Please forgive my ignorance, but doesn’t a “pure Buddha Nature [that] doesn’t change and remains available behind whatever shmuts has gotten in the way” contradict the teachings of emptiness and dependent arising?
That's a good question. The Buddha Nature was not born and does not die, so it's one of the few constants. Dependent arising pertains to all "conditioned" things--everything that had a beginning.
The way it is translated is "all conditioned things," meaning everything made of other things--which is everything you can see, hear, smell, taste, or feel, including thoughts and emotions. The Dhammapada, verse 277, begins "All created things are impermanent." In the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta, the Buddha says: "Whatever is subject to origination is also subject to cessation." It's a phrase he uses in various ways, time and again.
The idea that all things (unqualified) are impermanent is a common misconception about Buddhism, based in part on inadequate translations of what he said, as memorized, passed along for generations, and transcribed into Pali, Sanskrit, Tibetan, etc.
Very interesting. What would be an example of unconditioned thing? Wouldn’t it have to be something that doesn’t exist? I have a hard time understanding how there could be a Buddha nature apart from something which exists.
Here's where we get into the need to understand Buddhism experientially and not only with linear logic. With what's called "nature-of-mind meditation," we come to understand what can't be described adequately with words. That's the pure Buddha Nature, which is both empty and clear, which groks the world in its non-dual or intricately interconnected state, and from which arises compassion, loving-kindness, wisdom, and equanimity. The nature of mind, the Buddha Nature, emptiness, clarity, compassion, loving-kindness, wisdom, and equanimity all exist but are not created. In Sanskrit, there are two words for wisdom--one for wisdom we attain and one for wisdom that's inherent but needs to be unveiled. That's the type of wisdom that's not conditioned. I'd say that love is a prime example of something that exists but is not created. (Here I go, trying to use words for what can't be described in words.)
Ah, I see what you’re saying. Thank you. However, the fact that the nature of mind, the Buddha Nature, emptiness, clarity, compassion, loving-kindness, wisdom, equanimity, and love must be experienced (by dependently arisen, empty beings) would mean that those very uncreated, unconditioned things are also empty and arise dependently with the experiencer - apart from which they couldn’t be experienced or known.
The difficulty I have with the line of reasoning in your post (and in Jim Palmer's) is that religion actually means relationship. It comes from the Latin meaning to connect or to relate. The word religion is coined because it is about relating to God. And in Buddhism it's a bit difficult to say we are trying to 'relate' with our buddha nature because that assumes the two are separate and different and a link needs to be made between the two, when the Buddhist understanding is that we ARE the buddha nature, it is our nature not anything separate.
After thinking about this, I'd call "relationship with one's Buddha Nature" a semantic device to help bridge the relative and absolute. When one has overcome all obscurations and exists entirely in one's Buddha Nature, one is in Nirvana--the final form of Enlightenment. This is perhaps another example of words being inadequate.
Please forgive my ignorance, but doesn’t a “pure Buddha Nature [that] doesn’t change and remains available behind whatever shmuts has gotten in the way” contradict the teachings of emptiness and dependent arising?
That's a good question. The Buddha Nature was not born and does not die, so it's one of the few constants. Dependent arising pertains to all "conditioned" things--everything that had a beginning.
I didn’t realize anything was independent and self-existing. I thought all that exists is empty and dependently arises.
The way it is translated is "all conditioned things," meaning everything made of other things--which is everything you can see, hear, smell, taste, or feel, including thoughts and emotions. The Dhammapada, verse 277, begins "All created things are impermanent." In the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta, the Buddha says: "Whatever is subject to origination is also subject to cessation." It's a phrase he uses in various ways, time and again.
The idea that all things (unqualified) are impermanent is a common misconception about Buddhism, based in part on inadequate translations of what he said, as memorized, passed along for generations, and transcribed into Pali, Sanskrit, Tibetan, etc.
Very interesting. What would be an example of unconditioned thing? Wouldn’t it have to be something that doesn’t exist? I have a hard time understanding how there could be a Buddha nature apart from something which exists.
Here's where we get into the need to understand Buddhism experientially and not only with linear logic. With what's called "nature-of-mind meditation," we come to understand what can't be described adequately with words. That's the pure Buddha Nature, which is both empty and clear, which groks the world in its non-dual or intricately interconnected state, and from which arises compassion, loving-kindness, wisdom, and equanimity. The nature of mind, the Buddha Nature, emptiness, clarity, compassion, loving-kindness, wisdom, and equanimity all exist but are not created. In Sanskrit, there are two words for wisdom--one for wisdom we attain and one for wisdom that's inherent but needs to be unveiled. That's the type of wisdom that's not conditioned. I'd say that love is a prime example of something that exists but is not created. (Here I go, trying to use words for what can't be described in words.)
Ah, I see what you’re saying. Thank you. However, the fact that the nature of mind, the Buddha Nature, emptiness, clarity, compassion, loving-kindness, wisdom, equanimity, and love must be experienced (by dependently arisen, empty beings) would mean that those very uncreated, unconditioned things are also empty and arise dependently with the experiencer - apart from which they couldn’t be experienced or known.
The difficulty I have with the line of reasoning in your post (and in Jim Palmer's) is that religion actually means relationship. It comes from the Latin meaning to connect or to relate. The word religion is coined because it is about relating to God. And in Buddhism it's a bit difficult to say we are trying to 'relate' with our buddha nature because that assumes the two are separate and different and a link needs to be made between the two, when the Buddhist understanding is that we ARE the buddha nature, it is our nature not anything separate.
After thinking about this, I'd call "relationship with one's Buddha Nature" a semantic device to help bridge the relative and absolute. When one has overcome all obscurations and exists entirely in one's Buddha Nature, one is in Nirvana--the final form of Enlightenment. This is perhaps another example of words being inadequate.