddhism

Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you, Joshua Jonathan, for the links: kind of you. Best wishes from Suddha (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Joshua Jonathan. Very good work as always. One point, though, regarding the opening portion of the prajnaparamita section of the aritcle: the prajnaparamita sutras generally came before the tathagatagarbha sutras, so one cannot sensibly say (as is claimed in this part of the article) that the former were a reaction against the latter. If anything, it was the other way around: the TG sutras speak out against too all-encompassing and insufficiently differentiated an application of the Emptiness concept, so the tathagatagarbha sutras can perhaps be seen as a reaction to some aspects of the prajnaparamita sutras. This chronology (pp. first, then TG) is indicated not least in the Nirvana Sutra, where the Buddha says in terms that from the prajnaparamita sutras emerged subsequently the TG doctrine/sutras. I note that there is not a specific reference to Kalupahana for that specific claim (that the prajnaparamita texts were a reaction against the allegedly reifying TG scriptures); it seems highly unlikely to me that this scholar would commit such a basic historical solecism as to reverse the order in which these scriptures appeared. I suggest we modify or remove that highly dubious statement. What do you think? Best wishes to you. From Suddha (talk) 12:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hm, that's interesting. I'm going to check Kalupahana! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

In "A History of Buddhist Philosophy" (Motilall 1994) Kalupahana first gives an overview of "Early Buddhism", and then "deals with the constant emergence of absolutist tendencies and an equally persistent attempt by some later Buddhist philosophers to criticize and reject such tendencies" (p.xi). He then treats several of such "tendencies" and counter-"attempts". Listing the counter-"attempts":

• The Kathavatthu
• The prajnaparamita-literature
• Nagarjuna
• Vasubandhu (which is very interesting, since Vasubandhu usually is regarded an idealist. In his "Buddhist psychology", Kalupahana argues that Vasubandhu did not endorse a "mind-only" point of view, but a "concepts in mind-only" point of view. Following Brad Warner on the Lankavatara-sutra I came across a book-review stating almost the same thing, but based on the Lanka: "[E]verything we perceive as being real is nothing but the perceptions of our own mind" )

When connecting the prajnaparamita, Madhyamaka and Yogacara I relied on my memory, instead of checking the source again. So, wrong connection... Thanks for the feedback! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you, Joshua Jonathan, for your usual graciousness and helpfulness. I think your rectification of the 'offending' sentence constitutes a real improvement. Thanks again! Warm wishes from Suddha (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

/1/ Undeniably, the essence of All teachings of ALL schools of Buddhism centres on defining the Buddha nature as "the inherent potential to become a Buddha". But the Article includes views of non-Buddhist armchair "Modern scholars" who come to contradict all traditions of Buddhism and also contradict themselves saying: "This view of the Buddha-nature as non-Buddhist is termed Critical Buddhism".

Such confused statements (that Buddha nature is non-Buddhist) only weakens the totality of the whole article. Another unknown "scholars" say that "Matsumoto Shiro and Hakamaya Noriaki, essentialist....Buddha-nature...at odds with the fundamental Buddhist doctrine of dependent origination", which means that all traditions of Buddhism and their Sutras are wrong and do not understand the essential of Buddhism.

Wikipedia usually asks whether the contributor is knowledgeable about the subject but here we have absolutely nonsensical views and contradicting conclusions.

/2/ The "Modern Scholars" section includes views (on what is Buddha nature as understood) by Paul Williams who practised Buddhism,then changed his beliefs into Christianity and so on... Such opinion on Buddhist doctrine from one who failed to understand and continue his practice of Buddhism is a testimony of shallow understanding of Buddhism. The mentioned scholar uses abstract and floating expressions such as : "simple absence of inherent existence"....The "Simple absence of inherent existence" is a prompt for those concerned about clarity and credibility of Wikipedia Article to question the merit in stuffing the text with such views and confused statements.

/3/ I wonder whether this section was put for the sake of a stuffing material - to show that the Article is "rich". In fact it makes it poor. It makes one click quickly to get out of it.

