"the Self is real" according to T. Page

Whether you're exploring Buddhism for the first time or you're already on the path, feel free to ask questions of any kind here.

Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page

Postby Malcolm » Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:22 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Which is to merely say that they are objects of false cognitions, which when examined cannot be found to exist or be produced in anyway at all.

Since your argument is thus, too, an object of false cognitions,
can it be found to exist or be produced in anyway at all?

If they are not produced in any way at all,
even as hallucinations, then there is no samsara,
not even relatively.
If that's the case, why practice Dharma
since it too cannot be
"...found to exist or be produced in anyway at all."
.
.
.


I can but cite Candrakirti on this point:

Reflections are not real, but using them we smarten our appearances.
In just the same way we should understand that arguments
That have the power to to cleanse the face of wisdom,
Unlike your limping sophistries, engender the realization of the goal.

But if the reasoning that proves our point were something were truly real,
and real also the point itself that should be understood,
then arguments of contact and the rest indeed would have some truth.
But this is not the case, Your own fatigue is all you have achieved.

But we can demonstrate with easy cogency
That all phenomena lack a real intrinsic being.
The contrary indeed you cannot prove,
So why ensnare the world in webs of false logic?

(MV, verses 175-177, Introduction to the Middle Way, Shambhala, 2002.)
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12567
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page

Postby Tsongkhapafan » Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:43 pm

I can quote Madhyamakavatara too to support dependent production:

If you say that causes do not produce effects, then so­-called effects do not exist;
And without an effect there is no reason for a cause, and they do not exist.
Since both of these are just like illusions, we are not at fault;
And worldly people's things exist.

VI. 170
User avatar
Tsongkhapafan
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:36 am

Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page

Postby Malcolm » Tue Jan 28, 2014 11:00 pm

Tsongkhapafan wrote:I can quote Madhyamakavatara too to support dependent production:

If you say that causes do not produce effects, then so­-called effects do not exist;
And without an effect there is no reason for a cause, and they do not exist.
Since both of these are just like illusions, we are not at fault;
And worldly people's things exist.

VI. 170



Conventionally, of course. Then you have to understand that conventions will not bear analysis.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12567
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page

Postby conebeckham » Wed Jan 29, 2014 12:51 am

Tsongkhapafan wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Tsongkhapafan wrote:they have a relative degree of reality.


Which is to merely say that they are objects of false cognitions, which when examined cannot be found to exist or be produced in anyway at all.


We must agree to disagree as we hold different views of the two truths.

If things are not produced they do not exist and they do not function, so there are no conventional truths. It's incorrect to say that things are not produced in any way at all, because if that where true, they wouldn't appear. Things are produced dependently and exist in that way, including the path to enlightenment. I don't disagree that our cognition with respect to how things exist is false, but relatively they exist and function which you seem to be denying. This is an extreme.


It's not an extreme at all. At the level of no analysis, "conventional truth" operates according to laws of production, cause and effect, etc. No one disputes this. To do so would be foolishness. One cannot say there are no appearances of conventional truth, at our level.....THAT would be an extreme.

But at the level of any analysis, there is no existence that can be found, with regard to conditioned phenomena. Things appear without existence. One must understand they appear to sentient beings, who are ignorant and therefore take conventional truth to be real. There is no such quality as an "inherent existence of a given phenomenon" that is separable from that given phenomenon. To assert some sort of "existence" of any sort on any Conditioned Phenomenon is the extreme that must be avoided.
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.
User avatar
conebeckham
 
Posts: 2789
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Thu Jan 30, 2014 2:51 pm

An excerpt from the Queen Srimala Sutra (section 13):

Intrinsic Purity of the Mind

"Lord, samsara is based on the Tathagatagarbha. It was with reference to the Tathagatagarbha that the Lord pointed out and explained, '[It is] without limit in the past.'

Since there is the Tathagatagarbha, there is reason for speaking of 'cyclical flow' (samasra). Lord, as to 'cyclical flow,' no sooner do the sense organs for perception pass away than it [the Tathagatagarbha] takes hold of sense organs for perception, and that is 'cyclical flow.' Lord, the two natures, 'passing away' and 'rebirth' are conventional terminology for the Tathagatagarbha.

