Mind versus Self?

[Son of Buddha]

"Lotus_Bitch"]

Prove it.

From the Alagaddupama Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.nypo.html:

"There can be, monk," said the Blessed One. "In that case, monk, someone has this view: 'The universe is the Self. That I shall be after death; permanent, stable, eternal, immutable; eternally the same shall I abide in that very condition.' He then hears a Perfect One expounding the Teaching for the removal of all grounds for views, of all prejudices, obsessions, dogmas and biases; for the stilling of all (kamma-) processes, for the relinquishment of all substrata (of existence), for the extirpation of craving, for dispassion, cessation, Nibbaana. He then thinks: 'I shall be annihilated, I shall be destroyed! No longer shall I exist!' Hence he grieves, is depressed and laments; beating his breast, he weeps, and dejection befalls him. Thus, monk, is there anxiety about unrealities, in the internal."

This is refering to the universal self(that is based on Samsara)(the "i" "me")this is what we calll the False Self


actually continue reading the SAME sutta you posted
From the Alagaddupama Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.nypo.html:

Not Yours[44]
40. "Therefore, monks, give up whatever is not yours.[45] Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. What is it that is not yours? Corporeality is not yours. Give it up! Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. Feeling is not yours. Give it up! Your giving it up will for a long bring you welfare and happiness. Perception is not yours. Give it up! Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. Mental formations are not yours. Give them up! Your giving them up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. Consciousness is not yours. Give it up! Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness.[46]
41. "What do you think, monks: if people were to carry away the grass, sticks, branches and leaves in this Jeta Grove, or burnt them or did with them what they pleased, would you think: These people carry us away, or burn us, or do with us as they please?" — "No, Lord." — "Why not?" Because, Lord, that is neither our self nor the property of our self." — "So, too, monks, give up what is not yours! Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. What is it that is not yours? Corporeality... feeling... perception... mental formations... consciousness are not yours. Give them up! Your giving them up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness."(give up everything that is Dependently originated)

Here check this out.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... tself.html

Having taken a seat to one side, Vacchagotta the wanderer said to the Master, 'Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?' When this was said, the Master was silent.
'Then is there no self?' For a second time the Master was silent.
Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.
Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, the Venerable Ananda said to the Master, 'Why, sir, did the Master not answer when asked a question asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer?'
'Ananda, if I, being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self, were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism (i.e., the view that there is an eternal soul). And if I... were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism (i.e., that death is the annihilation of experience). If I... were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?
'No, Lord.'
'And if I... were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: "Does the self which I used to have, now not exist?"'
— S XLIV.10

[Lotus_Bitch]

"Lotus_Bitch"]

Prove it.

From the Alagaddupama Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.nypo.html:

"There can be, monk," said the Blessed One. "In that case, monk, someone has this view: 'The universe is the Self. That I shall be after death; permanent, stable, eternal, immutable; eternally the same shall I abide in that very condition.' He then hears a Perfect One expounding the Teaching for the removal of all grounds for views, of all prejudices, obsessions, dogmas and biases; for the stilling of all (kamma-) processes, for the relinquishment of all substrata (of existence), for the extirpation of craving, for dispassion, cessation, Nibbaana. He then thinks: 'I shall be annihilated, I shall be destroyed! No longer shall I exist!' Hence he grieves, is depressed and laments; beating his breast, he weeps, and dejection befalls him. Thus, monk, is there anxiety about unrealities, in the internal."

This is refering to the universal self(that is based on Samsara)(the "i" "me")this is what we calll the False Self


actually continue reading the SAME sutta you posted
From the Alagaddupama Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.nypo.html:

Not Yours[44]
40. "Therefore, monks, give up whatever is not yours.[45] Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. What is it that is not yours? Corporeality is not yours. Give it up! Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. Feeling is not yours. Give it up! Your giving it up will for a long bring you welfare and happiness. Perception is not yours. Give it up! Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. Mental formations are not yours. Give them up! Your giving them up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. Consciousness is not yours. Give it up! Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness.[46]
41. "What do you think, monks: if people were to carry away the grass, sticks, branches and leaves in this Jeta Grove, or burnt them or did with them what they pleased, would you think: These people carry us away, or burn us, or do with us as they please?" — "No, Lord." — "Why not?" Because, Lord, that is neither our self nor the property of our self." — "So, too, monks, give up what is not yours! Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. What is it that is not yours? Corporeality... feeling... perception... mental formations... consciousness are not yours. Give them up! Your giving them up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness."(give up everything that is Dependently originated)

Here check this out.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... tself.html

Having taken a seat to one side, Vacchagotta the wanderer said to the Master, 'Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?' When this was said, the Master was silent.
'Then is there no self?' For a second time the Master was silent.
Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.
Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, the Venerable Ananda said to the Master, 'Why, sir, did the Master not answer when asked a question asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer?'
'Ananda, if I, being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self, were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism (i.e., the view that there is an eternal soul). And if I... were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism (i.e., that death is the annihilation of experience). If I... were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?
'No, Lord.'
'And if I... were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: "Does the self which I used to have, now not exist?"'
— S XLIV.10

Ok, but in Vacchagotta's case: It was tailored so as not to confuse him, since he held to a notion of an Atman.