For example: " Modern scholarship points to the various possible interpretations of Buddha Nature as either Sunyata or an essential self, and Buddha Nature as the inherent possibility of awakening." - But what are these "Various possible interpretations?"

We have here not "various" but 2 interpretations - which are basically similar if not identical. The "Sunyatta" perspective is another expression of "inherent possibility". What the opening sentence of this Section starts with is *nothing new* to what the Article mentioned at length: All traditions agree in essence that Buddha nature is the inherent potential to attain Buddhahood, for example Nichiren's Buddhism statement: "The Buddha nature is the inner potential for attaining Buddhahood", common to all people". So why to claim about "various views" while there is one perspective common to all traditions?

Wikipedia articles should be clear and based on merits not on the length of Article or stuffing condensed arbitrary views based on abstract nature and contradicting concepts, such as in the nonsensical statement of "critical Buddhism" (that Buddha nature is not Buddhist). Lets have the brooms ready. Namaste — Preceding unsigned comment added by SafwanZabalawi (talk • contribs) 07:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello SafwanZabalawi: I have a lot of sympathy with what you are saying. Several years ago the article (and I have been involved with this article for at least 3+ years) almost exclusively quoted the Buddha Nature sutras. I personally think this is far and away the best approach. Unfortunately (from my point of view), Wikipedia prefers that editors quote secondary literature, rather than primary texts (although quoting from the latter is certainly not 'banned' or forbidden). Also, other editors wanted to see a diversity of interpretation of the Buddha Nature concept reflected in the article (which I think is fair enough). In consequence, the viewpoint that Buddha Nature is merely another name for a non-affirming Emptiness, or is not 'real' but merely a metaphor for a potential to become Awakened, was woven into the article. Given Wikipedia's policies, I think this situation (as it currently stands in the article) is acceptable and legitimate. I myself might like to see almost nothing on the 'Buddha Nature as metaphor' approach - but we editors are not here to push our personal beliefs or preferences. We should strive to be fair and reflect the diversity of scholarly / specialist opinion.

Regarding such opinion: you and I may not agree with some of the statements by Professor Paul Williams, for example, but the fact remains that he is one of the West's most respected experts on Mahayana Buddhism. His later conversion to Christianity is neither here nor there - it is totally irrelevant to an encyclopaedia which quotes from recognised experts in the field (and Williams is indubitably one of those).

Finally, on your point that there is only one understanding of the Buddha Nature - as potential in all beings: it is simply not the case that there is only this one view of the Buddha Nature. Firstly, there are the original tathagatagarbha sutras (Mahaparinirvana, Srimala, Tathagatagarbha, Anunatva-Apurnatva, Angulimaliya, etc.) which make it abundantly clear that the Buddha Nature is an actual 'dharma' (entity, 'thing', presence) within each being - just as we have a heart, or a liver, so we also have a 'Buddha Element' (dhatu - or organ) inside us; this is described as being like a solid substance, such as indestructible adamantine, the very essence of the being (but not differentiated into a separate personality or separate 'soul'), the essence of a Buddha, and is immortal, uncompounded and uncreated. Seeing it within oneself liberates one into Nirvana / Awakening. This is the teaching of those primary Buddha Nature sutras. The Lotus Sutra shares this basic vision - speaking of the indestructibility of the Buddha - he has always existed, was never created, and will always exist. Then later commentators (both Eastern and Western) began to say that these teachings are metaphorical only - to encourage people to practice the Dharma: there is not actually any real, truly existent Buddha Principle or Buddha Element in beings. Also, other Buddhists (notably the Gelukpas) interpret the Buddha Nature teaching as a rather low-level teaching, intended for those who cannot 'stomach' the reality of total and universal Emptiness. This view is outright contradicted by the Buddha-nature sutras - but that does not stop the Gelukpas from cleaving to this (scripturally indefensible) viewpoint! Wikipedia has to reflect all these ideas, regardless of whether we think they are 'right' or 'wrong' (from a religious point of view). Whether you and I like them or not (and I think you and I probably do not like some of them at all) is not pertinent to our work on Wikipedia.