Lord, 'perished' and 'born' are conventional terminology for the world (loka). 'Perished' is the loss of the senses. 'Born' is the renewal of the senses. But, Lord, the Tathagatagarbha is not born, does not die, does not pass away to become reborn. The Tathagatagarbha excludes the realm with the characteristic of the constructed.

The Tathagatagarbha is permanent, steadfast, eternal. Therefore the Tathagatagarbha is the support, the holder, the base of constructed [Buddha natures] that are nondiscrete, not dissociated, and knowing as liberated from the stores [of defilement]; and furthermore is the support, the holder, the base of external constructed natures that are discrete, dissociated, a nd knowing as not liberated.

"Lord, if there were no Tathagatagarbha, there would be neither aversion towards suffering nor longing,
eagerness, and aspiration towards Nirvana. What is the reason?
Whatever be these six perceptions, and whatever be this [other] perception, these seven natures are unfixed, momentary, and lack experience of suffering; hence these natures are unfit for aversion towards suffering or for longing, eagerness, and aspiration towards Nirvana.

Lord, the Tathagatagarbha has ultimate existence without beginning or end, has an unborn and undying nature, and experiences suffering; hence it is worthy of the Tathagatagarbha to have aversion towards suffering as well as longing, eagerness, and aspiration towards Nirvana.

"Lord, the Tathagatagarbha is neither self nor sentient being, nor soul, nor personality.

The Tathagatagarbha is not the domain of beings who fall into the belief in a real personality, who adhere to wayward views, whose thoughts are distracted by voidness.
Lord, this Tathagatagarbha is the embryo of the Illustrious Dharmadhatu, the embryo of the Dharmakaya, the embryo of supramundane dharma, the embryo of the intrinsically pure dharma.

"Lord, this intrinsic purity of the Tathagatagarbha stained by adventitious secondary defilements is the domain of the Tathagata, who is the inconceivable master. Why so?
The virtuous consciousness, being momentary, is not defiled by defilements; and also the unvirtuous consciousness, being momentary, is not defiled by defilements.
Lord, since neither do defilements touch that consciousness nor does that consciousness touch defilements, in that case, how does consciousness, having a noncontacting nature, get defiled?

Lord, there is both the defilement and the defiled consciousness. Therefore, the meaning of the defilement on the intrinsically pure consciousness is difficult to understand. The Lord alone has the Eye, the Knowledge for it. The Lord is the root of all Doctrines. The Lord is the omnipotent being. The Lord is the resort."
The Lord, having heard Queen Srimala explain matters difficult to understand, sympathetically rejoiced and said, "Queen, exactly so! It is difficult to understand the meaning of the intrinsically pure consciousness in a condition of defilement.

Queen, these two Doctrines are difficult to understand: the consciousness intrinsically pure is difficult to understand; and the defilement of consciousness is difficult to understand. Queen, you as well as the Bodhisattvas possessed of the great Doctrine are able to hear these two Doctrines.
Queen, the rest, the Disciples, accept the two Doctrines only through faith in the Tathagata.


Please note that Tathagatagarbha is not a "self nor sentient being, nor soul, nor personality".
So then, what does it describe? What is meant by "Buddha Nature"?
Is there some tiny Buddha inside of each being, trying to get out? No.
All beings strive. They strive for contentment, to get what they want and to avoid getting what they don't want.
Ultimately, they strive for what the Buddha achieved, which is the perfect cessation of the cycle of endless craving.

Beings either follow paths that lead them to this perfect cessation (the Buddha's teachings) or they follow other paths which do not lead to this (a shopping spree at the mall, for example).

Tathagatagarbha describes the true nature of mind. It does not infer a separate being or separate mind essence.

And that true nature of mind is without any notion of permanent self. It is "permanent" only in the sense that it is the unchanging, original nature of Mind. Other than that, it is unconstructed. It isn't a "thing".

Relatively speaking, it is the permanent goal to which all actions...confused, and enlightened, are aimed at reaching, which is free from any sort of constructs (atman) whatsoever.

