Buddhism and Eternalism

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: Buddhism and Eternalism

Postby Simon E. » Sat Jun 02, 2012 11:46 am

quote="Anders"]
gregkavarnos wrote:While there are undoubtedly purposefully eternalist text exising within some Buddhist Canons I personally believe that the teachings within the Tathagatagarbha Sutras, the Lankvatara Sutra and or the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra are not necessarily eternalist. It is true though that if viewed through the prism of eternalism they may seem so. But then if one wears rose coloured glasses everything looks rose coloured, so that proves nothing...

Eternalism puts one in contradiction with the Four Dharma Seals, thus an eternalist reading of these texts (or eternalist texts themselves) is not a view that is based on Buddhdharma. Now, of course M. may trot out the now jaded arguement that Buddism is not necessarily Buddhadharma, to which I agree to an extent, but at the same time not ALL Buddhism is divorced from Buddhadharma AND not all non-Budhist views are necessarily Buddhadharma. No matter which spiritual/religious milieu one may belong to, it's always a good idea to carefully consider what is being propounded using a analysis based on the Four Dharma Seals as a measure of the validity of their view.
:namaste:


Imo, the question of eternalism and selfhood is perfectly overrated in Buddhism. Buddhists hear the word 'self' and before they've even taken a moment to consider how it is used they've braced themselves for adharma. What happens if you take the Dharmakaya to be eternalistic? What are the consequences? I don't subscribe to the view that getting a few abstract philosophical details wrong is such wrong view it will impede your chances of realisation

Or perhaps a better way to get at this is to ask: For whom is this relevant? . Imo, it's only relevant for those who have actually realised this and then apprehend it as self. And even so, rather than setting up a position of 'what is the Buddhist take' etc. I'd rather ask: What are the practical consequences? According to an arhat like Luangta Maha Boowa, the final strand of ignorance between arhatship and non-returning is so luminous and radiant that most people who get there will mistake it for a true self. That's a pretty select elite of people for whom the question of eternalism is relevant. It also tells us it's possible to hold the view of eternalism and actually get that far.

Someone else I know voiced the concern that people who awaken within a framework of eternalism are given a framework to really latch on to that realisation and make it into an ultimate prize and emptiness teachings don't encourage the same thing. I can see that and it's a fair call, but it's as much to do with personality of the practitioner and emptiness practitioners trade it in for a tendency towards annihilationalism.

OTOH, all these eternalist teachings, and I am cutting a wide swath here and including all Tathagatagarbha teachings and those that are based on them, provide a perspective with great practical value that madhyamika struggles to formulate. The whole 'innate wisdom' thing are very useful fingers pointing to the moon in terms of relaxing into the path and being able to let go. It's a very direct and intuitive approach.

As long as you let go of everything in the end, it isn't all it's cooked up to be along the way, imo. The great Chan master Mazu, who taught all kinds of eternalistic Tathagatagarbha stuff was asked: "Why do you teach that Mind is Buddha?" "to stop little children from crying." "What about after that?" "Neither mind nor Buddha." Problem solved.

As I see, we all carry views of alternating annihilationalism and eternalism on very subtle cognitive levels that see us departing from the middle way at a most basic level. Probably will do so all the way up until full liberation. Fretting too much about our intellectual views of all this is like polishing a turd. That's not where the real issue is.[/quote]


:thumbsup:
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2543
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: Buddhism and Eternalism

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sat Jun 02, 2012 1:16 pm

Anders wrote:As I see, we all carry views of alternating annihilationalism and eternalism on very subtle cognitive levels that see us departing from the middle way at a most basic level. Probably will do so all the way up until full liberation. Fretting too much about our intellectual views of all this is like polishing a turd. That's not where the real issue is.
If one utilises the analysis merely for intellectual point scoring, then yes, but I was more referring to the application of a view. If I decide to follow a course of practice that is based on the premise that this or that is eternal, then the outcomes of the practice will reflect the theoretical basis. I don't think the Buddha taught the four seals just to "stop the little children crying" because if the practice is based on eternalist dogma then they may never reach the reach the point of "no mind, no Buddha", they will merely stay stuck with dried tears on their faces.
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 9321
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Buddhism and Eternalism

Postby Anders » Sat Jun 02, 2012 1:34 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:If one utilises the analysis merely for intellectual point scoring, then yes, but I was more referring to the application of a view. If I decide to follow a course of practice that is based on the premise that this or that is eternal, then the outcomes of the practice will reflect the theoretical basis. I don't think the Buddha taught the four seals just to "stop the little children crying" because if the practice is based on eternalist dogma then they may never reach the reach the point of "no mind, no Buddha", they will merely stay stuck with dried tears on their faces.
:namaste:


How? Most assertions I've seen along these line involve a fair degree of magic thinking, ie "Holds Eternalist view" -> *magic stuff happens* -> Realisation becomes impossible/much more difficult.