Anyway, I hope that my reflections have contributed something worthwhile to the debate. I shall be interested to see what other editors think. Myself, I think the article is reasonably good in its current form and I would not wish to see it radically altered. Best wishes to you. From Suddha (talk) 08:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC) 07:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suddha (talk • contribs)

Using secondary and tertiairy sources, instead of using primary sources, is a basic rule of Wikipedia:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).

And also:

Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. See Wikipedia:No original research.

Pruning the Bodhi Tree has been published by the Nanzan Institute, a well-respected research institute, with a tradition of critical research. Calling those researchers "non-Buddhist armchair "Modern scholars"" is a gross mis-judgement of the merits of those scholars. The personal backgrounds of those scholars are not relevant; what's relevant is whether their research meets academic criteria. As a Dutch Wikipedian said: "Being enlightened is not a criteria for contributing to Wikipedia". Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• I think that Joshua Jonathan expresses the key points very well here. I myself am convinced that the Critical Buddhists are very, very wrong and deluded in their dismissal of the tathagatagarbha doctrines as 'un-Buddhist': but what I myself happen to think, as an individual, is utterly irrelevant. What matters, as Joshua Jonathan has indicated, is that those scholars have published in a format and form which the scholarly community accepts as valid and have contributed hugely to the debate on the Buddha Nature. Critical Buddhism is an extremely important aspect of modern Mahayana Buddhist studies, and it rightly receives mention in this article. Thank you to all for contributing to this discussion! Warm wishes from Suddha (talk) 08:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your generous replies. I'll focus on just one point; are we consistent with Wiki principle in this lengthy article?

• Few weeks ago, when I entered "Nichiren Buddhism view on Buddha Nature" someone blatantly erased it. In Buddhism that action amounts to the slander of "Refusing to listen to others", but let's get into the secular Wiki principles: gagging others from a referenced entry and erasing it is an act of vandalism. Nichiren Buddhism is practiced by millions of Buddhist world wide. Why would the principle you just spoke about here (of referring to diverse views, even Non-Buddhist scholars) cease to work when I entered Nichiren Buddhism's view?

Only after I strongly disagreed and followed up the case, Joshua Jonathan kindly agreed that the entery is valid and was entered again.

• How credible is "Critical Buddhism" to make it a reference and cite it? What temple do they represent? Where? Do they have Sangha? Sutras? Practice? Or they are a group of arm-chair philosophers who want just to criticize (after claiming knowledge about Buddhism). Not surprisingly they arrived to the views that ALL (I repeat: ALL) schools of Buddhism dismiss as nonsense. This is a serious matter weakening the whole article. Critical Buddhism is not supported by any side of Buddhism, and their statements (at least here is inconsistent with logic) - hence its credibility of knowledge about Buddhism is in question. To allow nothing (or few words after struggle to do so) about Nichiren's views - while citing at length others including questionable sides - this is unbalanced entery of data.

• Along what was presented above, Nichiren Buddhism has the right to be presented in this article and the teaching of the Lotus Sutra propagated by the Modern Sangha of the Soka Gakkai has the right to be visible. Please follow this link Daisaku Ikeda and judge for yourself whether the more than 60 books and dialogues on Buddhism and Buddha nature are worth mentioning rather than the contradictions of non-Buddhist views: I quote from Wiki article:

" Ikeda has had dialogues with many people including Arnold J. Toynbee, Linus Pauling, Wangari Maathai, Marianne Pearl, M.S.Swaminathan, Roberto Baggio, Coretta Scott King, Joseph Rotblat, John Kenneth Galbraith, David Norton, Betty Williams (nobel laureate), Ba Jin, and Rosa Parks. Many of his dialogues have been published in various languages.[17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]..."