In some ways, "Tathagatagarbha" is sort of like an adjective...and adjective without a noun. It's like the "clear" in "clear water", which describes water's original, pure nature. "Clear" by itself isn't a thing. There is no permanent "essence of clear" that pervades water, yet we can say that "clear" is always, or permanently water's original, true nature. It's not as though some water is originally a certain color, some cloudy. All water is originally, permanently clear. So, the sentence above, "...The Tathagatagarbha is permanent, steadfast, eternal." should be understood this way, as "...the support, the holder, the base..." and not as some kind of "self".
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page

Postby Matt J » Thu Jan 30, 2014 5:32 pm

I don't think people have the same definition of "real" or "exist."
The Great Way is not difficult
If only there is no picking or choosing
--- Xin Xin Ming

http://nondualism.org/
User avatar
Matt J
 
Posts: 208
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:29 am

Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page

Postby smcj » Thu Jan 30, 2014 5:42 pm

Matt J wrote:I don't think people have the same definition of "real" or "exist."

Good point. :good:
A human being has his limits. And thus, in every conceivable way, with every possible means, he tries to make the teaching enter into his own limits. ChNN
smcj
 
Posts: 2156
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page

Postby Son of Buddha » Thu Jan 30, 2014 6:19 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:Please note that Tathagatagarbha is not a "self nor sentient being, nor soul, nor personality".
So then, what does it describe? What is meant by "Buddha Nature"?
Is there some tiny Buddha inside of each being, trying to get out? No.
All beings strive. They strive for contentment, to get what they want and to avoid getting what they don't want.
Ultimately, they strive for what the Buddha achieved, which is the perfect cessation of the cycle of endless craving.

(Queens Srimala Sutra)
O Lord, the tathāgatagarbha is not a substantial self,
nor a living being, nor ‘fate,’ nor a person. The tathāgatagarbha is not a
realm for living beings who have degenerated into the belief of a substantially
existent body or for those who have contrary views, or who have minds
bewildered by emptiness.


you misrepresent the Queen Srimala Sutra. this passage is not saying there is no True Self it is only saying the Buddha Nature is not a Self of Phenomena or anything that is worldly/individual personality, or a substantial phenomena.

In the Tathagatagarbha Doctrine there is a difference between the Self of Phenomena and the True Self
,Dolpopa Actually speaks on this topic in his mountain Doctrine.
"Having bowed to that which, though isolated from all phenomena, is the body of uncontaminated, innumerable attributes, Though devoid of a self of phenomena and of persons, is the Thusness, Self and Pure Self.
Though beyond all extremes of existence and non existance, permanence and annihilation, resides as just permanent, stable and everlasting.

now you state that the Queen Srimala Sutra is against the ALL ideas of Self this is simply not true, if this was true then it wound not say thus:

(slightly different translation of Waymans 11-12 the one refuge and wayward stage but you will get the same message)
“O Lord, living beings have contrary ideas when they have acquired the
five psychophysical elements of the individual.
The impermanent is considered permanent,
suffering is considered happiness.
The substantial self is considered the transcendental self,
the impure is considered pure. The knowledge
of all arhats and pratyekabuddhas has not originally apprehended the
Dharma body of the Tathāgata nor the realm of his omniscience.
If there are living beings who believe in the Buddha’s words, they will have thoughts
of permanence, of happiness, of self, and of purity. These are not contrary
views but are correct views.

Why? The Dharma body of the Tathāgata is the
perfection of permanence, the perfection of happiness, the perfection of the self, and the perfection of purity.

Those who see the Dharma body
of the Buddha in this way are said to see correctly. Those who see correctly
are the true sons and daughters of the Buddha.
They arise from the Buddha’s
words, from the True Dharma, and from conversion to the Dharma, attaining
the remaining benefits of the Dharma.


your views on this teachings are in direct contradiction to the actual text,if one were to accept your views they would have to say Chapter 13 of the Queen Srimala Sutra is in direct contradiction of chapter 11-12 of the Queen Srimala Sutra....that would make no sense at all.

instead the passage should be seen in its actual context:the actual context being that the True Self is established as correct view in chapter 12, in chapter 12 it further goes on to state the wayward views one of which is people take the self of phenomena and consider it to be the True Self (known as the 4 inversions taught in Nirvana sutra chapter 11)

wayward stage
“O Lord, living beings have contrary ideas when they have acquired the
five psychophysical elements of the individual.
The impermanent is considered permanent,
suffering is considered happiness.
The substantial self is considered the transcendental self,


NOW the quote you provided comes in the next chapter (13) this quote in no way denounces the True Self in chapter 12 it only further elaborates on the incorrect wayward views of people concerning the True Self(Buddha Nature) that is touched on in chapter 12.