[Johnny Dangerous]

"you" are the grass and sticks,its nothing to burn "you"
once you give up the 5 aggreagates their is nothing left to call "you"
the fire goes out("you""self" cease)=nothing
of course this is just my view on the meaning.

Yes, it is..and all the 'true self' stuff is your own, there is nothing in what you quoted that supports that inference.

[deepbluehum]

lankavatara sutra explains true self is a subterfuge to trick those in lesser paths into the path of no projection.

[songhill]

lankavatara sutra explains true self is a subterfuge to trick those in lesser paths into the path of no projection.

Was this subterfuge in order to spare those on the lesser path from the real teachings of the Buddha which is annihilationism (i.e., the self is naught)?

[songhill]

"Lotus_Bitch"]

Prove it.

From the Alagaddupama Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.nypo.html:

"There can be, monk," said the Blessed One. "In that case, monk, someone has this view: 'The universe is the Self. That I shall be after death; permanent, stable, eternal, immutable; eternally the same shall I abide in that very condition.' He then hears a Perfect One expounding the Teaching for the removal of all grounds for views, of all prejudices, obsessions, dogmas and biases; for the stilling of all (kamma-) processes, for the relinquishment of all substrata (of existence), for the extirpation of craving, for dispassion, cessation, Nibbaana. He then thinks: 'I shall be annihilated, I shall be destroyed! No longer shall I exist!' Hence he grieves, is depressed and laments; beating his breast, he weeps, and dejection befalls him. Thus, monk, is there anxiety about unrealities, in the internal."

This is refering to the universal self(that is based on Samsara)(the "i" "me")this is what we calll the False Self


actually continue reading the SAME sutta you posted
From the Alagaddupama Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.nypo.html:

Not Yours[44]
40. "Therefore, monks, give up whatever is not yours.[45] Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. What is it that is not yours? Corporeality is not yours. Give it up! Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. Feeling is not yours. Give it up! Your giving it up will for a long bring you welfare and happiness. Perception is not yours. Give it up! Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. Mental formations are not yours. Give them up! Your giving them up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. Consciousness is not yours. Give it up! Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness.[46]
41. "What do you think, monks: if people were to carry away the grass, sticks, branches and leaves in this Jeta Grove, or burnt them or did with them what they pleased, would you think: These people carry us away, or burn us, or do with us as they please?" — "No, Lord." — "Why not?" Because, Lord, that is neither our self nor the property of our self." — "So, too, monks, give up what is not yours! Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. What is it that is not yours? Corporeality... feeling... perception... mental formations... consciousness are not yours. Give them up! Your giving them up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness."(give up everything that is Dependently originated)

Here check this out.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... tself.html

Having taken a seat to one side, Vacchagotta the wanderer said to the Master, 'Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?' When this was said, the Master was silent.
'Then is there no self?' For a second time the Master was silent.
Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.
Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, the Venerable Ananda said to the Master, 'Why, sir, did the Master not answer when asked a question asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer?'
'Ananda, if I, being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self, were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism (i.e., the view that there is an eternal soul). And if I... were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism (i.e., that death is the annihilation of experience). If I... were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?
'No, Lord.'
'And if I... were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: "Does the self which I used to have, now not exist?"'
— S XLIV.10

Eternalism and annihilationism are all based on the five aggregates which the Buddha repeadtly says are not the self (anâtman) or are not my self (na meso attâ). The Buddha's discrimination between the five aggregate/attributes and his self is absolutely disparate. Astonishingly, some scholars and sectarians miss this. But it is too conspicuous to deny if one has taken the time to read the 159 discourses in the Khandhasamyutta which is part of the Samyutta-Nikaya. The brings up the important spiritual issue that natural human behavior is based on self-indentification is the form of “this is mine”, “I am this”, “this is my self” with regard to the temporal psycho-physical organism (the five aggregates). In so doing, the worldly person (prithagjana) mixes up unreality with true reality. When the Buddha says, again and again, with respect to each aggregate, ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self' he is attempting separate the unreal from the real. Buddhists who do not get it, are still tied to the aggregate system, more specifically sakkaya many of whom without knowing it are annihilationists.

