Ponder

This morning I’m pondering this paragraph p.113 in Buddha Nature by Sallie King:

However, rather than being a negation of such basic Buddhist thought, this sort of language is the logical extension of it. The prajñaparamita literature, for example, says that all dharmas, or things, are "unborn." In prajñā thought, all things are unborn because there is no own-nature (svabhava) to be born or to die. It is by virtue of the dynamics of sunya (based on the principle of pratityasamutpada) that this qualifier "unborn" is logically necessi-tated. The theory of pratityasamutpada indicates that all things come into existence (are "born") due to causes and conditions, and yet, by virtue of that very principle, everything is said to be empty of own-nature (insofar as they are dependent), hence unreal (not truly existent as independent entities), hence incapable of birth and death or for that matter of not being born and not dying. Thus, the meaning of unborn is "unrelated to the dualism of birth and no-birth"; it is necessitated by every step of pratityasamutpada-sunya thought.

Sallie King quote

From Buddha-Nature (1991) p.33:

“The world is not chaotic, we need not be lost in it. There is a principle, discoverable by humans, manifesting the order of the universe. By realizing this principle (more closely, by bringing ourselves into accordance with this principle) we may discover this truth of the universe, which also is the truth of our own nature. This is a reason for rejoicing, and the author of the BNT felt it imperative that this be made clear.”

BTN is Buddha Nature Treatise by Paramartha (Fo Xing Lun)

This is more consolation than confirmation. The text after that is a complicated elaboration of the ideas of Buddha Nature. 

Here is a later quote (p.49):

Thusness, then, is the fundamental basis of the tathagatagarbha. The author expands on the meaning of this Thusness by identifying it as the sum of two elements: the knowledge of Thusness and the realm of Thusness. The term translated here as "knowledge" (shi) is, as mentioned earlier, a standard term for the subjective, whereas "realm" (jing) is a standard term for the objective. Ordinarily the shi is the cognizer and the jing the cognized. In the case of the knowledge of Thusness (ru-ru-shi) and the realm of Thusness (ru-ru-jing), the former is the knowing that accords with the principle of Thusness, and the latter is the known that accords with that principle. Because, the author says, the two "stand together," the term Thusness as ru-ru is coined to embrace them simultaneously. As such it represents the unity of their mutuality. All of this-the ru-ru Thusness with both its subjective and objective constituents-is given in explanation of the single "Thus" of tathāgatagarbha (the ru of ru-lai-zang). (Footnotes removed)

Found a Green Tara Mantra on SoundCloud.

How does one take the depth of a retreat out into ordinary life? First off, one remembers what it feels like to go so deep. Second, you commit to ethics as part of the gladening. Third, you don’t cling to experience, you observe it, with the best quality of attention you can muster, body, feelings, mental processes, and mind. Fourth, you remember to remember the Dharma of your experience and the Dharma you understand. Fifthly mindfulness is a self fulfilling prophecy. If you wish to be aware on retreat and off retreat, on the cushion and off the cushion, your mind will attract the bits that support that and challenge that.

Buddha-Nature

Before I go into studying this book, I'm going to express my reservation. Having Buddha nature in us still doesn't absolve us from practice to get there, the hard spade work, and it's not a foregone conclusion even if you postulate Buddha nature. 

My second qualm is to wonder if it's imported Hinduism. Everyone is god, everything is god, yadda yadda. We're all Buddhas. 

Even so, Buddhism evolves, and develops ideas. We need to use our brains for something and it's fun to study Buddhism. There's an extensive literature on Buddha nature (Wikipedia). Why not look at it?

I haven't seen a more clear articulation of Buddha nature than this video of Kamalashila's 30 minute introduction to a retreat in 2020 on YouTube. He says he's said the story before, he just intimates how thinking about Buddha nature really opened things up for him. He didn't examine it from a philosophical point of view, nor a literary point of view, he asked himself if it would help his practice of Buddhism. And it did. Wonderful. Sympathetic joy to him. I feel like I need to begin to ask if it could help my practice.

Sallie King has a book called Buddha Nature (1991), that came out in 1991. I have to read it now.

Here's a review of the book on jstor. It's not long and mostly a summary. 

This is a complicated book:

I see things in terms of ideas that set the continuum. To counter the excessive individualism of going for enlightenment, the Bodhisattva ideal pushes the altruistic element. 

On the one hand mappo posits that there's been such a degradation of society that nobody can get enlightened any more. The Buddha's life is too remote, his influence has waned, and nobody can get enlightened anymore. 

Countering mappo is Buddha-nature says you're already enlighten and you're trying to realize it. Everyone has Buddha-nature. Icchantika is the idea of a person who can't become enlightened. 

Links:

Buddha Nature Wikipedia

Tathāgatagarbha sūtras