(chapter 13) O Lord, the tathāgatagarbha(True Self) is not a substantial self,
nor a living being, nor ‘fate,’ nor a person. The tathāgatagarbha is not a
realm for living beings who have degenerated into the belief of a substantially
existent body.


SEE.

In some ways, "Tathagatagarbha" is sort of like an adjective...and adjective without a noun. It's like the "clear" in "clear water", which describes water's original, pure nature. "Clear" by itself isn't a thing. There is no permanent "essence of clear" that pervades water, yet we can say that "clear" is always, or permanently water's original, true nature. It's not as though some water is originally a certain color, some cloudy. All water is originally, permanently clear. So, the sentence above, "...The Tathagatagarbha is permanent, steadfast, eternal." should be understood this way, as "...the support, the holder, the base..." and not as some kind of "self".

refuted in chapter 12 with further elaboration on what the True Self isn't in chapter 13



P.S. also another funny note most people dont know the View of Shentong is derived from the Queen Srimala Sutra.

(chapter 8-9) meaning of emptiness
“O Lord, there are two kinds of wisdom of emptiness with reference to
the tathāgatagarbha.

The tathāgatagarbha that is empty is separate from,
free from, and different from the stores of all defile ments.

And the tathāgatagarbha
that is not empty is not separate from, not free from, and not different
from the inconceivable Buddha-Dharmas more numerous than the
sands of the Ganges River.

“O Lord, the various great disciples can believe in the Tathā gata with
reference to the two wisdoms of emptiness. All arhats and pratyekabuddhas
revolve in the realm of the four contrary views because of their knowledge
of emptiness.
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 963
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page

Postby dzogchungpa » Thu Jan 30, 2014 6:28 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:"Lord, the Tathagatagarbha is neither self nor sentient being, nor soul, nor personality. "

Here's what the translator of your quotation, Alex Wayman, says in his introduction to "The Lion's Roar of Queen Srimala":
Queen Srimala also stresses that the Dharmakaya as the purified Tathagatagarbha has the four exclusive attributes of permanence, pleasure, self, and purity, which are conventionally the four wayward views.

See: http://preview.tinyurl.com/kwqlhl3
ཨོཾ་ཏཱ་རེ་ཏུཏྟ་རེ་ཏུ་རེ་སྭཱཧཱ༔
User avatar
dzogchungpa
 
Posts: 2273
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page

Postby Son of Buddha » Thu Jan 30, 2014 6:51 pm

"Son of Buddha"
the personal identity "I" uses The realitive conditioned methods to remove all the defilements that obscure the Dharmakaya,the "I"/my name is one of those defilements that is removed.....all that remains is the unconditioned......

"Sherab Dorje" So conditioned means/methods lead to unconditioned ends. The conditioned mind strips away defilements to reveal the unconditioned?

yes you are the conditioned consciousness and through effort of your conditioned consciousness you strip away the defilements of you(including you)
To whom/what is the unconditioned state revealed to? To itself?

it is revealed to nobody, to say the unconditioned state is revealed to Greg,is to say Greg is real and it is Greg who posses Enlightenment.
for guys who who are against any kind of idea of self you do try to hold unto yours as much as you can........ so Greg WHO experiences enlightenment...do YOU Greg experience enlightenment?
Enlightenment is always Enlightenment.....it is never Enlightenment plus Greg.
If the conditioned is seperate to the unconditioned, then why would the unconditioned need to be revealed?

if you want to hold unto Greg then don't worry about it......
Given it is permanent it means that it is there (revealed) all the time.

no its obscured under defilements so it is not "revealed"
If it is there all the time, that means it has to be here and now as well. If it is here now, then I am enlightened here and now in this conditioned state too.

No cause you are not Enlightenment......which is exactly my point.
are you Unconditioned Enlightened? No
so you are Conditioned Samsaric being? YES
further proves what i say about the seperation of conditioned from the unconditioned.

