Questions On Original Nature

Dharmasharer SG

请问：

（1）若本性清净，为何会起妄念？
（2）若证悟本性，会不会再起妄念？

谢谢！

2 questions for everyone's advice:

(1) If our original nature is pure, how did it become defiled by delusion?
(2) If our original nature is realised, can if be defiled by delusion again?

Thank you!

An Eternal Now SG

Thusness addressed the question of first cause years ago to me, and I wrote this then based on what he said:

Actually we don't have an original nature, we have an empty nature, that has no beginning nor ending. To visualise a purest state from the start is a dualistic view. Emptiness is not a void, not absence of suffering, emptiness is the nature of suffering and all phenomena. Getting 'lost' and becoming dualistic is natural when we develop those conditions that make us 'lost', for example being attached to our luminosity is one of the factor. When condition is there, samsara (dualistic vision) simply manifests...

The assumption that there is a purest state and we will not becoming dualistic is itself a dualistic view. There is no purest state, when condition is there, delusion manifests, every states are dependently originated and are empty, and being empty all states are equally pure. Suffering too is empty and pure. Even the state of delusion is empty and pure but we just don't recognize it due to our karmic obscurations (or deep conditionings, karmic propensities of falsely projecting 'self' and 'inherency') that blinds us from seeing.

And no, realising the luminosity aspect alone can't lead to liberation. As I said... other religions talk about that aspect as well and not just Buddhism, but when its empty nature is not known, it becomes a metaphysical essence, and all phenomena becomes like dust on the mirror. And then there is a mirror reflecting external conditions. That becomes dualistic and 'inherent'. The cause of samsara is still not uprooted, and one of the fundamental causes as Thrangu Rinpoche* stated is the attachment to luminosity due to not perceiving its empty nature. If you read my friend's experience you see that there must be further insights into the anatta and sunyata nature of awareness.

But emptiness is also not just empty, so you must realise the union and inseparability of luminosity and emptiness. Having conviction in our luminous nature as everpresent, never lost, is important, but having glimpses of that pure luminosity is just the beginning and we are still far from perceiving its nature.

* Thrangu Rinpoche answers: If the nature of mind is this all-pervading, brilliant union of luminosity and emptiness, ungraspable, how is it that it could be obscured, even for a moment, let alone lifetime after lifetime?

Next, realization is permanent. But realization does not remove *all* defilements at once, at least usually not - there are rare exceptional cases. Usually it is like emptying the jug of its contents - the odour still can remain. It takes further practice and insights to remove the remainder residue of defilements.

The removal of defilements is permanent.

Aik TC SG

But realization does not remove *all* defilements at once, at least usually not - there are rare exceptional cases. Usually it is like emptying the jug of its contents - the odour still can remain. It takes further practice and insights to remove the remainder residue of defilements.

Here is an equivalent quote from the Khemaka Sutta. In this case, it is more on the 'I am' residual.

SN22.89 - Khemaka Sutta: About Khemaka - "Just like a cloth, dirty & stained: Its owners give it over to a washerman, who scrubs it with salt earth or lye or cow-dung and then rinses it in clear water. Now even though the cloth is clean & spotless, it still has a lingering residual scent of salt earth or lye or cow-dung. The washerman gives it to the owners, the owners put it away in a scent-infused wicker hamper, and its lingering residual scent of salt earth, lye, or cow-dung is fully obliterated.

"In the same way, friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower fetters, he still has with regard to the five clinging-aggregates (form, feeling, perception, fabrications and consciousness) a lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am' desire, an 'I am' obsession. But at a later time he keeps focusing on the phenomena of arising & passing away with regard to the five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance. Such is feeling... Such is perception... Such are fabrications... Such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' As he keeps focusing on the arising & passing away of these five clinging-aggregates, the lingering residual 'I am' conceit, 'I am' desire, 'I am' obsession is fully obliterated."

StriveOn SG

Hi Dharmasharer, I do not know what answer you are expecting, abhidharmic version or down-to-earth version. I share the down-to-earth version.

We are all pure because there is no karmic formations when we were born, (unless you are talking about Karma from previous life). Then we start to have attachments, greed, etc. We do not understand the true nature, thus we are deluded, start to have karmic formations. (refer to: The Four Noble Truths. Dukha is the result of attachments)

If we follow the path (Eightfold path), we can end the samsaric cycles, but there are many stages to it. Each stage forward does not mean we will not fall back because we are still very human. Only when we completely rid ourselves off all attachments (the ten fetters), then we return to our original nature. But do note that it is not easy.

Aik TC SG

Here is part of an article titled ‘Freedom From Buddha Nature’

by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. This would be from the point of view of a Theravadin.

