Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Tue Dec 23, 2014 6:19 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 708 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 36  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Mind versus Self?
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 6:56 pm 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
JohnRammy wrote:
songhill wrote:
Friend, it is going to be difficult to explain what the self is since you are in bondage to the psycho-physical body which is not the self and belongs to Mara. First of all, what is not the self (anattâ) is only known by a Buddha (VbhA 49 f). Sure, you can read that form or material shape is not the self, etc., but you don't really know that. You've never realized nirvana/nibbana by the inmost self (pratyatman/paccattam) which then means you don't know that the self is the noble witness (A.i.149).


You do realize the whole Tathāgatagarbha Sutras genre is incompatible with mainstream Buddhism right?
I would have to disagree with you. If one considers the Tathagatagarbha as the potential for enlightenment that every sentient being "possesses" then it is not incompatible with mainstream Buddhism (actually that is how mainstream Mahayana Buddhism interprets the teachings). If you consider it as a crypto-Hinduist true self/atman, that is where the problems with mainstream Buddhism begin.
:namaste:

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mind versus Self?
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 7:03 pm 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
deepbluehum wrote:
It's not just a trick to flip the chart upside down in order to break attachment to ideas. There is a consistent message come from the Pali canon to the Tathagata-garbha sutras. As in the Itivutaka, Nibbana is ananta, endless, eternal, etc.
I do not remember saying anything about Nirvana not being eternal. We are talking about anattta/anatman not ananta.
Quote:
The subtlety introduced by Buddha is that the skandhas are not ordinary. In the Vedic system, the body is ordinary, and to shed it is the important task so that the Self can be realized after death. In Buddha-dharma, the Tathagata is not the skandhas and is not apart from the skandhas. The skandhas are not impurities the must be excised. They are primordially emptiness due to the nature of interdependent conditionality. Impurity only comes based on nominal designation: as if treatment, treating the body as if it were real lasting thing. Once we stop that recognition by seeing through it, we recognize nothing truly arises or dissolves, even the skandhas.
Great! I agree! So what? The discussion here about is what constitutes this "true self" that songhill is saying actually exists.
:namaste:

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mind versus Self?
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 7:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Posts: 1302
Location: San Francisco, CA
Quote:
gregkavarnos wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:
It's not just a trick to flip the chart upside down in order to break attachment to ideas. There is a consistent message come from the Pali canon to the Tathagata-garbha sutras. As in the Itivutaka, Nibbana is ananta, endless, eternal, etc.


I do not remember saying anything about Nirvana not being eternal. We are talking about anattta/anatman not ananta.


Nirvana is atman [The True Self] is what the Mahaparinirvana sutra is saying.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mind versus Self?
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 7:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am
Posts: 245
The real deludeds are the self-deniers who don't understand the skillful means of our Lord.

Quote:
“… just as the mother smeared her breasts with a nimba leaf ointment, so too did I say [to my “sick” monks]:‘Meditatively cultivate the understanding that all phenomena lack a self and are empty’.  Just as the child’s mother later wiped her breasts clean and told the child to suckle, saying ‘Before, I could not allow you to suckle at my breasts until your medicinal butter had been digested, but now you can suckle’, so too I instructed [the monks] thus in order that they might be turned away from mundane phenomena, telling them that there is no Self; but now monks, because I teach that the tathâgatagarbha exists, do not be frightened like the child.  Just as the child tested [his mother’s breasts] and then suckled at them, so too do I now teach that you monks should investigate the idea that the tathâgatagarbha exists within yourselves and strenuously apply yourselves to the meditative cultivation of it.” ~ Mahaparinirvana Sutra


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mind versus Self?
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 7:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:42 am
Posts: 88
songhill wrote:
Mahaparinirvana Sutra



Stop reading this heretical stuff. No wonder you are confused.

Switch to the tantric view of Buddha Nature.

_________________
Everything lacks the identity (atman) imputed by mere conceptual labels.


Last edited by JohnRammy on Sun Nov 25, 2012 7:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mind versus Self?
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 7:48 pm 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
songhill wrote:
The real deludeds are the self-deniers who don't understand the skillful means of our Lord.

