Alright hit this Buddhist with your best shot!

[Milton Platt]

For the mind aspects I think yes, depending on how strictly you mean emperical. Buddhism is skeptical of materialism, however. We don't aim to have our views emperically validated historically speaking because we hold that this insistence is materialist in origin, and materialism itself is an incomplete picture. It relies on treating our faculties as more trustworthy than they are. I won't lie to you that traditional Buddhism has faith aspects. We put faith in the Buddha and trust that he had the awakened dharma eye of full enlightenment. That he knew things only the enlightened know.

I'm an atheist, as my profile indicates....but this is interesting and I don't mean to be argumentative with my questions. Thanks for your patience..
From my perspective, everything we know about the universe is material or an outgrowth of the material.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Oh you're good

Your questions are fine

 

[sayak83]

I am a layman, so I may not have as informative an answer as a teacher. In my school, Buddha nature is believed to be the essential nature of everything, as in most Mahayana schools. I've seen this described as a play of Amida Buddha in a preface to his Mantra, and I'm sure there are other explanations. My school believes Samsara is generated because of several thousand realities, seemingly seperate, converging at any given moment. It also teaches that seeming individuality and unity are both in a degree true. That we shouldn't necessarily deny the feeling of being something- just the feeling.

What is this Buddha nature?

 

[Buddha Dharma]

At very least, Mahayanists view it as the potential to become a Buddha, but I go with the view it is the Buddha actually prevading the universe- which Shakyamuni and all Buddhas come forth from. Schools that historically accept this view have stories that one is born a Buddha, and Brahma knows that person immediately when they are born in his realm. Brahma is said to have attended the Buddha's birth in one such story, and appeared in the guise of the Vedic holy man to announce he would become enlightened.

 

[sayak83]

At very least, Mahayanists view it as the potential to become a Buddha, but I go with the view it is the Buddha actually prevading the universe and what Shakyamuni and all Buddhas come forth from. Schools that historically accept this view have stories such as one being born a Buddha, and Brahma knowing that person immediately when they are born in his realm. Brahma is said to have attended the Buddha's birth in one such story, and appeared in the guise of the Vedic holy man to announce he would become enlightened.

If all reality constitutes of Buddha nature, then doesn't every one and everything have it and be it necessarily?

 

[Buddha Dharma]

If all reality constitutes of Buddha nature, then doesn't every one and everything have it and be it necessarily?

They do actually, is my understanding. Samsara is due to ignorance of that. Buddhist masters have said the enlightened know no difference between the world of Nirvana and Samsara.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Buddhism doesn't underestimate how thick the veil of ignorance is though! If no Buddhas taught the Dharma, how many would ever be likely to seek to overcome dualism?

 

[sayak83]

They do actually, is my understanding. Samsara is due to ignorance of that. Buddhist masters have said the enlightened know no difference between the world of Nirvana and Samsara.

So reality is essentially Buddha Nature and Buddha's are the beings who have realized this directly? Correct?

If so. We now have a name for the ultimate constituent of reality. But what are its distinctive characteristics? For, with some qualities, the name is just an empty sound.

 

[Terese]

Are you familiar with the Hindu concept of Atma? If so, what do you think are the differences between the atma and buddha nature?

 

[Brickjectivity]

The Buddha taught suffering is inevitable in the cycle of Samsara. That is because everything here is in ignorance. You asked a few good questions that I will try my best to do justice.

We don't suffer because of alcohol etc, but because of clinging and relying on that as a crutch.

As for monasticism, it is a choice, but I have a very interesting view about it. I'm not sure a monk is superior to a layman, and all the rules might be because some individuals need them. The Vinaya Pataka, which is the monastic rules, were dictated by the Buddha because some of the monks had real problematic devious impulses like sleeping with animals. This is what we are told.

To be brief, a monk may not be of the best disposition through rebirth and they need such a rigorous discipline to follow. I think a layman can have a superior disposition to some monks.

I hope I did okay answering

Ok. That was easy for you, so lets open a can of worms.