The Buddha nature is very clearly explained in Nichiren Buddhism based on the doctrine of Ten Worlds of Mind, and their potential emergence. If we have openminded approach and respect to Wiki rules of citing diversity of views then this perspective should also be in the Article. But if there is a constant refusal and avoidance to whatever written on Nichiren Buddhism, then this is a question to Wikipedia: how are we consistent with what we speak about. namaste SafwanZabalawi

• Hi Safwan. I totally and absolutely agree with you that the views of Nichiren Buddhism should be represented here. There is no reason why they should not be expressed in this article. To block them would indeed be an act of censorship (unforgivable in such a context). The only thing which Wikipedia would object to would be a portrait of the Buddha Nature that was excessively biased towards the Nichiren approach. This article tries to cover the main understandings of the Buddha Nature - and certainly Nichiren's view has an important place within this. If you want to add more about Nichiren's teachings on the Buddha Nature, please feel free to contribute the relevant material. It would be best if it were citations from scholars, but direct quotes from Nichiren are also acceptable, as long as you don't add a distorting interpretation to his words (not that you would!). Best wishes to you. From Suddha (talk) 02:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Suddha. Appreciate your message. Will try my best for a short and concise entry. SafwanZabalawi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC).

I have added a concise summary of Nichiren Buddhism's view of the Buddha nature but I had to exclude the categorisation of Nichiren Buddhism as Japanese. He was Japanese, but Buddhism is beyond such shallow classification, and it is offensive to millions of Nichiren's followers who identify themselves as Bodhisattvas not followers of Japanaese traditions. Shakyamuni Buddha belongs to all humanity, not to India, and Buddhism should not be classified under pssport holders - nationalities... this is objectionable. Please take a look at 'Chinese Buddhism" in the article. China now encompasses ALL traditions of Buddhism, not just Zen and Tiantai - as the article wrongly mentions. Additionally, that "Chinese" Tientai's Buddhism had been already correctly mentioned in the section of the Lotus Sutra of the article.

If I may add an anolgy on how to classify Buddism: the power of electricity was first recorded by scientist in Europe, mainly by Volta, an Italian scientist. But we do not call electricity "Italian". It is a natural phonomenon. Buddhism is about the Law of nature, the Dharma leading to enlightenment and should not be categorised by nationalities of temples, but by the name of temples offering its universal teachings.

Nationality classification of Buddhist schools is contardictive to Buddhist humanism, and i urge Article contributors to change the political or national reference - and specify the name of the tradition involved (such as Zen, Tientai, Gelung ...etc.. rather than using political confinement. I am Nichiren Buddhist and I am Australian of Arabic origin. I find in this a true sense of Buddhist humanism.

Buddhism is classified as Threvada and Mahayana,(& Vajrayana an additional school). It would be reasonable to follow this doctrinal classification in the Article - rather than classification based on political borders. SafwanZabalawi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC).

• Hello once more, Safwan. I am not sure whether other editors will share your viewpoint, but I must say that I myself agree with you in principle. I think it would be too limiting to say that Nichiren Buddhism is only 'Japanese Buddhism' (after all, Nichiren's approach to the Dharma was different from that of his compatriot, Kukai, for example), as many people of all different nationalities and cultures worldwide follow that manifestation of Buddhism. I also agree with your broader point that it is not good to classify Buddhism according to nationalities: the Dharma and its manifestations are not Indian, Chinese, Tibetan, or English, but beyond all of that! I think it is much more sensible simply to speak about scriptures and schools (e.g. the Lotus Sutra, Nichiren Buddhism, Pure Land Buddhism, tathagatagarbha sutras, Chan and Zen Buddhism, Pali suttas, Mahayana and Theravada, etc.). As I say, however, I doubt that any other editors will agree with this or to this! Best wishes from Suddha (talk) 09:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The classification under Japan is not meant as a "passport", but as a convenient short-cut to keep an overview of Buddhist history. Of course Buddhism is international, especially in our times. But it's also a fact that specific traditions and schools originated in specific times and countries. So, convenient short-cut to keep an overview. Anyway, thanks for your contribution. And quite interesting to read about your background - international indeed! Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you Joshua and Suddha for your messages. We have an interesting situation here where the "short cut" contradicts the true aspect of the subject (it is short-cutting). Ask any Zen practitioner whether he/she practices Chinese Buddhism. Nichiren (Soka) practitioners are found in 190 countries and their practice is local, nothing to do with anything Japanese.. To term their teaching as Japanese is utterly wrong. This weakens the whole article as it indicates less professionalism in addressing the subject.