Quote:
“… just as the mother smeared her breasts with a nimba leaf ointment, so too did I say [to my “sick” monks]:‘Meditatively cultivate the understanding that all phenomena lack a self and are empty’.  Just as the child’s mother later wiped her breasts clean and told the child to suckle, saying ‘Before, I could not allow you to suckle at my breasts until your medicinal butter had been digested, but now you can suckle’, so too I instructed [the monks] thus in order that they might be turned away from mundane phenomena, telling them that there is no Self; but now monks, because I teach that the tathâgatagarbha exists, do not be frightened like the child.  Just as the child tested [his mother’s breasts] and then suckled at them, so too do I now teach that you monks should investigate the idea that the tathâgatagarbha exists within yourselves and strenuously apply yourselves to the meditative cultivation of it.” ~ Mahaparinirvana Sutra
Last chance to answer or I will consider what you are doing as trolling and act accordingly: What constitutes this "true self"?

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mind versus Self?
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 7:57 pm 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
Off topic posts split to here viewtopic.php?f=40&t=10921&view=unread#unread

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mind versus Self?
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 8:01 pm 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
deepbluehum wrote:
Nirvana is atman [The True Self] is what the Mahaparinirvana sutra is saying.
No it's not, it is saying that Nirvana is bliss and that "Self" with a capital "S" is an epithet for the Buddha.
:namaste:

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mind versus Self?
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 8:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Posts: 1302
Location: San Francisco, CA
gregkavarnos wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:
Nirvana is atman [The True Self] is what the Mahaparinirvana sutra is saying.
No it's not, it is saying that Nirvana is bliss and that "Self" with a capital "S" is an epithet for the Buddha.
:namaste:


These terms are fungible in the MPS: Self, Bliss, Eternal, Pure, Tathagata, Nirvana.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mind versus Self?
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 8:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Posts: 1302
Location: San Francisco, CA
gregkavarnos wrote:
songhill wrote:
The real deludeds are the self-deniers who don't understand the skillful means of our Lord.

Quote:
“… just as the mother smeared her breasts with a nimba leaf ointment, so too did I say [to my “sick” monks]:‘Meditatively cultivate the understanding that all phenomena lack a self and are empty’.  Just as the child’s mother later wiped her breasts clean and told the child to suckle, saying ‘Before, I could not allow you to suckle at my breasts until your medicinal butter had been digested, but now you can suckle’, so too I instructed [the monks] thus in order that they might be turned away from mundane phenomena, telling them that there is no Self; but now monks, because I teach that the tathâgatagarbha exists, do not be frightened like the child.  Just as the child tested [his mother’s breasts] and then suckled at them, so too do I now teach that you monks should investigate the idea that the tathâgatagarbha exists within yourselves and strenuously apply yourselves to the meditative cultivation of it.” ~ Mahaparinirvana Sutra
Last chance to answer or I will consider what you are doing as trolling and act accordingly: What constitutes this "true self"?


A writer from a bygone era named George Grimm in "Buddhist Wisdom, The Mystery of the Self," gave a detailed analysis of atta and anatta. In sum, he is saying you get to atta by way of what is an-atta. You can get to this conclusion also by Nagarjuna where he states that all conditioned things are primordially nirvana, meaning without essence, but not nothing because they are also peaceful. So we can understand no-essence is their "atta-hood," their true nature. If we look into our minds, its true nature is also like this. Such is Madhyamaka. While it cannot be pointed to, it encompasses all phenomena, meaning it's Mahamudra. There is nothing to be purified or improved, thus it Self-Perfected from the beginning, meaning it's Great Perfection.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mind versus Self?
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 8:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:42 am
Posts: 88
deepbluehum wrote:
A writer from a bygone era named George Grimm in "Buddhist Wisdom, The Mystery of the Self," gave a detailed analysis of atta and anatta. In sum, he is saying you get to atta by way of what is an-atta. You can get to this conclusion also by Nagarjuna where he states that all conditioned things are primordially nirvana, meaning without essence, but not nothing because they are also peaceful. So we can understand no-essence is their "atta-hood," their true nature. If we look into our minds, its true nature is also like this. Such is Madhyamaka. While it cannot be pointed to, it encompasses all phenomena, meaning it's Mahamudra. There is nothing to be purified or improved, thus it Self-Perfected from the beginning, meaning it's Great Perfection.



pseudo-Buddhist mumbo jumbo

_________________
Everything lacks the identity (atman) imputed by mere conceptual labels.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mind versus Self?
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 8:37 pm 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
So essentially true self is not-self.
:namaste:

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mind versus Self?
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 9:28 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Posts: 5773
JohnRammy wrote:
songhill wrote:
Mahaparinirvana Sutra



Stop reading this heretical stuff. No wonder you are confused.

Switch to the tantric view of Buddha Nature.


Heretical stuff? How so?