What does the Buddha say about technology? Is it pointless? Is it redundant? Is it unnatural, good, bad? You know that it has resulted in many deaths, so what about that? Should we get rid of our electrical and chemical technology and live without it?

Why are there gods and demons in Buddhist writings?

Should humanity embrace one language or should it continue to have multiple languages?

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Believe it or not, Buddhists try to avoid saying what Ultimate Reality is too much, because we don't underestimate the deceptiveness of the mental faculties, which words themselves are produced by. With the faculties always dividing based on impressions of their limited ability. Nonetheless, we do say some very minimal things about Ultimate Reality. For instance, the Heart Sutra says that all Dharmas are not created, destroyed, stained, or pure- without loss and without gain. This means that Ultimate Reality is without a lot of the conceptions we try to assign things and is uniquely complete and non-dualistic.

Buddhism is more about experiencing directly Buddha-nature. This is one of the reasons a Buddhist might meditate, because when we receive real profound insight into the nature of the mind, this is thought to come through a brief touching of Nirvana- spontaneously like reaching through a veil to touch something. The Jhana states are also a kind of touching and the transformation in the person is because their contact transformed them enough to burn away some of the qualities grounded in false views.

Any words we will use about it are only necessary evils as it were. This is why the Buddha taught anatta, which by the way- I don't think he was denying an atman by doing. He was aware of some of the dualistic views the atman concept has been taken to represent.

Ultimate Reality is permanent and unconstructed, for the Buddha says it is what one attains by breaking free of the constructed. It is is permanent because it is not subject to the temporal nature and changingness of material phenomena.

I'm sorry if this doesn't help very much.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Are you familiar with the Hindu concept of Atma? If so, what do you think are the differences between the atma and buddha nature?

Heh, I was just kind of touching on that in my other answer.

I think the Buddha had his reasons for avoiding the atman conversation, but I don't think he denied it. There were early schools of Buddhism like the Pugdalavadans that absolutely affirmed it. They kept it unstained by speculation though by saying we only know an image of it through the Skandhas. This image was called the Pugdala.

 

[Thief]

I'll answer respectful questions about myself and my Buddhist practice

after your last breath.....then what?

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Ok. That was easy for you, so lets open a can of worms.

What does the Buddha say about technology? Is it pointless? Is it redundant? Is it unnatural, good, bad? You know that it has resulted in many deaths, so what about that? Should we get rid of our electrical and chemical technology and live without it?

Why are there gods and demons in Buddhist writings?

Should humanity embrace one language or should it continue to have multiple languages?

Heh, you do like to ask the good ones (lol)

The Buddha wasn't aware of our modern technology of course, but I think he'd say if it can be used for good- do it. I don't think it is always used in a good way. Most of our modern technology could be used for good though. Like I think we're using the internet for something good. Buddhists try to think about what is skillful, and that includes what is expedient. I don't think we need to go to the extreme of getting rid of technology.

There are gods and demons in Buddhist writings because we very much affirm the unseen realm. Historically at least because not all modern Buddhists believe in these things. I do, however, so you're in luck. For us gods are the unseen beings described in the Vedas and various world mythologies. They brought about some of the conditions we exist in here, as the world of forms goes. Some of them are good and some malevolent. Some have taken refuge in the Triple Gem, which means they became Buddhists essentially. One deity said to have done this is Indra.

Demons are beings in lower births/realms in Buddhism that envy humans and the gods. Some Bodhisattvas like Jizo and Kuan Yin have made emptying hell realms their priority.

I talked about faith aspects of Buddhism earlier and the gods happen to be one. In the sense that the Buddha had the awakened eye of enlightenment, and it's said could see deities clearly. He spoke with Brahma according to accounts of his enlightenment. I have asked the Devas for things on occasion and had miracles happen. In Buddhism it is also seen as good to be kind and loving toward these beings, since we believe they exist. In every daily practice, I ask all deities that might be present to take refuge in the Triple Gem if they please.

I think languages are skillful means. Meaning what put them to the use of having a society, but one language would suffice if the world is ready.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

after your last breath.....then what?