There is a simple "short cut" classification of Buddhism : Theravada - Mahayana- Vajtrayana. Nothing more simple than that and it is a classification acceptable to all schools.

Why not re-arrange the Article to reflect this reality. You see, Japanese Buddhism is not only Nichiren's, you have also Pure Land, Shingon, Zen and others all Mahayana. I think geograhical or national reference here should be rethought about.

We don't have German Christianity, English Christianity...etc...and correctly we refer to Protestants, Catholicism, etc... &an article which names Catholicism as Italian Christianity would not be taken seriously SafwanZabalawi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC).

When a religion is brought to a new area, it often adapts to the customs of that area. There are religious branches that are (or were originally) largely defined by the customs that they adapted, such as Southern Baptist or Chinese Buddhism. While it is true that Catholicism is not referred to as Italian Christianity, it is known as Roman Catholicism. - SudoGhost 06:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

You didn't forget to indent. I indented Safwan's reply, and de-indented yours, to avoid a ever-further widening gap at the left margin. Sorry. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 09:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Theravada - Mahayana- Vajtrayana isn't simple either. For example, Tibetan Buddhism and Chinese Buddhism are both Mahayana, yet quite distinct. Both are being mentioned in the article under the header of Mahayana. That Buddhism has grown global doesn't change the origins. Nichiren being global can be mentioned in the article on Nichiren Buddhism. In the article on Buddha-nature the emphasis is on Buddha-nature, it's origins, and the various understandings. Pure Land, Shingon etc. could also be mentioned in the article - though the question is if that's useful. But as it is now the article provides a useful skeleton for inclusion. There is Dutch Protestantism: Nederlands Hervormd, Nederlands Gereformeerde kerken, et cetera. Quite distinct from, by example, Lutherian od evangelical Kirche in Germany. Ask me, and I'll say I practice Chán (though I do call it conveniantialy Zen). Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Well, you said it, Josh, yourself: you do not practice "Chinese Buddhism", so why would you categorise your school as Chinese on the Wikipedia?

Besides what you mentioned that both Tibetan and Chinese Buddhgism are both Mahayana requires rethinking: China contains ALL schools of Vajrayana, Mahayana and Theravada. There is nothing so called Chinese Buddhism. Additinally, Vajrayana (named also Tibetan) is a branch of Mahayana which is incorporated with some local beliefs, and that's why they are distincuished as a separate branch.

This article is NOT about the national-geographocal origin of Temples but on a general doctrine. Chan and Nichiren Buddhism are very close in their interpretation of Buddha nature, because both are Mahayana (not because they are Chino-Japanese). If there is someone who names a certain school as Dutch Christianity then this is not a meryiable model to follow, neither calling Catholicism as Italian Christianity is reasonable.

We r simply speaking about a non professional categorisation which was justified as "short cut", and which can be argued also as wrong. SafwanZabalawi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC).

Italian Christianity? You mean Roman Catholicism? If so then yes, referring to that religion in this way is more than reasonable, it is the standard. When a religion is spread to a new area and adapts to the culture, forming a new unique blend of the culture and the religion, then it is appropriate to refer to it in such a way. This is not unique to Buddhism, nor is it unique to this article. - SudoGhost 16:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, it's a conventional way of categorizing schools and developments in Buddhism. By the way, there are separate articles on Zen, Chinese Chán and Japanese Zen. Chinese Chán is has different characteristics than Japanese Zen. I prefer Chán. More open to the study of sutras (surprise, surprise...) Joshua Jonathan (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• I think it is not serious to refer to Catholicism as Italian Christianity. Was such an identification ever used by any professional source? If you say it is "reasonable" (to name catholicism as Italian) then please show the reference which would have supported this view.