What is it about eternalism that should make it such a significant obstacle over and above other views? Political views for example, don't seem affect our potential for liberation. How does the view that the Dharmakaya is eternal affect our mind in regards to the practise? What makes the practise of non-grasping and non-abiding less efficient in light of it?

I don't buy the whole 'theoretical basis' thing. Realisation is a product of non-clinging and a release from views in general. The notion that one must have assembled an abstract conceptual jigsaw puzzle in just the right order in order for this non-clinging to produce results seems absurd to me.

Right view in relation to practise does not entail to me being informed by our metaphysical views. It is informed by our views of practise and our minds *as we experience it to be* (ie, not abstractions like "on the other side of enlightenment, mind is... "). Views that don't reflect onto our actual experience and veer off into abstracted categories are not 'Right' or 'Wrong' view in the sense of the views relevant to practise. They are just irrelevant. Their only practical relevance is how tightly we hold on them and attempt to super-impose them on our experience. But this fault of intellectualism applies to 'correct' views the same way it does 'incorrect' ones.

Some abstract views have relevance to practise. Silent Illumination for example, stresses innate wisdom and purity and trusting in this and therefore letting go of our own attempted efforts at understanding and becoming. It is, to put a slightly patronising slant on upaya, a handholder to guide the practitioner into non-grasping. It's also pretty easy to fall into substantialism and eternalism when doing so, but again I am not seeing how this forms a fundamental obstacle to awakening. Madhyamika stresses the non-production of all phenomena as an abstract basis for the practitioner to let go of all views. It can also lead to views of annihilation (this, unlike eternalism is something that can have grave practical consequences though), but in either case the clinching factor here is: Does it produce the right kind of practise? If it does, the metaphysical views that may be implied strike me as largely tertiary to this concern. I am not buying the assertion that by magic the philosophical implications somehow make the practise less right in regards to producing the results such practise produces.
"Even if my body should be burnt to death in the fires of hell
I would endure it for myriad lifetimes
As your companion in practice"

--- Gandavyuha Sutra
User avatar
Anders
 
Posts: 726
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:39 pm

Re: Buddhism and Eternalism

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sat Jun 02, 2012 3:17 pm

How? Most assertions I've seen along these line involve a fair degree of magic thinking, ie "Holds Eternalist view" -> *magic stuff happens* -> Realisation becomes impossible/much more difficult.
These are some examples of how eternalism can be an obstacle to realization. Let’s start with the idea of the soul. Believing in an eternal soul can take one in a number of directions: some gnostic Christians believed that the soul, being an eternal and divine essence, could not be tainted by the actions of the impermanent and mortal body. So they engaged in all sorts of ethically “questionable” behavior without considering the consequences of their behavior. One pitfall: Denying karma. If the mind is an eternal phenomenon that means that the states of mind are also eternal phenomena. So, ignorance is now an eternal phenomenon. This means that Nirvana can never be gained. So what does one practice towards? If ignorance is a eternal phenomenon then what happens to dependent origination? etc...
Political views for example, don't seem affect our potential for liberation.
Really? So being a racist right winger and going out and beating on immigrants doesn't effect your potential for liberation? Come on Anders, views effect actions, actions produce outcomes, outcomes determine our potential for liberation.
I don't buy the whole 'theoretical basis' thing. Realisation is a product of non-clinging and a release from views in general. The notion that one must have assembled an abstract conceptual jigsaw puzzle in just the right order in order for this non-clinging to produce results seems absurd to me.
I would say that most importantly realization is a product of non-dualism. If one believes in an eternal essence then one cannot overcome dualistic notions. If one does not overcome dualistic notions then how can ultimate bodhicitta arise? It is not necessary to have the puzzle in place, your karma may lead you to realization through hearing a stone hit a bamboo stalk, for those of us without that sort of karma though, it’s probably a good idea to let go of grasping to an eternal essence.
Right view in relation to practise does not entail to me being informed by our metaphysical views.
It may not entail just this but it certainly includes it.
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 9321
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Buddhism and Eternalism

