Mind versus Self?

[futerko]

'is to recognize the unity of the self and the ten thousand things.'
All are self, so where are the (ten thousand) others?
I think the key word is unity ....all one unit.

Surely recognizing the identity of the observer and the observed must in some way change the nature of both the self and the other?

[Astus]

The True Self is the Dharmakaya,Buddha,Enlightenment,Pristine wisdom,clear light.
The Buddha is the "thing" that has these qualities(treasure storehouse)

If you had a cup of water,you would say the cup has water in it.
If you had a cup that had nothing in it you would say the cup is Empty,so what is the cup empty of?
It is empty of everything but itself.this is known as Other-Emptyness.
Would you say the cup is empty of Cup also?no you can say it is empty of water or anything you put into the cup,but the cup will still be the cup.
Like wise so is Enlightenment it is empty of everything but itself.
If you say all of Samsara,defilements,suffering are all impermenant and empty,then turn around and say the Buddha is empty also,you are putting the Buddha in the catogory of the created,conditioned and impermenant along with all of Samsara.doing this is known as Empty-Empty.

"The Buddha is the "thing" that has these qualities"

A buddha means a person without defilements.

What is a person?
The five aggregates.
What are the defilements?
Desire, anger, ignorance.
Do we reach a "true self" by removing clinging?
No.
Do we annihilate everything?
No.
Could this person without defilements be called free from all suffering and full of wisdom and compassion?
Yes.
Are the defilements permanently eliminated?
Yes.
Could this be called a permanent state of liberation?
Yes.
Is there really an actual thing or entity that is permanently free from defilements?
No.

[oushi]

All are self, so where are the (ten thousand) others?
I think the key word is unity ....all one unit.

Maybe, the reordering will help here. Self is (like)all, nothing special in it. Every one of those ten thousand things change the self. Self is conditioned in the same way as chair is, but it is conditioned by everything that arises. In other words, ten thousand things make up the fabric of the Self. Self is all, because all makes Self. Nothing can be excluded, as the change takes place in the moment something appears. Everything that arise makes up the self. Buddha is not the Self, although there is no Self without buddha.

[PadmaVonSamba]

"The Buddha is the "thing" that has these qualities"
A buddha means a person without defilements.
What is a person?
The five aggregates.
What are the defilements?
Desire, anger, ignorance.
Do we reach a "true self" by removing clinging? No.
Do we annihilate everything? No.
Could this person without defilements be called free from all suffering and full of wisdom and compassion? Yes.
Are the defilements permanently eliminated? Yes.
Could this be called a permanent state of liberation? Yes.
Is there really an actual thing or entity that is permanently free from defilements? No.

Very nicely put.
I don't know if any of these quotes from various masters will matter to someone quoting from the Pali Canon,
but they express what is generally understood as what the Buddha taught.

If one asserts that a 'self' remains after the skhandas have been abandoned,
(or at least after clinging to them ceases)
If such a self is dependently arisen, it can't be a 'self'.

If it is not dependently arisen, and is what is referred to as 'atman',
then either what establishes it can only be determined
by contrasting it with whatever it is not,
and likewise can't be called a 'self'
or else it has no defining characteristics whatsoever,
and thus cannot be called a 'self'.

Any way you work it, no 'self' .
.
.
.

[Astus]

The great Master Dogen said, "To study the Buddha Way is to study the self, to study the self is to forget the self, and to forget the self is to be enlightened by the ten thousand things." To be enlightened by the ten thousand things is to recognize the unity of the self and the ten thousand things.

Dogen says "forget the self" from which you make "unity of the self and the ten thousand things". How so? Without self what do you unify? But if you have self to unify it is not forgotten.

On the other hand, Dogen continues with these words:

"To be confirmed by all dharmas is to cast off one's body and mind and the bodies and minds of others as well. All trace of enlightenment disappears, and this traceless enlightenment continues on without end." (Genjokoan)

[futerko]

Is there really an actual thing or entity that is permanently free from defilements?
No.

This is the crux of the issue. Clearly there is some "self", but at the moment we reach directly for non-duality we re-enter the cycle. This "self" must be viewed as dependently originated and as a representative of Buddhadharma in relation to not-self (just aggregates) and emptiness. As Astus' quote shows, the very notion of a self IS the defilement - one cannot just directly become the embodiment of non-dual "emptiness" - Shakyamuni clearly realised this during his lifetime and that is precisely why he avoids making the kind of megalomaniacal claims we see from other esoteric practitioners.

