Common Anatta Question

[Sherab]

All Mahayana assets that all phenomena have been in the state of nirvana from the start.

I remembered something about Garab Dorje (I think) debating with scholars about the vehicle of no cause/effect (or something to that effect ... memory is beginning to fail me), I had no problem agreeing since I came across many times in the prajnaparamita sutras that the Buddha said that nothing is gained at enlightenment and that there is no dharma that he had taught. So for me, accumulation of merits and wisdom is only a skillful means.

[Tsongkhapafan]

All phenomena are not in the state of nirvana from the beginning. Nirvana is a state that only a person can attain when they become permanently free from all their delusions. All phenomena lack inherent existence and this is sometimes referred to as 'the natural state of nirvana'. It's also true that samsara and nirvana both lack inherent existence, and it is said that from the ultimate point of view they are the same, but that doesn't mean that they are the same thing conventionally. It's easy to make mistakes when addressing a very profound topic such as this as it is very subtle there are many pitfalls.

[futerko]

All phenomena are not in the state of nirvana from the beginning. Nirvana is a state that only a person can attain when they become permanently free from all their delusions. All phenomena lack inherent existence and this is sometimes referred to as 'the natural state of nirvana'. It's also true that samsara and nirvana both lack inherent existence, and it is said that from the ultimate point of view they are the same, but that doesn't mean that they are the same thing conventionally. It's easy to make mistakes when addressing a very profound topic such as this as it is very subtle there are many pitfalls.

You need to make a decision whether they are or aren't. Don't keep chasing your own tail like that.

[PadmaVonSamba]

All phenomena are not in the state of nirvana from the beginning. Nirvana is a state that only a person can attain when they become permanently free from all their delusions. All phenomena lack inherent existence and this is sometimes referred to as 'the natural state of nirvana'. It's also true that samsara and nirvana both lack inherent existence, and it is said that from the ultimate point of view they are the same, but that doesn't mean that they are the same thing conventionally. It's easy to make mistakes when addressing a very profound topic such as this as it is very subtle there are many pitfalls.

You need to make a decision whether they are or aren't. Don't keep chasing your own tail like that.

Tsongkhapafan's statement is correct and not contradictory at all.
The statement "all phenomena have been in the state of nirvana from the start" (malcom)
is essentially accurate, but the wording might be misleading to some.
"in a state of nirvana" means free from the causes of delusion,
and the true nature of awareness--- arising with objects of awareness
is free of delusion, meaning that
when delusions are removed, what remains is unobstructed awareness (nirvana).
Nirvana not something extra that is obtained, that one didn't have before.
It is what occurs when the defilements are permanently removed.
The main pitfall Tsongkhapafan alludes to is thinking that
delusion and non-delusion are the same thing, since they both are empty in nature.
.
.
.

[futerko]

All phenomena are not in the state of nirvana from the beginning. Nirvana is a state that only a person can attain when they become permanently free from all their delusions. All phenomena lack inherent existence and this is sometimes referred to as 'the natural state of nirvana'. It's also true that samsara and nirvana both lack inherent existence, and it is said that from the ultimate point of view they are the same, but that doesn't mean that they are the same thing conventionally. It's easy to make mistakes when addressing a very profound topic such as this as it is very subtle there are many pitfalls.

You need to make a decision whether they are or aren't. Don't keep chasing your own tail like that.

Tsongkhapafan's statement is correct and not contradictory at all.
The statement "all phenomena have been in the state of nirvana from the start" (malcom)
is essentially accurate, but the wording might be misleading to some.
"in a state of nirvana" means free from the causes of delusion,
and the true nature of awareness--- arising with objects of awareness
is free of delusion, meaning that
when delusions are removed, what remains is unobstructed awareness (nirvana).
Nirvana not something extra that is obtained, that one didn't have before.
It is what occurs when the defilements are permanently removed.
The main pitfall Tsongkhapafan alludes to is thinking that
delusion and non-delusion are the same thing, since they both are empty in nature.
.
.
.