Postby Anders » Sat Jun 02, 2012 3:53 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:These are some examples of how eternalism can be an obstacle to realization. Let’s start with the idea of the soul. Believing in an eternal soul can take one in a number of directions: some gnostic Christians believed that the soul, being an eternal and divine essence, could not be tainted by the actions of the impermanent and mortal body. So they engaged in all sorts of ethically “questionable” behavior without considering the consequences of their behavior. One pitfall: Denying karma. If the mind is an eternal phenomenon that means that the states of mind are also eternal phenomena. So, ignorance is now an eternal phenomenon. This means that Nirvana can never be gained. So what does one practice towards? If ignorance is a eternal phenomenon then what happens to dependent origination? etc...


Ok, so now you've taken eternalist views and greatly elaborated on them. These obviously aren't faults of simply taking the Tathagatagarbha as a truly existing and permanent self.

And besides, I think you're setting up a red herring. There may be logical consequences of such a view that makes it all absurd, but that doesn't mean they've ironed out those consequences and hold to them. Some people believe in in an eternal dharmakaya and a dependedly originated samsara, regardless of whether rigurous logical would dictate that this is fundamentally incompatible. Ie, their 'wrong' view has little practical consequence and none of the consequence opponents of it claim by ironing out the logical conclusions of such of a view on their behalf.

Beliefs aren't platonic entities. Believing in an eternal self doesn't entail unknowingly carrying the baggage of what rigorous logic would dictate follows from such a view. It just entails what you yourself choose to belief. cf Walt Whitman on contradicting oneself.

If we go into excessive appropriations, emptiness strikes me as having far greater potential for this sort of stuff. As the Ratnakuta Sutra says: "It would be better to view the self as being as stable as Mount Meru than to hold to a view of emptiness."

Political views for example, don't seem affect our potential for liberation.
Really? So being a racist right winger and going out and beating on immigrants doesn't effect your potential for liberation? Come on Anders, views effect actions, actions produce outcomes, outcomes determine our potential for liberation.


Again, I am not talking about the extremes. But certainly 'liberal or conservative' seems to be a little import. Yet viewing the Tathagatagarbha as eternal and real supposedly is?

I would say that most importantly realization is a product of non-dualism. If one believes in an eternal essence then one cannot overcome dualistic notions.


There are loads of dualistic notions that can be overcome with a belief in an eternal essence. Even the nonduality of samsara and nirvana can be resolved holding to such a view. All it leaves is a view of this nonduality as being ultimately real. And again, to whom is this relevant? How many here are at a point where letting go of such a perception at a cognitive level directly impacts the quality of your mind and liberation?

People have always liked to count the treasures of others. But it gets easy to lose a sense of perspective when you set yourself up to set values on these. It essentially amounts to talking about what foods are good at a famous restaurant we're saving up to go to having only read reviews in the papers. The debates start looking silly beyond a certain point.
"Even if my body should be burnt to death in the fires of hell
I would endure it for myriad lifetimes
As your companion in practice"

--- Gandavyuha Sutra
User avatar
Anders
 
Posts: 726
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:39 pm

Re: Buddhism and Eternalism

Postby Anders » Sat Jun 02, 2012 4:42 pm

fwiw, I am a bit of a madhyamika-wallah myself. I think it is more 'true' than Tathagatagarbha. Except, I don't think that's really the right way of looking it. I'd rather say: a Madhyamika 'view' strikes me as useful further down the road than a Tathagatagarbha one.

Though I nevertheless also think it quite probable that a Tathagatagarbha view is more useful in developing the view of path to begin with. Certainly, many Chan masters (such as the aforementioned mazu) thought so. They just salted it with Madhyamika when necessary.

And I think this is actually one of the main points of madhyamika - There is ultimately no such thing as a 'true' view. All views become absurd when taken to their logical conclusion. Fundamentally, coherence of view is a futile endeavour. Rather we asses views for their utility. "Right view" is just what is practically adequate for us to understand the path to be taken and do it.