Buddhism, and in particular Nichiren Buddhism I know of, strongly advocates the concept of World Citizenship - and Bodhisattvas in the Lotus Sutra are called "Bodhisattva of the Planet Earth". To assign japanessness to such views is simply contradictive - even laughable. Academic researchers classify Buddhism according to its teachings to attain Arahat stage or Buddhahood, not according to geography. But this is Wikipedia, which is - generaly speaking - taken lightly by most serious researchers. It all depends on how we can make improvement to the quality of the contents. One step was done by allowing me to contribute on the branch of Buddhism I follow, adding to the unbiased approach of Wiki, but other improvements can also be done SafwanZabalawi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC).

Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Philip Kapleau as a source
Hi! I noticed that the Three pillars of Zen by Philip Kapleau is being used as a source at Buddha-nature. I was wondering, how reliable account about Hakuun Yasutani's life the book really is, taking into consideration that Philip Kapleau never received a Dharma transmission and wasn't later even acknowledged by the Sanbo Kyodan school? For example it is said that (Sharf, Robert H. (1995-C), "Sanbokyodan. Zen and the Way of the New Religions", Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 1995 22/3-4)[7]:

Nevertheless, the dangers of defection and schism were not unknown, for just three years prior to Yasutani’s retirement his American disciple, Philip Kapleau, led his own af³liate group to secede from the Sanbõkyõdan. Kapleau’s training was, by Sanbõkyõdan standards, quite rigorous. As mentioned above, he spent almost three years (1953–1956) in the Hosshin-ji sõdõ under Harada prior to his training under Yasutani. He remained with Yasutani for about ten years, serving as translator in dokusan for Yasutani’s foreign students. He returned to America in 1965 and established a Zen Center in Rochester, New York, that was one of the first of its kind in America. Kapleau quickly set about adapting Yasutani’s Zen to the American scene: students wore Western dress and used English chants in the zendõ, they were given Western-sounding Buddhist names at ordinations, and they modified ceremonies and rituals to “accord with our Western traditions” (KAPLEAU 1979, p. 269). Apparently Kapleau took the Zen rhetoric he had been taught quite literally: he considered the outward forms of Zen mere upãya, to be modified in accord with the needs and abilities of his students. As long as he remained true to the experiential essence of Zen, the outward “cultural forms” were of little consequence. Yasutani, however, objected strongly to some of the reforms, notably to the use of an English translation of the Heart Sðtra in the zendõ. These and other factors led to a serious falling-out, and in 1967 Kapleau formally ended his relationship with Yasutani."

The assertions get even more severe, as we can see from here:

David Scates, an ex-student of the Rochester Zen Center, wrote to Yamada asking about Kapleau’s credentials. Yamada’s reply, dated 16 January 1986, included a blunt public statement to the effect that Kapleau never finished his kõans and never received inka. This was accompanied by a long letter to Scates that detailed Kapleau’s inadequacies and lack of training, and even hinted that Kapleau may be guilty of fraud (Yamada suggests that Kapleau might be proffering a precept or kenshõ certificate as a document of transmission; since Kapleau’s Western students know no Japanese, they supposedly would not know the difference)e

The most critical blow against Kapleau, however, can be found here (Lachs, Stuart (2006 / 2008), "The Zen Master in America: Dressing the Donkey with Bells and Scarves", Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Religion, Washington D.C., Nov. 18, 2006 / The International Association of Buddhist Studies Congress, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, June 24, 2008)[8]:

In 1997 Ji’un Kubota roshi, Yamada’s successor as head of the Sanbokyodan sect, answered an enquiry from a Polish Zen group asking about Kapleau’s credentials. He replied that Kapleau did not finish his training, claiming that Kapleau’s fame for the Three Pillars of Zen was undeserved because he [Kubota] and Yamada roshi had translated “all” of the work in the book. He added that Kapleau “was not able to read Japanese” and only made their translation “more understandable” to native English readers. He remarked that Kapleau was arrogant and proud and that he treated Yasutani “abusively and impolitely.” He then proclaimed, “He [Kapleau] is no more a Zen man. His teaching is no more Buddhist Zen but only his own philosophy.”