This is exactly the difference between the idea of Buddha and of God. With the idea of God there is some kind of totality which is actual. With Buddha the idea of an actual totality is always a step away and must remain so - the moment one reaches for it, one falls straight back into a cyclical rebirth.

[futerko]

All are self, so where are the (ten thousand) others?
I think the key word is unity ....all one unit.

Maybe, the reordering will help here. Self is (like)all, nothing special in it. Every one of those ten thousand things change the self. Self is conditioned in the same way as chair is, but it is conditioned by everything that arises. In other words, ten thousand things make up the fabric of the Self. Self is all, because all makes Self. Nothing can be excluded, as the change takes place in the moment something appears. Everything that arise makes up the self. Buddha is not the Self, although there is no Self without buddha.

[songhill]

It bears repeating that our self is not exhausted by the five aggregates which means we have the ability to transcend them. Still we continue to grasp the aggregates, cling to them and imagine ourselves to consist in them even though the aggregates are suffering (S.iii.158) which is the first noble or ariyan truth. There is nothing redeeming about these aggregates. They equated with Mara the demon.

"When there is form, Radha, there might be Mara, or the killer, or the one who is killed. Therefore, Radha, see form as Mara, see it as the killer, see it as the one who is killed. See it as a disease, as a tumor, as a dart, as misery, as really misery. Those who see it thus see rightly. When there if feeling ... When there is perception ... When there are volitional formations ... When there is consciousness, Radha, there might be Mara, or the killer, or the one who is killed" (S.iii.189) (trans. Bhikkhu Bodhi.)

When we cling to the aggregates not only are we clinging to suffering but we are clinging to Mara. Some have yet to realize that it is easier to know what I am not (e.g., the five aggregtes) than what I am. With the former we can thoroughly abandon desire for whatever is not our self whereas to imagine what the self or my self consists in, is never certain. More than likely it is one of the aggregates which ends up being a wrong view of my self. What I imagined my self to consist in turned out to be transient and suffering rather than permanent.

It is difficult to see where the current theory is going that, fundamentally, there is no self. It paints a very unsystematic and confusing picture of the Buddha's teachings which sounds more like materialism. It is much easier to take the position that my self is greater than the sum of the aggregates; which is not bound by their limitations. This ends up making Buddhism systematic and not confusing.

[futerko]

It is much easier to take the position that my self is greater than the sum of the aggregates; which is not bound by their limitations. This ends up making Buddhism systematic and not confusing.

That's because thought wants a bottom line, some kind of totality, to grasp the truth, to secure a system. Confusion shows that one has moved beyond the limits of thought.

[Karma Dorje]

If it is not dependently arisen, and is what is referred to as 'atman',
then either what establishes it can only be determined
by contrasting it with whatever it is not,
and likewise can't be called a 'self'
or else it has no defining characteristics whatsoever,
and thus cannot be called a 'self'.

Any way you work it, no 'self' .

Take for example then this quote from the Karling terma:

As for this sparkling awareness, which is called "mind,"
Even though one says that it exists, it does not actually exist.
(On the other hand) as a source, it is the origin of the diversity of all the bliss of Nirvana and all of the sorrow of Samsara.
And as for its being something desirable; it is cherished alike in the Eleven Vehicles.
With respect to its having a name, the various names that are applied to it are inconceivable (in their numbers).
Some call it "the nature of the mind" or "mind itself."
Some Tirthikas call it by the name Atman or "the Self."
The Sravakas call it the doctrine of Anatman or "the absence of a self."
The Chittamatrins call it by the name Chitta or "the Mind."
Some call it the Prajnamita or "the Perfection of Wisdom."
Some call it the name Tathagatagarbha or "the embryo of Buddhahood."
Some call it by the name Mahamudra or "the Great Symbol."
Some call it by the name "the Unique Sphere."
Some call it by the name Dharmadhatu or "the dimension of Reality."
Some call it by the name Alaya or "the basis of everything."
And some simply call it by the name "ordinary awareness."

Look to the meaning, not just to the words.