This is at any rate how I read Madhyamika masters such as Jizang and his maxim of "revealing what is corrective; refuting what is misleading." It actually made him a very versatile Mahayana commentator who expounded among other things on: Tathagatagarbha!
"Even if my body should be burnt to death in the fires of hell
I would endure it for myriad lifetimes
As your companion in practice"

--- Gandavyuha Sutra
User avatar
Anders
 
Posts: 726
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:39 pm

Re: Buddhism and Eternalism

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sat Jun 02, 2012 6:26 pm

I personally tend to view the Tathagatagarbha as an ever present (eternal) potential for enlightenment, a potential that is a inseperable aspect of sentience. Realisation is merely the, well... realisation of this potential. Since this realisation destroys all sense of a dualistic/independently existing self (ie it is also a realisation of dependent origination) then when it is stabilised it becomes an eternal condition! :tongue: To say that the Dharmakaya is an eternal condition/existence is neither right nor wrong, since once established in the Dharmakaya all aspects of dualism (eternal/temporal, self/non-self, Dharma/adharma, etc...) are irrelevant.

But that's just my deluded take on the deal.

The True Self alluded to in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra is merely the realisation of the dependently arisen nature of ones existence, the True Self is merely a realisation of the illusory quality of the coventional self. That is the explanation I have heard from a lecture series on the Wheel of Sharp Weapons by Berzin. It's got NOTHING to do with the idea of an atman.
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 9321
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Buddhism and Eternalism

Postby Malcolm » Sat Jun 02, 2012 7:38 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
The True Self alluded to in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra is merely the realisation of the dependently arisen nature of ones existence, the True Self is merely a realisation of the illusory quality of the coventional self. That is the explanation I have heard from a lecture series on the Wheel of Sharp Weapons by Berzin. It's got NOTHING to do with the idea of an atman.
:namaste:


Again, Madhyamaka revisionism.
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: 11781
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhism and Eternalism

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sat Jun 02, 2012 7:45 pm

Malcolm wrote:Again, Madhyamaka revisionism.
Well, excuse me if I prefer Madhyamaka revisionism to an attempt to introduce the atman into Buddhism.
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 9321
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Buddhism and Eternalism

Postby Malcolm » Sat Jun 02, 2012 7:49 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
Malcolm wrote:Again, Madhyamaka revisionism.
Well, excuse me if I prefer Madhyamaka revisionism to an attempt to introduce the atman into Buddhism.
:namaste:



I am merely pointing out that what Madhyamakas say about Tathagatagarbha theory does not necessarily represent the intent of the texts in question themselves. This is why Dolbupa vehemently refuted such Madhyamaka reads of the Tgarbha theory. +
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: 11781
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhism and Eternalism

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sat Jun 02, 2012 7:53 pm

Malcolm wrote:
gregkavarnos wrote:
Malcolm wrote:Again, Madhyamaka revisionism.
Well, excuse me if I prefer Madhyamaka revisionism to an attempt to introduce the atman into Buddhism.
:namaste:



I am merely pointing out that what Madhyamakas say about Tathagatagarbha theory does not necessarily represent the intent of the texts in question themselves. This is why Dolbupa vehemently refuted such Madhyamaka reads of the Tgarbha theory. +
Yes, I understood your point. Thank you. I was just expressing my preference for the revisionist approach! :tongue: A preference that is informed by my study of Theravadra teachings and Madhyamaka.
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 9321
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Buddhism and Eternalism

Postby Son of Buddha » Mon Jun 04, 2012 3:51 am

I am merely pointing out that what Madhyamakas say about Tathagatagarbha theory does not necessarily represent the intent of the texts in question themselves. This is why Dolbupa vehemently refuted such Madhyamaka reads of the Tgarbha theory. +[/quote]Yes, I understood your point. Thank you. I was just expressing my preference for the revisionist approach! :tongue: A preference that is informed by my study of Theravadra teachings and Madhyamaka.
:namaste:[/quote]


MY REPLY: A Tathagatgarbha's revisionist approach to Madhyamaka :stirthepot:
LOTUS SUTRA chapter 3

Formerly I was attached to erroneous views,
acting as teacher to the Brahmans.
But the World-Honored One, knowing what was in my mind,
rooted out my errors and preached nirvana.
I was freed of all my errors
and gained understanding of the Dharma(LAW) of emptiness.

At that time my mind told me
I had reached the stage of extinction,
but now I realize
that was not true extinction.