_________________
Need help getting on retreat? Want to support others in practice? Pay the Dana for Dharma forum a visit...

viewtopic.php?f=114&t=13727


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mind versus Self?
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 9:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:42 am
Posts: 88
Jikan wrote:
JohnRammy wrote:
songhill wrote:
Mahaparinirvana Sutra



Stop reading this heretical stuff. No wonder you are confused.

Switch to the tantric view of Buddha Nature.


Heretical stuff? How so?


viewtopic.php?f=41&t=80&start=80#p139163

_________________
Everything lacks the identity (atman) imputed by mere conceptual labels.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mind versus Self?
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 10:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am
Posts: 245
Some might argue that it is heretical not to place one's faith in the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra.

Quote:
Again good sons! Just as all rivers flow to the sea, all Sutras and all forms of meditation lead ultimately to the Mahaparinirvana Sutra. Why? Because it expounds in the most excellent manner [the doctrine that all sentient beings] possess the Buddha-nature. ~ Mahaparinirvana Sutra


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mind versus Self?
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 10:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:42 am
Posts: 88
songhill wrote:
Some might argue that it is heretical not to place one's faith in the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra.

Quote:
Again good sons! Just as all rivers flow to the sea, all Sutras and all forms of meditation lead ultimately to the Mahaparinirvana Sutra. Why? Because it expounds in the most excellent manner [the doctrine that all sentient beings] possess the Buddha-nature. ~ Mahaparinirvana Sutra



It specifically says you do not need the Mahaparinirvana Sutra.

_________________
Everything lacks the identity (atman) imputed by mere conceptual labels.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mind versus Self?
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 10:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am
Posts: 245
Let's us hope that the self-denier's mistaken views of self are consumed in the apocalyptic fire.

Quote:
The doctrine of the Self shines brilliantly; it is like the rising of the apocalyptic fire [lit., the fire of the end of the world, yug-anta-agni], burning up the forest of Selflessness, wiping away the faults of the heretics. — Lankavatara Sutra, X: 359, vv. 762-771


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mind versus Self?
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 10:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:33 pm
Posts: 407
songhill wrote:
Pure Mind/âtman essence = water. The whirlpool is the five aggregates of material shape, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness. The deluded beings (puthujjana) are those who attach to whirlpoolness as if it were the true essence (pure Mind/âtman). Karma is the deed of continually attaching to whirlpooliness as being true reality (âtman). It ain't. :sage:


I notice you are using the word atman and equate it with Pure Mind and true reality. It shouldn't come as any surprise that use of the word "atman" is going to raise a few eyebrows in a Buddhist forum like this one. I personally don't get too hung up on words as long as we are clear on the meanings for the outset.

If you identify the qualities of atman as: 1)empty in essence, 2)cognizant (or knowing) in nature, and 3) dynamically expressive (or unconfined) in capacity, I think most here could live with that, even though we would not choose to use the term "atman." Are you in agreement with these qualities for atman? Or, do you prefer to offer a different meaning for the word?

_________________
All things are unworthy of clinging to (sabbe dhammā nâla abhinivesāyā). --Buddha
If there is clinging, you do not have the view. --Drakpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mind versus Self?
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 11:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:42 am
Posts: 88
songhill wrote:
Let's us hope that the self-denier's mistaken views of self are consumed in the apocalyptic fire.



:rolling:

That means you wish for 99% of Buddhism to be destroyed.

_________________
Everything lacks the identity (atman) imputed by mere conceptual labels.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mind versus Self?
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 11:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:58 pm
Posts: 1106
songhill wrote:
As for the subject of eternalism (sassatavada) where in the Buddhist canon does it say that eternalism is a belief that the individual has an unchanging self or soul? It doesn't.... Obviously, the self or attâ is transcendent.

Specifically, it's included in the fourth type of partial eternalism (ekaccasassatavāda) as explained in DN 1:

    Herein, bhikkhus, a recluse or a certain brahmin is a rationalist, an investigator. He declares his view — hammered out by reason, deduced from his investigations, following his own flight of thought — thus: 'That which is called "the eye," "the ear," "the nose," "the tongue," and "the body" — that self is impermanent, unstable, non-eternal, subject to change. But that which is called "mind" (citta) or "mentality" (mano) or "consciousness" (viññāṇa) — that self is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and it will remain the same just like eternity itself.'

And it's a wrong view. Why is it a wrong view? Because it doesn't lead to dispassion, cessation, and the complete extinguishment of fetters — i.e. nirvāṇa.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 708 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 36  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group