Well then I ultimately reincarnate into what I believe will be a better life, since one of the merits of the Buddhas is to make those that take refuge not be reborn into lesser births. This all the way up to enlightenment is the general historical view. I also think it's possible Amida, the Buddha of Infinite Light, may take me to his Pure Land to better teach me the Dharma.

 

[sayak83]

Believe it or not, Buddhists try to avoid saying what Ultimate Reality is too much, because we don't underestimate the deceptiveness of the mental faculties, which words themselves are produced by. With the faculties always dividing based on impressions of their limited ability. Nonetheless, we do say some very minimal things about Ultimate Reality. For instance, the Heart Sutra says that all Dharmas are not created, destroyed, stained, or pure- without loss and without gain. This means that Ultimate Reality is without a lot of the conceptions we try to assign things and is uniquely complete and non-dualistic.

Buddhism is more about experiencing directly Buddha-nature. This is one of the reasons a Buddhist might meditate, because when we receive real profound insight into the nature of the mind, this is thought to come through a brief touching of Nirvana- spontaneously like reaching through a veil to touch something. The Jhana states are also a kind of touching and the transformation in the person is because their contact transformed them enough to burn away some of the qualities grounded in false views.

Any words we will use about it are only necessary evils as it were. This is why the Buddha taught anatta, which by the way- I don't think he was denying an atman by doing. He was aware of some of the dualistic views the atman concept has been taken to represent.

Ultimate Reality is permanent and unconstructed, for the Buddha says it is what one attains by breaking free of the constructed. It is is permanent because it is not subject to the temporal nature and changingness of material phenomena.

I'm sorry if this doesn't help very much.

It did help. Because you did say something about it.

"Ultimate Reality is permanent and unconstructed, for the Buddha says it is what one attains by breaking free of the constructed. It is is permanent because it is not subject to the temporal nature and changingness of material phenomena."

This would be the nature of Buddha nature that one seeks to glimpse by meditation. Correct?

Is Nirvana different from this Buddha-nature? By the way, what is the real word in Pali/Sanskrit for Buddha-nature?

What are the Dharma-s referred to in heart sutra? How are these related with Buddha-nature?

 

[Thief]

Well then I ultimately reincarnate into what I believe will be a better life, since one of the merits of the Buddhas is to make those that take refuge not be reborn into lesser births. This all the way up to enlightenment is the general historical view. I also think it's possible Amida, the Buddha of Infinite Light, may take me to his Pure Land to better teach me the Dharma.

most believe Man to be....top of the line life form

so.....you have control?.....the next form is your choice?

if not your choice.....then Who chooses for you?

 

[Buddha Dharma]

most believe Man to be....top of the line life form

so.....you have control?.....the next form is your choice?

if not your choice.....then Who chooses for you?

I believe karma has something to do with rebirth. That is, actions and result. Buddhism historically has taught karma is very tied with rebirth. I did mention however, that I have faith that what Mahayanists have historically believed is true. That a Buddhist is protected by the Buddha merits against a lesser rebirth.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Is Nirvana different from this Buddha-nature? By the way, what is the real word in Pali/Sanskrit for Buddha-nature?

What are the Dharma-s referred to in heart sutra? How are these related with Buddha-nature?

Nirvana is interesting because in some Mahayana schools it's talked about as an unconstructed state that is an actual state. The Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are said to 'dwell on the farshore of Nirvana'. I won't speculate about that. One of the prayers one can use to open a Buddhist liturgy though asks the Buddha, that though he has long since passed into Nirvana, to look with sympathy on these meager offerings (the liturgy is an offering, as well as incense, etc) and act for everything's benefit.

I am not sure of the exact word for Buddha-nature in Sanskrit just now, but I know it's tied with the Dharmakaya. I don't feel collected enough to tackle your Dharma question just now.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I'll mention about Pugdalavada and the Atman because I think some of you could really appreciate it- that because this is one of the extinct early schools I like, I've experimented with some of their views. Whenever I envisioned myself as an unstained mysterious self, universal and free from the illusions produced by the faculties- I entered one of the deepest meditative trances I ever have. I couldn't see straight at first afterward.