"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 Rickpa » Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:15 am

Son of Buddha wrote:Are you fimilar with his writings?

If you are you have Dolpopas mountain doctrine?

If you do, turn to page 125 then keep reading to page 175.....he spends about 50 pages defending and explaining the True Self.

Peace and Love


My exposure would be "The Buddha From Dolpo."
User avatar
Rickpa
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:53 am

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

Postby hop.pala » Sat Feb 08, 2014 2:39 pm

The old story xd.
The buddhist teaching nondual teaching.
When kept in the mind that buddhist teaching is nondual,many apparent contradictions can be solved in.
hop.pala
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Sat May 11, 2013 3:48 am

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

Postby rob h » Tue Feb 11, 2014 4:22 am

A few extracts from sutras here that some of you might find interesting (if you've not seen one or more of them before, of course.)

[Maha Kotthita:] "Being asked if, with the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media, there is anything else, you say, 'Don't say that, my friend.' Being asked if ... there is not anything else ... there both is & is not anything else ... there neither is nor is not anything else, you say, 'Don't say that, my friend.' Now, how is the meaning of your words to be understood?"

[Sariputta:] "The statement, 'With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & intellection] is it the case that there is anything else?' objectifies non-objectification. The statement, '... is it the case that there is not anything else ... is it the case that there both is & is not anything else ... is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?' objectifies non-objectification. However far the six contact-media go, that is how far objectification goes. However far objectification goes, that is how far the six contact media go. With the remainderless fading & stopping of the six contact-media, there comes to be the stopping, the allaying of objectification.


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html


[Upasiva:]
He who has reached the end: Does he not exist, or is he for eternity free from dis-ease? Please, sage, declare this to me as this phenomenon has been known by you.

[The Buddha:]
One who has reached the end has no criterion by which anyone would say that — for him it doesn't exist. When all phenomena are done away with, all means of speaking are done away with as well.


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html


"How is it, Master Gotama, when Master Gotama is asked if the monk reappears... does not reappear... both does & does not reappear... neither does nor does not reappear, he says, '...doesn't apply' in each case. At this point, Master Gotama, I am befuddled; at this point, confused. The modicum of clarity coming to me from your earlier conversation is now obscured."

"Of course you're befuddled, Vaccha. Of course you're confused. Deep, Vaccha, is this phenomenon, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise."

"Any physical form... Any feeling... Any perception... Any fabrication...Any consciousness by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of consciousness, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply."


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
"A 'position', Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with." - MN 72
User avatar
rob h
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 7:52 pm

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

Postby dzogchungpa » Wed Feb 12, 2014 2:51 am

I just noticed this comment thread on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R2993M7U81CUIY

Joseph Walser, another fairly good scholar, says the following about Perez-Remon's book there:
I have been looking into the same materials as Perez Remon, and whereas I occasionally think he pushes the point too far, his work is both good and important. He freely acknowledges that what he is uncovering is one slice of early Buddhism -- one that was glossed over later. He never claims that the docrine of atman becomes Buddhist orthodoxy after the advent of abhidharma literature. While this book may prove confusing to someone just starting to learn about Buddhism, I think Perez Remon's book has been treated unfairly. He is pointing to a theme in the canon that requires our attention and explanation, not our dismissal.
Note that, in the higher tantras, there is talk of a self and an I, even though in the lower teachings the absence of self and the absence of I is what is always proclaimed. - Tony Duff
To educate the educated is notoriously difficult. - Jacques Barzun
སརྦ་དྷརྨ་དྷཱ་ཏུ་ཨཱཏྨ་ཀོ་྅ཧཾ༔
User avatar
dzogchungpa
 
Posts: 2022
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Previous

Return to Exploring Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Jechan and 8 guests

>