MAHAPARINIRVANA SUTRA chapter 7

If the World-Honoured One were to talk first about the Eternal, a person hearing this might say that what he says is the same as what the tirthikas [heterodox believers] say, and discount what he says and go away." I then said to the woman: "When the child grows up and becomes big, and when it can come and go by itself, whatever is eaten will be digested, even when indigestible [previously]. The cream that was taken before will not be enough to support [that person]. The same is the case with all my sravaka disciples. It is as in the case of your child. They cannot digest this eternal Dharma. That is why I speak about suffering and impermanence.

"Moreover, emancipation is termed that which severs all conditioned phenomena [samskrta-dharmas], gives rise to all untainted [anasrava], wholseome qualities / phenomena and eliminates the various paths/ approaches, that is to say, Self, non-Self, not-Self and not non-Self. It merely severs attachment and does not sever the view of the Self/ the seeing of the Self/ the vision of the Self [atma-drsti]. The view of the Self is termed the 'Buddha-dhatu' [Buddha-Nature]. The Buddha-dhatu is true emancipation, and true emancipation is the Tathagata.

"Also, emancipation is the "not-empty-empty". "Empty-empty" is non-possession. Non-possession is the emancipation which the tirthikas and Nirgrantha Jnatiputras [Jains] presume upon [base themselves upon]. But, in truth, the Nirgranthas do not possess emancipation. So we say "empty-empty". Not-empty-empty is true emancipation. True emancipation is the Tathagata.

"Also, emancipation is the "not-empty". The pot in which we put water, drink, milk, cream, butter, honey, etc., can well be called the water pot and suchlike, even when there is no water, drink, cream, butter, honey or any other thing in it. And yet, we cannot say that the pot is either empty or not-empty. If we say empty, there cannot be any colour, smell, taste or touch. If we say not-empty, what we see is that there is nothing in it such as water, drink or any other thing. We can say neither matter ["rupa"] nor non-matter ["arupa"]; we can say neither empty nor not-empty. If we say empty, there can be no Eternity, Bliss, Self, and Purity. If not-empty, who is the one blessed with Eternity, Bliss, Self, and Purity? Thus, we should say neither empty nor not-empty. Empty will entail [the notion] that the 25 existences, all illusions, suffering, the phases of life, and all actual actions do not exist. When there is no cream in the pot, we may say empty. Not-empty points to Truth, to whatever is Good, Eternal, Bliss, Self, Pure, Immovable and Unchanging. It is as in the case of taste and touch regarding the pot. That is why we say not-empty. In consequence, we may say that emancipation is as in the case of the pot. The pot will break in certain circumstances. But this is not so with emancipation. It cannot break. What is indestructible is true emancipation. True emancipation is the Tathagata.

MAHAPARINIRVANA SUTRA CHAPTER 10

If a person does not know where suffering arises and says that there cannot be any Wonderful Dharma or what is Eternal, and that all turns to nothingness, that person, in consequence, will repeat transmigration for innumerable kalpas to come, suffering all kinds of sorrow. If a person says that Dharma is Eternal and that there is no change, this is knowing the cause, and this is the noble truth of the cause of suffering. If one does not so practise, this is the cause of suffering and not the noble truth of the cause.

"We say "truth of the extinction of suffering". If a person practises many things [teachings] and the way of nothingness, this is non-good. Why so? Because this annuls all laws and breaks the true storehouse of the Tathagata. Any practice of this category is the practising of nothingness. One who practises the extinction of suffering acts against what all tirthikas do. If the practice of nothingness is the truth of extinction, there are tirthikas who also practise the teaching of nothingness; we must say that they too possess the truth of extinction. A person says: "There is the Tathagatagarbha [Buddha-Womb - the pristine mind under cover of illusion]. One cannot see this. But if one does away with all illusions, one may indeed enter." It is thus. By the raising of such a mind [i.e. by cultivating such an attitude of mind], one gains freedom in all things. If a person practises the Way of the hidden storehouse, selflessness, and emptiness, such a person repeats birth and death for innumerable ages to come and suffers from sorrow. A person who does not do such practices may certainly, even though he might have illusion, soon do away with it. Why so? Because he well knows the undisclosed [secret, hidden] storehouse of the Tathagata. This is the noble truth of the extinction of suffering. Any person who practises extinction in such a way is my disciple. A person not practising the Way thus is one who practises emptiness. This is not the noble truth of extinction. (in line with what is taught in the Lotus sutra chapter 3 above)

you cant revise Tathagatagarbha to fit Madhyamaka view read the tathagatagarbha sutras you will figure that out.Tathagatagarbha was taught after the lotus sutra it is the complete finished truth also stated in the sutras the highest truth.