Chapter X
The One Noble Truth
“O Lord, among these four noble truths, three are impermanent and one is
permanent. Why? Because three of the [four] noble truths are conditioned.
What is ‘conditioned’ is impermanent and what is ‘impermanent’ is false
and deceptive in nature. What is ‘false and deceptive in nature’ is not true,

is impermanent, and is not a refuge. Therefore, the [three] noble truths,
namely, ‘there is suffering,’ ‘there is the source of suffering,’ and ‘there is
the path,’ are not the supreme truth for they are neither permanent nor a
refuge.”
39
Chapter XI
The One Refuge
“The one noble truth, namely, ‘the extinction of suffering,’ is separate from
the conditioned.
What is ‘separate from the conditioned’ is permanent. What
is ‘permanent’ is not false and deceptive in nature.
What is ‘not false and
deceptive in nature’ is true, permanent, and a refuge. Therefore, the noble
truth of the extinction [of suffering] is the supreme truth.”
41
222a
Chapter XII
The Contrary Truths
“The noble truth of the extinction [of suffering] is inconceivable, transcending
all the conditions of the consciousness of living beings.
This is also not the
knowledge of arhats and pratyekabuddhas who, like those born blind, cannot
see all shapes; or like a week-old infant who cannot see the disc of the
moon. The truth of the extinction of suffering, similarly, does not belong to
the condition of the common person’s consciousness nor to the two vehicles’
realm of knowledge. The common person’s consciousness refers to the
two contrary views.


There is no logic to your fanciful theory.
It falls apart both at the theoretical and practical level.

No logic in the Queen Srimala......well to each there own.
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 963
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Thu Jan 30, 2014 7:07 pm

Matt J wrote:I don't think people have the same definition of "real" or "exist."


That is why I prefer the term "occur". There is no denying that the experience arises, but there is no implication that it is self-arising.
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page

Postby Tsongkhapafan » Thu Jan 30, 2014 7:09 pm

Exist = appearing to a valid mind.
User avatar
Tsongkhapafan
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:36 am

Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page

Postby dzogchungpa » Thu Jan 30, 2014 7:12 pm

Tsongkhapafan wrote:Exist = appearing to a valid mind.

What is a valid mind?
ཨོཾ་ཏཱ་རེ་ཏུཏྟ་རེ་ཏུ་རེ་སྭཱཧཱ༔
User avatar
dzogchungpa
 
Posts: 2273
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page

Postby smcj » Thu Jan 30, 2014 7:27 pm

Tsongkhapafan wrote:Exist = appearing to a valid mind.

I thought "exist", as used around here, meant independent and unchanging. With your definition that would either mean that a Buddha sees nothing, or that everything a Buddha sees actually exists as valid.
A human being has his limits. And thus, in every conceivable way, with every possible means, he tries to make the teaching enter into his own limits. ChNN
smcj
 
Posts: 2156
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page

Postby Malcolm » Thu Jan 30, 2014 8:24 pm

Tsongkhapafan wrote:Exist = appearing to a valid mind.


How is a mind established as valid?
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12567
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Thu Jan 30, 2014 9:22 pm

The Dharma body of the Tathāgata is the perfection of permanence, the perfection of happiness, the perfection of the self, and the perfection of purity.
Those who see the Dharma body of the Buddha in this way are said to see correctly. Those who see correctly
are the true sons and daughters of the Buddha.[/color] They arise from the Buddha’s words, from the True Dharma, and from conversion to the Dharma, attaining the remaining benefits of the Dharma.


This is not referring to a self. This is referring to The Dharma body of the Tathāgata , otherwise known as the Dharmakaya.

I'm not even going to bother undoing the rest of the misinterpretations.
:zzz:
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page

Postby Son of Buddha » Thu Jan 30, 2014 10:03 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
The Dharma body of the Tathāgata is the perfection of permanence, the perfection of happiness, the perfection of the self, and the perfection of purity.
Those who see the Dharma body of the Buddha in this way are said to see correctly. Those who see correctly
are the true sons and daughters of the Buddha.[/color] They arise from the Buddha’s words, from the True Dharma, and from conversion to the Dharma, attaining the remaining benefits of the Dharma.


This is not referring to a self. This is referring to The Dharma body of the Tathāgata , otherwise known as the Dharmakaya.