[PadmaVonSamba]

The brings up the important spiritual issue that natural human behavior is based on self-indentification is the form of “this is mine”, “I am this”, “this is my self” with regard to the temporal psycho-physical organism (the five aggregates). In so doing, the worldly person (prithagjana) mixes up unreality with true reality. When the Buddha says, again and again, with respect to each aggregate, ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self' he is attempting separate the unreal from the real. Buddhists who do not get it, are still tied to the aggregate system, more specifically sakkaya many of whom without knowing it are annihilationists.

nope.
.
.
.

[PadmaVonSamba]

People wonder "how can someone experience 'no self'?"
it seems impossible. But actually, we do it all the time.
We just don't notice that we are doing it,
because that would negate doing it.

For example, at this moment, you do not think,
"I am sitting in a chair...I am looking at the computer...I am reading these words..."
(except for the fact that I have suggested it. You weren't thinking it a few seconds ago.)
No, you are just doing it.
It is a direct experience of no self.
Maybe it's not a deeply profound realization of no-self,
but for the present moment, that's what it is,
and the present moment is all there is anyhow.
But as soon as you think,
"I am sitting in a chair...I am looking at the computer...I am reading these words..."
the notion of 'self' arises.
This has nothing to do with the aggregates
and everything to do with the aggregates.
Outside of the mind, where does any notion of 'true self' exist?
'True self' is just another construct.
It gets in the way of realizing, ultimately, no self
because, ultimately, 'no self' isn't even 'no-self'
but goes beyond the duality of 'self' and 'no-self'.
So, sometimes it might be called 'true self'
but there isn't a true 'self'.
.
.
.

[songhill]

People wonder "how can someone experience 'no self'?"
it seems impossible.
.

It's easy. Your corporeal body (rupa) is no self (anattâ). Yep, that is what the Buddha said PadmaVonSamba. Continuing, he said feeling, perception, volitional tendencies, and consciousness are also no self.

"rúpam bhikkhave anattá, vedaná anattá, saññá anattá, sankhárá anattá, viññánam anattá: sabbe sankhárá aniccá, sabbe dhammá anattáti" (Culasaccaka Sutta).

[PadmaVonSamba]

People wonder "how can someone experience 'no self'?"
it seems impossible.
.

It's easy. Your corporeal body (rupa) is no self (anattâ). Yep, that is what the Buddha said PadmaVonSamba. Continuing, he said feeling, perception, volitional tendencies, and consciousness are also no self.

Whose corporal body?
The "true self" 's corporal body?
If something owns this sack of bones,
then it asserts "mine"
and cannot be Buddha nature.
If nothing is owned,
then it is only clinging to the notion of aggregates
that conjures up the false notion of a self
because then the aggregates themselves are of no consequence.

As soon as you assert "let go of the skandhas" you cling to them.
.
.
.

[LastLegend]

What is self?

Self is a concept.

What is no self?

No self is a concept.

That's my conclusion after reading 32 pages.

[Son of Buddha]

"PadmaVonSamba"]

Whose corporal body?
The "true self" 's corporal body?
If something owns this sack of bones,
then it asserts "mine"
and cannot be Buddha nature.
If nothing is owned,
then it is only clinging to the notion of aggregates
that conjures up the false notion of a self
because then the aggregates themselves are of no consequence.

As soon as you assert "let go of the skandhas" you cling to them.

The True Self isnt the corporal body(page 25) no matter how many times we say this you guys just
dont seem to listen.
As soon as you assert "let go of the skandhas"you cling to them.
Okay so as soon as you assert "keep the skandhas" you dont cling to them right?
So are you saying the Buddha was clinging to the skandhas when he told us to "give them up"?

[Astus]

So are you saying the Buddha was clinging to the skandhas when he told us to "give them up"?

The Buddha taught to give up attachment, give up desire, anger and ignorance. Those are the causes of suffering. The skandhas are not, that's why there is nothing to give up about them. What sane person would want to give up their hearing, rationality, etc.? This misunderstanding that the skandhas must be eliminated makes people think there must be a superego, a higher self and a heavenly nirvana. This mistake has nothing to do with shentong, yogacara or buddha-nature, but simply not comprehending the basics, the very essentials of Buddhism.

[Son of Buddha]

So are you saying the Buddha was clinging to the skandhas when he told us to "give them up"?

The Buddha taught to give up attachment, give up desire, anger and ignorance. Those are the causes of suffering. The skandhas are not, that's why there is nothing to give up about them. What sane person would want to give up their hearing, rationality, etc.? This misunderstanding that the skandhas must be eliminated makes people think there must be a superego, a higher self and a heavenly nirvana. This mistake has nothing to do with shentong, yogacara or buddha-nature, but simply not comprehending the basics, the very essentials of Buddhism.

Apparently you didnt read the top of the page(32) before you commented.