That implies that the cause of delusion lies on the side of phenomena, which makes no sense to me.

[Malcolm]

All phenomena are not in the state of nirvana from the beginning.

From a sūtra you hold to be definitive:

Subhuti, further, the Tathāgata has shown that sensations, perceptions, formations and consciousness (which do not inherently exist)— non-arisen, unceasing, peaceful from the beginning — to be in parinirvana inherently; all of that which has been demonstrated is not the indirect meaning, is not the intentional meaning, but should be understood literally.
-- Ārya-pañcaśatikā-prajñāpāramitā

I can provide many other similar citations from the prajñāpāramitā sūtras.

[Malcolm]

when delusions are removed, what remains is unobstructed awareness (nirvana).
Nirvana not something extra that is obtained, that one didn't have before.
It is what occurs when the defilements are permanently removed.

"Here there is nothing to remove,
there is nothing to add.
Look correctly at the real
if the real is seen, liberation."

Abhisamayālaṃkāra-nāma-prajñāpāramitopadeśaśāstrakārikā

[Malcolm]

All Mahayana assets that all phenomena have been in the state of nirvana from the start.

I remembered something about Garab Dorje (I think) debating with scholars...

Manjushrimitra, in fact.

[PadmaVonSamba]

when delusions are removed, what remains is unobstructed awareness (nirvana).
Nirvana not something extra that is obtained, that one didn't have before.
It is what occurs when the defilements are permanently removed.

"Here there is nothing to remove,
there is nothing to add.
Look correctly at the real
if the real is seen, liberation."

....is posting this thus meant to help remove my delusion?

Of course, one has to realize that delusions have no intrinsic reality of their own.
In that sense, yes, there is nothing to remove.
Reminds me of Hui Neng's answer:

菩提本無樹，　Bodhi is fundamentally without any tree;
明鏡亦非臺。　The bright mirror is also not a stand.
本來無一物，　Fundamentally there is not a single thing —
何處惹塵埃。　Where could any dust be attracted?
.
.
.
.
.
.

[dude]

No. I merely thought it was an excellent article that addressed the OP's concerns.
Would you disagree that it's counterproductive to try to ferret out exactly what is or is not reborn versus looking at the process itself and how to end it?
Mahayana in my experience is deliberately vague about what may be underlying the whole process.
To my sense, phrases like "luminous mind" or "the Unborn" aren't meant to be the end of the line of inquiry, which a question like "what is it that gets reborn?" is hoping for.
Whatever answer you get, it's an idea. Great, heap it on the pile. Now let's get to work! That's what I got from that article anyway, not some statement about heresy

Okay, fair enough, thanks for clarifying. I felt I had to ask or we might have just started talking past each other.

[Tsongkhapafan]

From a sūtra you hold to be definitive:

Subhuti, further, the Tathāgata has shown that sensations, perceptions, formations and consciousness (which do not inherently exist)— non-arisen, unceasing, peaceful from the beginning — to be in parinirvana inherently; all of that which has been demonstrated is not the indirect meaning, is not the intentional meaning, but should be understood literally.
-- Ārya-pañcaśatikā-prajñāpāramitā

I can provide many other similar citations from the prajñāpāramitā sūtras.

Sure, that's what I was saying. All phenomena can be said to be in the 'natural state of nirvana' because they have lacked inherent existence always, but strictly speaking nirvana is the peace of mind that is experienced when all delusions have been removed. Only living beings can experience nirvana, inanimate objects cannot, because it is a state of mind. You can say that a person's mind is in the natural state of nirvana from the beginning because it has always lacked inherent existence, but a person is not in nirvana until they have removed their ignorance.

[Malcolm]

but strictly speaking nirvana is the peace of mind that is experienced when all delusions have been removed. Only living beings can experience nirvana, inanimate objects cannot, because it is a state of mind.

There are no aggregates in nirvana. How can it be a state of mind?

[明安 Myoan]

but strictly speaking nirvana is the peace of mind that is experienced when all delusions have been removed. Only living beings can experience nirvana, inanimate objects cannot, because it is a state of mind.