I'm not even going to bother undoing the rest of the misinterpretations.
:zzz:
.

.
.

:rolling:
Umm yea it is refering to the Self...which is why it states the Dharmakaya IS the SELF ,permenance, Bliss and Purity.

And further states if one views the Dharmakaya as self it is correct view.
With that said you couldnt undue this interpretation no matter how hard you tried.

(you would have to literally change the words of this Sutra to say the opposite of what it actually says since the literal translation will always be the opposite of what you want it to say.)
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 963
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page

Postby dzogchungpa » Fri Jan 31, 2014 4:05 am

Here's a passage from Paul Williams' "Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations" discussing the Srimala sutra:
Since the tathagatagarbha is only the name given to the same ‘thing’ which in enlightenment is the dharmakaya, and the dharmakaya has the perfection of Self, so the tathagatagarbha is not Self only inasmuch as it is samsaric, egoistic. From an enlightened perspective the same thing can be spoken of as a True or Transcendent Self. And finally, the Srimala Sutra makes it clear that this basis or substratum, the appearance of which as defiled entails samsara, the realization of the inherent purity of which is nirvana, is in reality intrinsically pure, radiant consciousness (ibid.: 106–7). This consciousness is intrinsically pure, never defiled, and yet its apparent defilement is the cause of bondage. This is a mystery understandable only to the Buddhas and advanced Bodhisattvas, and approachable only through faith: ‘It is difficult to understand the meaning of the intrinsically pure consciousness in a condition of defilement. . . . [T]he consciousness intrinsically pure is difficult to understand; and the defilement of that consciousness is difficult to understand’ (ibid.: 106–7).

(ibid refers to Wayman's translation)
Last edited by dzogchungpa on Fri Jan 31, 2014 4:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
ཨོཾ་ཏཱ་རེ་ཏུཏྟ་རེ་ཏུ་རེ་སྭཱཧཱ༔
User avatar
dzogchungpa
 
Posts: 2273
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page

Postby smcj » Fri Jan 31, 2014 4:36 am

Son of Buddha wrote:Umm yea it is refering to the Self...which is why it states the Dharmakaya IS the SELF ,permenance, Bliss and Purity.

If you buy the idea that the Dharmakaya is permanence, bliss and purity, why do you feel the need to ascribe 'self' to it? "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet", as Shakespeare said. You seem to have an issue with the semantics. Yes I know there are texts that use term, but what if I might like to call it 'George'? As long as what I was talking about was clear to the other person, would the specific word I used to reference the idea somehow be important?

Just asking'...
A human being has his limits. And thus, in every conceivable way, with every possible means, he tries to make the teaching enter into his own limits. ChNN
smcj
 
Posts: 2156
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page

Postby Son of Buddha » Fri Jan 31, 2014 6:19 am

smcj wrote:
Son of Buddha wrote:Umm yea it is refering to the Self...which is why it states the Dharmakaya IS the SELF ,permenance, Bliss and Purity.

If you buy the idea that the Dharmakaya is permanence, bliss and purity, why do you feel the need to ascribe 'self' to it?

Cause that is how it is literally taught.
The 4 virtues of Nirvana are Self, Bliss, permenant, Purity.

If I were to ask you what the 5 precepts were and you listed all five precepts......
Then right afterward I asked you "why do you feel the need to ascribe do not kill to the five precepts"
You would probably tell me I felt the need to ascribe "do not kill" to the 5 precepts cause they ARE APART OF THE 5 PRECEPTS :mrgreen:.

You cant have the 5 precepts without "do not kill"
And you cant have the 4 virtues of Nirvana without "True Self"

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet", as Shakespeare said. You seem to have an issue with the semantics. Yes I know there are texts that use term, but what if I might like to call it 'George'? As long as what I was talking about was clear to the other person, would the specific word I used to reference the idea somehow be important?
Just asking'...

I dont have an issue with semantics....I accept the semantics of the actual text itself.....the ones who have an issue over Semantics are the ones who cannot and will not accept the word True Self...even if it is taught in the text itself.

A specific word has a specific meaning you wouldnt call an airplane a turtle would you, why would you change the word Self to something else?
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 963
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Exploring Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests

>