The very qoute I posted states to give up the 5 skandhas

Even gives an analogy of burning then and not caring cause they are not our self.

You do know the 5 skandhas themselves are produced from ignorance dont you?(do you need the sutra?)

Do you even know what Zhentong teaches?I think the true mistake is trying change The Buddha Nature sutras and Zhentong into something they are not.

[PadmaVonSamba]

As soon as you assert "let go of the skandhas"you cling to them.
Okay so as soon as you assert "keep the skandhas" you dont cling to them right?
So are you saying the Buddha was clinging to the skandhas when he told us to "give them up"?

The skandhas do not possess any power.
Clinging to therm or not clinging to them
elevates them to a position of concern which is not necessary and only becomes a distraction.
The skandhas possess no ultimate reality of their own
So holding on to them or abandoning them is of no consequence.
But it is only when we fixate upon them as being either good or bad,
as either something to hold onto or something to abandon, that they become something to worry about.
What the Buddha warned about is not letting the mind regard the skandhas and their workings as significant.
Form, feeling, perception, and so on,
They are just there.
How can you abandon them, unless you are in a coma?
The point is not to be tricked into thinking that they constitute a self.
You could say that the one who is either fooled or not fooled is the 'true self'
but that is an expression of comparison.
Because Mind's true nature, when free from attachment and confusion, is fully awake, it is called called Buddha nature.
All beings strive to be perfectly free from suffering, in other words, to realize mind's original nature.
This true nature of the mind is unrealized when one attaches to the notion of 'self' whether as a permanent soul, or the aggregates, or even the idea of a "buddha-self", which is what one is asserting by the idea of "true self" as some kind of permanent thing, like atman.
A buddha mind is free of attachment to the appearances of things.
Regarding the skandhas as one way or another is still being attached to their appearance.
It's like breathing.
If you don't inhale, you die.
If you don't exhale, you die.
Inhaling is a good thing, except when you need to exhale, then it isn't.
Exhaling is a good thing, except when you need to inhale, then it isn't.
So, holding on to either one and negating the other is trouble.
Breathing in and out keeps this corporal body alive
and some day it won't.
So, even though it matters greatly,
it really doesn't.
The point is that you don't have to abandon the skandhas,
just abandon clinging to them as the 'self'
and as something that must be either held onto or let go of.
.
.
.

[Astus]

Apparently you didnt read the top of the page(32) before you commented.

The very qoute I posted states to give up the 5 skandhas

Even gives an analogy of burning then and not caring cause they are not our self.

You do know the 5 skandhas themselves are produced from ignorance dont you?(do you need the sutra?)

Do you even know what Zhentong teaches?I think the true mistake is trying change The Buddha Nature sutras and Zhentong into something they are not.

It says that skandhas are neither I nor mine, that's what is to be given up, namely identification. Eliminating, destroying the skandhas would mean destroying your body and your mind, complete annihilation of all living functions. Apparently both the Buddha and his disciples were alive and well after their enlightenment, and they didn't lack their body or their mind.

[ocean_waves]

What is self?

Self is a concept.
What is no self?
No self is a concept.
That's my conclusion after reading 32 pages.

[songhill]

So are you saying the Buddha was clinging to the skandhas when he told us to "give them up"?

The Buddha taught to give up attachment, give up desire, anger and ignorance. Those are the causes of suffering. The skandhas are not, that's why there is nothing to give up about them.

If I were you I would be more cautious with my pronouncements, Astus. Check the Pali Nikayas first.

"And these five aggregates affected by clinging are dependently arisen. The desire, indulgence, inclination, and holding based on these five aggregates affected by clinging is the origination of suffering" ( M. i. 191).

The following passage then goes on about the cessation of suffering.

[songhill]

What is self?

Self is a concept.
What is no self?
No self is a concept.
That's my conclusion after reading 32 pages.

Not quite accurate. If you want to believe that, fine. But the Buddha never taught that self is a concept. The no-self doctrine of the Buddha teaches that the five grasping aggregates of form, feeling, perception. volitions, and consciousness are not the self. The Buddha even calls the self the "noble witness" (A. i. 149). The unwarranted dogma that the Buddha denied the self cannot be supported by scripture. Strictly speaking, a denial of self is annihilationism which is heresy. The Atthakathas even say the Tathagata is the self. They also say the self is the island, the refuge, the rock, the support, the strength, and so on. Buddhism minus self is absurd.

[PadmaVonSamba]

The unwarranted dogma that the Buddha denied the self cannot be supported by scripture.

Would you disagree with Buddhadasa Bhikkhu's assertion that the Buddha taught:
"Nothing whatsoever should be grasped at or clung to as "I" or "mine." ?
.
.
.