Madhyamaka is of the provisional teachings that came before the Lotus sutra(self admited 2nd turning)

Tathagatagarbha was taught by the Buddha

Madhyamaka was a school created by a monk which was based on provisional teachings(Lotus sutra is evidence of that)

its about time Madhyamaka was revised to fit the last of the Buddhas teachings. :namaste:
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 858
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Buddhism and Eternalism

Postby Wayfarer » Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:47 am

My simple interpretation of the anatta teaching is simply that to say that 'nothing is self' is NOT the same as 'there IS no self'.

And the self ('being') is not an object of cognition. It is never to be found amongst the objects of cognition or experience.

Knowledge generally relies on the relationship between the knower and the thing or the subject that is known. However in this case, the self is never the object of knowledge, so nothing can be said about it.

This is really not so different from the Brihadaranyaka Upanisad (particularly the verses on the unknowability of Brahman). Of course due to the sectarian nature of the relationship between Buddhists and Brahmins, this is something that is never admitted. But it shows up again in the various 'eternalist' versions of the Mahayana sutras, as has been acknowledged above.
Learn to do good, refrain from evil, purify the mind ~ this is the teaching of the Buddhas
User avatar
Wayfarer
 
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Buddhism and Eternalism

Postby Sherab Dorje » Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:04 am

Son of Buddha wrote:Tathagatagarbha was taught by the Buddha.
Really? Just because it says "Thus have I heard" at the beginning of the text? I tend to believe that Madhyamaka was an attempt to reinstil Buddhadharma into Buddhism, after a long period of the introduction and application of adharmic theory in Buddhism.
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 9321
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Buddhism and Eternalism

Postby Son of Buddha » Mon Jun 04, 2012 8:18 am

gregkavarnos wrote:
Son of Buddha wrote:Tathagatagarbha was taught by the Buddha.
Really? Just because it says "Thus have I heard" at the beginning of the text? I tend to believe that Madhyamaka was an attempt to reinstil Buddhadharma into Buddhism, after a long period of the introduction and application of adharmic theory in Buddhism.
:namaste:



What do you think is buddhadharma?i can assure you the pali canon would agree.do you need the numourous suttas that state the buddha is the teacher of the deathless,imortality? I dont think madhyamaka was meant to reinstill any buddhadharma,dependant origination is not considered a good thing to thervadan or mahayanists,the root of causations dependant origination was always ignorance.the buddha ended i.gnorance and even in the pali was not bound by DO,so why put the buddha under that yoke/samsarasan.?


Emptiness is not a bad thing,as the passage i sent you,empty of false self,full of true self,nirvana is as such,the log burns whar is left?neither fire nor the log exist what is left is ash(buddha)

There was never an end to liFe in buddhism,the majjima nikaya made it clear,there is always a continuing existing being.
And as science puts it energy is never destroyed it simply goes into somthing else
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 858
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Buddhism and Eternalism

Postby Sherab Dorje » Mon Jun 04, 2012 8:28 am

Son of Buddha wrote:What do you think is buddhadharma?...
What do I think is Buddhadharma? Anything that satisfies the Four Dharma Seals:
Anicca (Sanskrit anitya) "inconstancy" or "impermanence", avoiding the extreme views of eternalism and nihilism.
Dukkha (Sanskrit duhkha): dissatisfaction, "dis-ease", "suffering". Nothing found in the physical or psychological realm can bring lasting deep satisfaction.
Anatta (Sanskrit anatman) or "non-Self": phenomena are not, or are without, a self.
Nirvana is peace.

As for the rest of your post, please take some time to present what you are saying a little more clearly and then we can engage in discussion.
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 9321
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Buddhism and Eternalism

Postby Quiet Heart » Mon Jun 04, 2012 8:39 am

:smile:
As long as you let go of everything in the end, it isn't all it's cooked up to be along the way, imo. The great Chan master Mazu, who taught all kinds of eternalistic Tathagatagarbha stuff was asked: "Why do you teach that Mind is Buddha?" "to stop little children from crying." "What about after that?" "Neither mind nor Buddha." Problem solved.