No Innate Nature

.......the Buddha never advocated attributing an innate nature of any kind to the mind — good, bad, or Buddha. The idea of innate natures slipped into the Buddhist tradition in later centuries, when the principle of freedom was forgotten. Past bad kamma was seen as so totally deterministic that there seemed no way around it unless you assumed either an innate Buddha in the mind that could overpower it, or an external Buddha who would save you from it. But when you understand the principle of freedom — that past kamma doesn't totally shape the present, and that present kamma can always be free to choose the skillful alternative — you realize that the idea of innate natures is unnecessary: excess baggage on the path.

And it bogs you down. If you assume that the mind is basically bad, you won't feel capable of following the path, and will tend to look for outside help to do the work for you. If you assume that the mind is basically good, you'll feel capable but will easily get complacent. This stands in the way of the heedfulness needed to get you on the path, and to keep you there when the path creates states of relative peace and ease that seem so trustworthy and real. If you assume a Buddha nature, you not only risk complacency but you also entangle yourself in metaphysical thorn patches: If something with an awakened nature can suffer, what good is it? How could something innately awakened become defiled? If your original Buddha nature became deluded, what's to prevent it from becoming deluded after it's re-awakened?

These points become especially important as you reach the subtle levels of fabrication on the more advanced stages of the path. If you're primed to look for innate natures, you'll tend to see innate natures, especially when you reach the luminous, non-dual stages of concentration called themeless, emptiness, and undirected. You'll get stuck on whichever stage matches your assumptions about what your awakened nature is. But if you're primed to look for the process of fabrication, you'll see these stages as forms of fabrication, and this will enable you to deconstruct them, to pacify them, until you encounter the peace that's not fabricated at all.

An Eternal Now SG

Hi Dharmasharer, I do not know what answer you are expecting, abhidharmic version or down-to-earth version. I share the down-to-earth version.

Don't really agree on the birth part... It seems babies cry, suffer, crave, get angry, etc.

I was told I have a bad temper right when I was born... cried very loudly, very angry, etc.

The defilements of samsara manifest right from Day 1....

But on the path and fruition, I kind of agree.

p.s. now defilements are highly attenuated, what a big change since I practice dharma.... nonetheless I still cannot claim freedom from all defilements.

StriveOn SG

Don't really agree on the birth part... It seems babies cry, suffer, crave, get angry, etc.

I was told I have a bad temper right when I was born... cried very loudly, very angry, etc.

The defilements of samsara manifest right from Day 1....

But on the path and fruition, I kind of agree.

p.s. now defilements are highly attenuated, what a big change since I practice dharma.... nonetheless I still cannot claim freedom from all defilements.

Again, it depends on, to what level our discussion goes. We have Buddha Nature because there is still good in us. Whether we nurture it, or ignore it, it will have profound outcome on our life. If there is no Buddha Nature, we will not be able to see the path that Our Great Teacher showed us. Like an animal running around, maybe one in a million, trillion will walk the path.

At the point of conception, that is, when the sperm meets the egg, what dukkha can we talk about? Even if there is, not much to have any impact. But,.. therafter, the discomfort of being in the womb, etc. Dukkha overcomes us, then we start to have ideas, leading to delusion.

Buddhist philosophies not easy to discuss. But Buddhist Attitude and Cultivation, easier to convey. Most of the time, cannot get an accurate translation of ideas, unless we communicate in Pali. For example, we all know that Dukkha is not Suffering, but we always use Suffering to mean Dukkha. Anywhere that I err, please forgive, and correct. Thanks. (PS. my Pali also half container of water only)

StriveOn SG

For normal people like us, we are unable to completely be free from all defilements. If you really do, then in Theravada terms, you are an Arahant, in Mahayana, Bodhisatva.

simpo_ SG

Hi Strive On,

I agree with AEN... Karmic formation goes way before 'sperm meets the egg'. The fundamental ignorance is passed on life after life. In fact, it is not even occuring only at the conscious level. The erroneous as well as karmic imprints are 'stored/retained' life after life as 'potentialities.'

There are certain 'esoteric' understandings ....that i do not wish to talk about in a forum as it only confuses people even more.

StriveOn SG

Hi Strive On,

There are certain 'esoteric' understandings ....that i do not wish to talk about in a forum as it only confuses people even more.

Just want to say that, actually I also agree with AEN,.. and you. Its a matter of to what level the discussion goes. Like what you said, "life after life", but in Buddhist philosophies, there is no life after life, only consciousness.

Our Great Teacher, before he gives a sermon, he assess the intellectual level of his audience first. Only if permitting, he will give an esoteric sermon. For the same reason, when we discuss, it has to be understood whether we are discussing at the absolute level, or relative level.

In the cyber world, we do not know who our audiences are, that's why I ask for forgiveness and corrections.