[Astus]

The Satta Sutta (SN III.189 / 23.2) says that one should "Practice for the ending of craving for form. ... feeling. etc.", and while it says that "smash, scatter, & demolish form ... feeling. etc.", the point is to remove craving toward form, etc., and not to remove form itself. Removing form would mean that immediately one would become incorporeal, something that did not happen to the Buddha and his disciples.

[songhill]

It is much easier to take the position that my self is greater than the sum of the aggregates; which is not bound by their limitations. This ends up making Buddhism systematic and not confusing.

That's because thought wants a bottom line, some kind of totality, to grasp the truth, to secure a system. Confusion shows that one has moved beyond the limits of thought.

Thought (mano, manoviññāṇaṃ) is trying to see what my self is as something determinate—a posited thing. Needless to say this project always fails. Thought (mano, manoviññāṇaṃ) nor the senses nor the aggregates can be, for us, a metric. Even thought is to be abandoned (S.iv.16-17). The Buddha teaches us dharma for abandoning (pahânam) all (sabbm) through direct knowledge and full understanding (abhiññā pariññā) (ibid). Rather thought is a confusion maker, for want of a better term.

[songhill]

The Satta Sutta (SN III.189 / 23.2) says that one should "Practice for the ending of craving for form. ... feeling. etc.", and while it says that "smash, scatter, & demolish form ... feeling. etc.", the point is to remove craving toward form, etc., and not to remove form itself. Removing form would mean that immediately one would become incorporeal, something that did not happen to the Buddha and his disciples.

S.iii.189 (Mārasuttaṃ) speaks seeing rightly, for the purpose revulsion, which is for dispassion, which is for liberation and the purpose of liberation is for nibbana/nirvana. Accesstoinsight's citation is incorrect. The PTS for the Sattasuttaṃ is S.iii.190 in regard to "smash, scatter, & demolish form, etc.

[Astus]

Songhill,

What do you say for this? "Removing form would mean that immediately one would become incorporeal, something that did not happen to the Buddha and his disciples."

[gregkavarnos]

"Now, there are forms cognizable via the eye — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing. If a monk does not relish them, welcome them, or remain fastened to them, he is said to be a monk freed from forms cognizable by the eye. He has not gone over to Mara's camp; he has not come under Mara's power. The Evil One cannot do with him as he wills.

"There are sounds cognizable via the ear...

"There are aromas cognizable via the nose...

"There are flavors cognizable via the tongue...

"There are tactile sensations cognizable via the body...

"There are ideas cognizable via the intellect — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing. If a monk does not relish them, welcome them, or remain fastened to them, he is said to be a monk freed from ideas cognizable by the intellect. He has not gone over to Mara's camp; he has not come under Mara's power. The Evil One cannot do with him as he wills."

This still does not say that one abandons form and mind, it says that one abandons relishing, cherishing and fastening.

[songhill]

Songhill,

What do you say for this? "Removing form would mean that immediately one would become incorporeal, something that did not happen to the Buddha and his disciples."

This is not something the Buddha said. The Buddha might say that form is not my self (ditto with the rest of the aggregates). We are already incorporeal but clinging to the aggregates and believing that we consist of aggregates (sakkaya) has made it seem otherwise for us. It a way, we have to give up the illusion of being particulate (khandha).

[catmoon]

Its an odd thing - suddenly threads all over the board are converging on a single topic - the nature of the self.

What does everyone think of the idea of locking them all and starting a new thread that would get everyone under one roof?

[PadmaVonSamba]

Its an odd thing - suddenly threads all over the board are converging on a single topic - the nature of the self.

What does everyone think of the idea of locking them all and starting a new thread that would get everyone under one roof?

selfish?

[Astus]

This is not something the Buddha said. The Buddha might say that form is not my self (ditto with the rest of the aggregates). We are already incorporeal but clinging to the aggregates and believing that we consist of aggregates (sakkaya) has made it seem otherwise for us. It a way, we have to give up the illusion of being particulate (khandha).

You interpret the Buddha's teaching on the aggregates in a way that it becomes eliminating the aggregates themselves, it is not something the Buddha himself said. And he could have never said it anyway. Why? Because speaking requires functioning aggregates.

[Astus]

Its an odd thing - suddenly threads all over the board are converging on a single topic - the nature of the self.

What does everyone think of the idea of locking them all and starting a new thread that would get everyone under one roof?

If you are happy to bring all raised issues under one thread without making the OP a huge one it sounds fine.