Last year, Thusness wrote in a discussion with a follower of early Buddhism who doesn't identify with Theravada,
"The
key issue about authenticity is centered on the idea of whether
authenticity is based on the 'words of Buddha' or the 'teaching
of Buddha'. All the four tenet systems have claimed their authenticity
and each generation based on their experience, studies and realizations
attempt to integrate these four tenets. If (authenticity is) strictly
based on the 'words of the Buddha' then Mahayana isn't by definition
Buddhism, of course.
...Yes Nixon, Vajrayana has
their culture incorporated into Buddhism. But when we talk about
Mahayana teaching, I think the cultural aspect has to be put aside.
Rather, we should look at Mahayana as a development based on the
'teaching'. It is a development over time about what exactly is the
right understanding of the 'teaching'.
...Many are
linked to political systems and which sect is in power and their
'closeness' to the ruler, so we also cannot assume popularity as
authentic either.
...We have stripped out those
magical elements and fantasies when talking about the teachings as well.
Many are simply metaphorical. Great teachings often blend themselves
into cultures and teachers often used their cultural background settings
as a base to explain and make people understand the deeper 'meaning' of
certain ideas. Now, we must also understand that 'logic' is not the
only way of understanding. Some insights are triggered not with rational
induction or deduction theory. So a development of a great teaching to
allow someone to understand something deep requires us to have
multifaceted discipline and instrument.
We are not
just a rational being. We dream and fantasize.. to understand our
nature, our suffering, our way of understanding, we got to know
ourselves too. When attempting to know what Buddhism has developed into a
particular trend, these are all needed. However for deciding whether
what is authentic, these are not needed."
Thusness then discussed the Tathagatagarbha teachings:
"Tathagatagarbha
is a potentiality, the idea that everyone has the capacity to actualize
oneself to Buddhahood. Invented as part of a reaction towards the
strong movement of Hindu culture. Hinduism is basically based on Brahman
and Atman - the eternal Self, and Buddhism's anatta is a direct
contradiction against that. It is for this reason that Mahayana
developed. In all the four tenets, the middle way, the yogacara, the
sutra school and Vaibhashika, all are based on the fundamental
understand of the three universal characteristics.
That
said, in every system, there is surely some of those hiccups that
deviate from the definitive view. Even in Theravada, we see the Thai
Forest traditions promoting Poo Roo - The One Who Knows, as ultimate.
Many foreigners in the West that are less informed can mistaken that to
represent the teaching of the Buddha too. There are those who go even
further to say that Anatta implies 'not self' as the five aggregates are
'not self' and the essence of the teaching of anatta is to find the
True Self, quoting instead the Kevatta Sutta on the luminous mind and
consciousness without features.
Buddha Nature is thus not a problem peculiar to Mahayana, in all traditions we see this.
To
me, I'm a non-sectarian, so I am quite free not having prejudice
for/against Theravada, Mahayana or Vajrayana. We get our experience and
teaching to release, as well as to relief ourselves from our suffering
from a great teaching.
To come to our understanding
of what is the fundamental cause of our suffering, and the core teaching
of Selflessness is not that straight forward. We experiment and test
our paradigm to see if it works. It is a life experience and journey.
In
my experience and journey, there is essential two paths. First is
taking and seeking comfort in the ultimate and carrying it throughout,
and the other, is looking into the fundamental core of suffering and
understanding its nature. So there are basically these two - one relies
on the essentialist practice that they need to have an ultimate, and the
other says no... there is no need to, you just have to understand the
nature of suffering. Therefore when we clearly see this, we realize that
Buddhism is based on the latter, and the whole development of Theravada
and Mahayana is based on such a system. Otherwise there is no
difference from other (religions). As such it depends on an individual
path and which core system one believes in.
For me,
the essence view has in a certain sense proven to not be the way and I
greatly appreciate the Buddha's path. To state otherwise would mean that
Buddhism is using the view of an essence to solve suffering, which
isn't true for me."
"I just appreciate Buddhism as a
beautiful teaching and Buddha as my teacher, as a student doing
something for a teacher... nothing more than that. I seldom participate
in discussion as I am not a scholar and cannot contribute much."
"It's
not in my nature to seek Buddhism. I have a strong Taoist background
and passion for Hinduism when I was young. So philosophically and
culturally, essencelessness is not a view that suits me. But it takes
painful experiences to come to a willingness to let go, to see the truth
of impermanence and anatta. To challenge and come to an understanding
that you don't actually have to do this and that.... (or have an)
ultimate here and there to release. But rather to truly accept and look
deeply into impermanence, then you will let go and we can come to a new
understanding of the relationship of suffering and the truth of
suffering having to do with a fundamental paradigm we hold so dearly.
..Your
mindset and experience can change, so is your understanding, and you
just begin a new path with new understanding. Impermanence from
personal, micro and macro view. You see when you see impermanence and
use it as a door in practice, your view changes also, from Vipassana
observing the minutest sensations in our bodily sensations to
appreciating a view in current quantum physics, macro view, to observe
events. So our idea changes and we adopt such understanding in our life
over time. Sometimes it really depends and it needs the right condition
and situation to trigger it, just like the case of financial crisis."
...
[24/3/19, 11:17:05 PM] John Tan: From the perspective of clarity, it is true that Buddhism anatta and emptiness is more profound and deep… lol. But still good to caution about respecting all religions and practice. Why empty clarity is only pointed out in buddhism. So although it is true about all points to pure consciousness, it is realizing the emptiness that is the prajna eye to allow us to clearly see the empty nature of clarity. Otherwise we will most likely land in alaya or [be] required to still in deep stillness of samadhi.”