.

What do you think? =P Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jayaguru-Shishya. Thanks for your feedback; I appreciate your command of sources. Funny thing is, I think that Kubota's commentary underscores the reliability of the reference. The info on the ninth consciousness is in the notes-section, where a scheme is given of the eight or nine consciousnesses, based on a scheme by Haradi. The ninth consciousness is called there "Pure Consciousness" and "Formless Self" (the same term Hisamatsu and Jeff Shore use). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Joshua Jonathan, and thanks for your answer! May I ask you still further, why do you think that Kubota's commentary (according to Lachs) actually underscores the reliability of the reference? =P

Those concepts of "Pure Consciousness" and "Formless Self" are referring to the very Kapleau's book under consideration here. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, if it was actually written by Kubota and Yamada, then (I guess) this idea of a ninth consciousness is supported by them, isn't it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The sources were written by Kapleau and Lachs, and Kapleau's reliability as a source is under question here. The "ninth consciousness", "Pure Consciousness" and "Formless Self", I couldn't find them from either Kapleau or Lachs, can you please specify the source? =P Still, I'd like keep on top whether Kapleau is actually a really nice source or not? xp Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

In the 2013-version it's at page 400; the link is from Holland, so maybe restricted in your part of the world (Ha! Risk! "Attacking Ontario with ten armies"). I tend to thrust Kapleau as a source, but that's my personal preference. So maybe some other voice here? But the point here is: the Lanka's equation of alaija-vijnana and tathāgatagarbha apparently is not supported throughout the (east-Asian) Buddhist tradition. Kapleau's note makes sense in this. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, by the way... Do you have any idea how to edit a table like this: Hakuun Yasutani#Influence? =P Thanks! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I sure do; I created it ;) Template:Zen Lineage Hakuun Yasutani. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hohoho! :D Anyway, I think that chart needs a little bit clarification: at the moment there are dharma heirs and mere teachers all mixed up. For example, Philip Kapleau is placed right below Hakuun Yasutani without any distinction, even Kapleau wasn't a dharma heir of Yasutani. I think the table as such gives a wrong picture that Kapleau would be part of a true Harada-Yasutani lineage with his own heirs and all. =P Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Buddha Nature page
Shouldn't you organize the page into sutric Buddha Nature (for example the Tathāgatagarbha sūtras) and tantric Buddha Nature (for example Mahamudra)? There are 2 Buddha Natures.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh my. You may be right, I don't know. Have you got a few sources or links, so I can read more? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

There are many books that indicate there is a division between sutra and tantra in general.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The article makes this statement about Critical Buddhism:

"This view of the Buddha-nature as non-Buddhist is termed Critical Buddhism."