:namaste:

Absolutely great answer.
:smile:
Shame on you Shakyamuni for setting the precedent of leaving home.
Did you think it was not there--
in your wife's lovely face
in your baby's laughter?
Did you think you had to go elsewhere (simply) to find it?
from - Judyth Collin
The Layman's Lament
From What Book, 1998, p. 52
Edited by Gary Gach
User avatar
Quiet Heart
 
Posts: 269
Joined: Thu May 19, 2011 10:57 am
Location: Bangkok Thailand

Re: Buddhism and Eternalism

Postby Son of Buddha » Tue Jun 05, 2012 8:45 am

Quiet Heart wrote::smile:
As long as you let go of everything in the end, it isn't all it's cooked up to be along the way, imo. The great Chan master Mazu, who taught all kinds of eternalistic Tathagatagarbha stuff was asked: "Why do you teach that Mind is Buddha?" "to stop little children from crying." "What about after that?" "Neither mind nor Buddha." Problem solved.


:namaste:

Absolutely great answer.
:smile:


HEY QUIET HEART
the sutra states that this qoute is actually backwards,Buddha taught neither mind/nor Buddha for the crying children,and after that he taught the Mind is Buddha.

read the passages i qouted to see what he said.
(depend upon sutra not upon persons)
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 858
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Buddhism and Eternalism

Postby Son of Buddha » Tue Jun 05, 2012 8:57 am

gregkavarnos wrote:
Son of Buddha wrote:What do you think is buddhadharma?...
What do I think is Buddhadharma? Anything that satisfies the Four Dharma Seals:
Anicca (Sanskrit anitya) "inconstancy" or "impermanence", avoiding the extreme views of eternalism and nihilism.
Dukkha (Sanskrit duhkha): dissatisfaction, "dis-ease", "suffering". Nothing found in the physical or psychological realm can bring lasting deep satisfaction.
Anatta (Sanskrit anatman) or "non-Self": phenomena are not, or are without, a self.
Nirvana is peace.

As for the rest of your post, please take some time to present what you are saying a little more clearly and then we can engage in discussion.
:namaste:



HEY

where in the sutras does it say to identify them as sutras by the 4 dharma seals????
note you know everything you listed is what abides in samsarasan dont you????
none of those things actually has anything to do with the Buddha whatsoever example the Buddha is not impermanant(pali canon even states he teaches the path to immortality)impermanace itself is rooted in samsarasan.
non self is the tainted ego self again this is samsarasan the Buddha doesnt have a tainted ego self.
suffering again has to do with samsarasan it is not of the Buddha(Buddha doesnt suffer)

thats like dependent origination,while the Buddha taught it to explain the cause and conditions of life in SAMSARASAN,dependent origination isnt a good thing at all,its root itself is IGNORANCE(trace it back) the cause and conditions impermanace and dependent origination was all taught to SHOW US SAMSARASAN and its workings, these teaceing themselves were not ENLIGHTENEMNT which is outside of samsarasan.

the Buddha goes beyond the 4 dharma seals in the mahaparinirvana sutra(tathagatagarbha sutras),
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 858
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Buddhism and Eternalism

Postby Sherab Dorje » Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:17 am

Son of Buddha wrote:where in the sutras does it say to identify them as sutras by the 4 dharma seals????
Nowhere and everywhere. They are the identifying characteristics of Buddhadharma. I apply them to all teachings in order to ascertain if they are Buddharma. That and the fact that they are free of the four extremes.
note you know everything you listed is what abides in samsarasan dont you????
none of those things actually has anything to do with the Buddha whatsoever example the Buddha is not impermanant(pali canon even states he teaches the path to immortality)impermanace itself is rooted in samsarasan.
non self is the tainted ego self again this is samsarasan the Buddha doesnt have a tainted ego self.
suffering again has to do with samsarasan it is not of the Buddha(Buddha doesnt suffer)
Yes, well, you have totally missed my point. You present a view. I analyse it based on the criteria of... If it satisfies the criteria then I am cool with it. If not, then...
the Buddha goes beyond the 4 dharma seals in the mahaparinirvana sutra(tathagatagarbha sutras)
The people that wrote the Mahaparinirvana Sutra contradicted elements of the Four Dharma Seals. As I said before: I believe they can be salvaged through the application of Madhyamaka reasoning (revising, as Malcolm called it).
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 9321
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

PreviousNext

Return to Exploring Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Fruitzilla, palchi, RopeNL and 13 guests

>