There are no aggregates in nirvana. How can it be a state of mind?

Isn't there nonetheless some partial experience that the mind has in the same way that the eye has a perception of forms? The eye may be impermanent and the experience of apparently external phenomena illusory, but nonetheless there is perception and awareness of perception.
A subjective experience itself isn't nirvana, but it still is useful enough that we bother at all while having the experience of the 5 aggregates.

Maybe that didn't mean anything, but that's how I see things at the moment.

[dude]

but strictly speaking nirvana is the peace of mind that is experienced when all delusions have been removed. Only living beings can experience nirvana, inanimate objects cannot, because it is a state of mind.

There are no aggregates in nirvana. How can it be a state of mind?

Good question, but it can't be oblivion either, or it wouldn't be peaceful abiding, eh?

[dude]

but strictly speaking nirvana is the peace of mind that is experienced when all delusions have been removed. Only living beings can experience nirvana, inanimate objects cannot, because it is a state of mind.

There are no aggregates in nirvana. How can it be a state of mind?

Isn't there nonetheless some partial experience that the mind has in the same way that the eye has a perception of forms? The eye may be impermanent and the experience of apparently external phenomena illusory, but nonetheless there is perception and awareness of perception.
A subjective experience itself isn't nirvana, but it still is useful enough that we bother at all while having the experience of the 5 aggregates.

Maybe that didn't mean anything, but that's how I see things at the moment.

Now we're both on the same page.

[Malcolm]

but strictly speaking nirvana is the peace of mind that is experienced when all delusions have been removed. Only living beings can experience nirvana, inanimate objects cannot, because it is a state of mind.

There are no aggregates in nirvana. How can it be a state of mind?

Good question, but it can't be oblivion either, or it wouldn't be peaceful abiding, eh?

Who stated nirvana was peaceful abiding? Nirvana is peace, meaning a state free from arising or ceasing.

The Mahāyāna analysis holds that as all phenomena never arose from the start, all phenomena have been in a state of nirvana from the start.

Nirvana cannot be oblivion, because "oblivion" means a state of annihilation [where it does not mean a state of unconsciousness].

Nirvana is cessation. Cessation is not annihilation, cessation is the absence of causes for further arising.

For this reason, in Mahāyana, reality is described as non-arisen and unceasing. What has not arisen cannot cease, hence nirvana.

[Tsongkhapafan]

There are no aggregates in nirvana. How can it be a state of mind?

If there are no aggregates, there is no person, therefore nirvana is not different from becoming non-existent. Of course there are aggregates. Nirvana is the experience of a mind that is purified of delusions, and for there to be an experience there must be an experiencer.

[PadmaVonSamba]

There are no aggregates in nirvana. How can it be a state of mind?

If there are no aggregates, there is no person, therefore nirvana is not different from becoming non-existent. Of course there are aggregates. Nirvana is the experience of a mind that is purified of delusions, and for there to be an experience there must be an experiencer.

not exactly.
the experiencer arises from the interaction of awareness and objects of awareness,
and has no intrinsic reality.

There is no actual experiencer reading this post.
Why should one suddenly appear upon the realization of no self?
.
.
.

[Malcolm]

There are no aggregates in nirvana. How can it be a state of mind?

If there are no aggregates, there is no person...

Is there a person in Nirvana? What kind of person?

Aryadeva clearly states in 400 Verses:

• [Since] there are no aggregates in nirvana,
  a person cannot possibly be [in nirvana].

Candrakirti comments on this:

• If there are aggregates in nirvana, there is also a person. At that time, because they exist [i.e. aggregates and persons], in contradiction with sūtra there will be a support that turns into nirvana, and samsara cannot be transcended.

[Tsongkhapafan]

There are no aggregates in nirvana. How can it be a state of mind?

If there are no aggregates, there is no person...

Is there a person in Nirvana? What kind of person?

A mere person, otherwise nirvana is the extinction of existence and the extreme of nothingness.