To me, this sounds as if Critical Buddhism is defined as a disbelief in Buddha-nature. But Critical Buddhism seems to be more about the method of being critical.
I am not sure whether criticism of the concept of Buddha-nature can be labeled as a school of thought. E.g. there are many Theravada scholars who criticize Buddha nature as a) a later development/invention and not part of Gautama Buddha's teachings b) a hindrance to the path. Maybe a section "Criticism" would be more suitable, though I am not familiar with the work of Matsumoto Shiro and Hakamaya Noriaki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathedra87 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I've rephrased the sentence, and moved it forward. I hope it's better now. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Joshua Jonathan. I see you deleted my amendment to the subsection on Buddha-Nature as potential. This is not justified. In fact, it is erroneous to state (as the article currently does) that the original idea was of a potential for Buddhahood, which then developed into an ontological notion. From the very start in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra (which is the first sutra to use the term 'Buddha-Nature' (Buddha Dhatu)), and in the Tathagatagarbha Sutra, the idea is of a real, substantial essence within each being (see Professor Zimmermann on this - a world expert on the TG Sutra), which precicely vouchsafes to that being the potential to fully realise his own indwelling Buddhahood. Buddhahood is possible of realisation because it is already present within! Also - and this is a key point - the Buddha Nature sutras themselves never stress or even seriously discuss the alleged idea of a 'growing Buddhahood' or developing Buddhahood. That is entirely alien to the main thrust and purport of the Buddha-nature notion as articulated in the base sutric texts. The image of the Buddha Embryo is to be understood as a perfect Buddha hidden deep within the being, invisible to normal sight - just as the Buddha was perfectly present in miniature inside the womb of his mother before being physically born on earth. Tathagatagarbha thus means an interior or deeply internally concealed Buddha - NOT a growing, mutating foetus. The former notion was the clear teaching of the primary and seminal Buddha-nature sutras (including the Angulimaliya Sutra), not the latter notion (which has been grafted onto the primal texts by much-later commentators without any real evidence in support of it). So if we want a fair subsection title for that particular section, it should include both aspects - Buddha-nature as essence, and as potency. That is balanced - and reasonable (after all, the section contains quotes supporting both notions, of essence and potentiality). We must present both ideas in the subheading. Otherwise it is out of kilter and flies in the face of what those first Buddha-nature sutras actually state. I therefore have amended the subtitle accordingly. Best wishes to you. From Suddha (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Very nice re-formulation. Best to you too, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you very much, Joshua Jonathan, for formatting the quote I found and for adding the relevant reference. That was kind of you - and is appreciated. Warm wishes - from Suddha (talk) 12:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

This article shouldn't be organized by tradition. It should be organized by classes of literature, i.e. nikayas, Mahayana sutras and Vajrayana tantras.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Can we organize by class of literature?:

• Nikayas
• Tathāgatagarbha Sutras
• Tantras

It would take minimal effort. Just a simple shuffling. And it is more correct. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

i'm sure you've got good reasons to say so, but where does it leave the Avatamsaka and the Lotus? And the influence on Chinese Buddhism? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

You might have tinier Chinese, Tibetan etc. sections at the end:

• Nikayas
• Tathāgatagarbha Sutras
• Tantras
• Chinese Buddhism
• Tibetan Buddhism
• etc.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd never realized (s?z?) how many meanings and interpretations there are to tathagatagarbha. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Why does Jayaguru-Shishya repeatedly delete links to Ratnagotravibhāga?

Hi Dorje108. I deleted it because it is already linked elsewhere in the article. I quoted the explanation in my edit summary: "' "You can use the {{Main}} template to generate a Main article; link ... provided this does not duplicate a wikilink in the text." (WP:BODY))". I hope this helps to clarify! =P Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The article now states:

"The 14th Dalai Lama, representing the Gelukpa School of Tibetan Buddhism, and speaking from the Madhyamaka philosophical position"

does he represent the Gelugpa-school sec here? Or is it his particular understanding, which is blended with Nyingma-teachings? The understanding attributed to him is the same as the Nyingma and Sakhya-understanding:

"According to the Nyingma and Sakya schools, tathāgatagarbha is the inseparability of the clarity and emptiness of one's mind"

And Jeffrey Hopkins also gives the same understanding:

"The basis of purification is the Buddha nature, which is viewed in two ways. One is the clear light nature of the mind, a positive phenomenon, and the other is the emptiness of inherent existence of the mind, a negative phenomenon, a mere absence of inherent establishment of the mind." (Hopkins (1999), Intro to "Kalachakra Initiations", p.15)

(By the way, Hopkins also states "the Mind Only School and the Middle Way School-which hold that the continuum of mind never ends" (p.13) - does Madhayamika state such a continuum?!?) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Lead may be original research or synthesis.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)