Mind versus Self?

No holds barred discussion on the Buddhadharma. Argue about rebirth, karma, commentarial interpretations etc. Be nice to each other.

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Jnana » Sun Nov 25, 2012 11:02 am

songhill wrote:Permit me to give you the correct interpretation of this discourse.... On the other hand, the Buddha's self or attâ is other than these evil aggregates.

Your interpretation errs as the extreme of eternalism. There is no tathāgata or ātman to be found other than the aggregates either. SN 22.86:

    "Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"

    "No, lord."

    "And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"

    "No, lord."

    "Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress."
Jnana
 
Posts: 1106
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:58 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby deepbluehum » Sun Nov 25, 2012 4:19 pm

The Self’ [Atman] signifies the Buddha; ’the Eternal’ signifies the Dharmakaya; ’Bliss’ signifies Nirvana, and ’the Pure’ signifies Dharma

Non-Self is Samsara, the Self is the Tathagata; impermanence is the sravakas and pratyekabuddhas, the Eternal is the Tathagata’s Dharmakaya; suffering is all tirthikas, Bliss is Nirvana; the impure is all compounded [samskrta] dharmas , the Pure is the true Dharma that the Buddha and Bodhisattvas have. This is called non-perversion/ non-inversion. By not being inverted [in one’s views], one will know [both] the letter and the meaning. If one desires to be freed from the four perverse/ inverted [views - catur-viparita-drsti], one should know the Eternal, Blissful, the Self and the Pure in this manner.

--Mahparinirvana Sutra [Yamamoto]
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby songhill » Sun Nov 25, 2012 4:26 pm

Jnana wrote:
songhill wrote:Permit me to give you the correct interpretation of this discourse.... On the other hand, the Buddha's self or attâ is other than these evil aggregates.

Your interpretation errs as the extreme of eternalism. There is no tathāgata or ātman to be found other than the aggregates either. SN 22.86:

    "Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"

    "No, lord."

    "And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"

    "No, lord."

    "Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress."


Where in the Anurādhasuttaṃ is it said that the Tathagata is form, feeling, perception, volitional formations and consciousness? (It doesn't.) And why does the Buddha say, in many discourses in the Khandhavagga, that he is not any of the aggregates saying: "This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self (na meso attâ)" (S. iii. 22–23). Also, keep in mind that five aggregates are Mara (the demon). Why would the Tathagata be also Mara?

(edit) S. iii. 22-23
What is Nonself
At Savatthi. "Bhikkhus, form is nonself. What is nonself
should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: 'This is
not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'
"Feeling is nonself Perception is nonself.... Volitional formations
are nonself Consciousness is nonseIf. What is nonself
should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: 'This is
not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'
"Seeing thus ... He understands: ' ... there is no more for this
state of being.'"

“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).


As for the subject of eternalism (sassatavada) where in the Buddhist canon does it say that eternalism is a belief that the individual has an unchanging self or soul? It doesn't. The doctrine of eternalism is generally found in this form:  “the self and the world are eternal" (sassato attâ ca loka ca) (Ud VI, v). So what does this mean?

(edit) Link to UD VI, v
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

“[T]hey [eternalists] take some particular item amidst (the [five] khandhas of) material form and on to be "the self" and "the world", and then describe this as "eternal, permanent", also understanding that others likewise, in accordance with which there is said: "They [eternalists] declare material form to be the self and the world, stating such to be not only the self and the world but also eternal; they declare sensation ... perception ... the formations ... consciousness to be the self and the world, stating such to be not only the self and the world but also eternal (The Udana Commentary (udanaattakatha) 344, p. 882)."


As you are probably aware, the Buddha says the five aggregates are not the self (anattâ). Obviously, the self or attâ is transcendent. By the way, who produces the five aggregates? Here is the answer:

[Like the painter or artist] So too, when the uninstructed worldling produces anything, it is only form that he produces; only feeling that he produces, only perception that he produces; only volitional formations that he produces; only consciousness that he produces” (S. iii. 152, Dutiyagaddulabaddha Sutta).


(edit) S. iii. 152
The Leash (2)
"Bhikkhus, this saI)lsara is without discoverable beginning. A
first point is not discerned of beings roaming and wandering on
hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving....
"Suppose, bhikkhus, a dog tied up on a leash was bound to a
strong post or pillar. If it walks, it walks close to that post or pillar.
If it stands, it stands close to that post or pillar. If it sits down,
it sits down close to that post or pillar. If it lies down, it lies down
close to that post or pillar.
"So too, bhikkhus, the uninstructed worldling regards form
thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self.' He regards feeling
... perception ... volitional formations ... consciousness thus:
'This is mine, this I am, this is my self.' If he walks, he walks close
to those five aggregates subject to clinging. If he stands, he stands
close to those five aggregates subject to clinging. If he sits down,
he sits down close to those five aggregates subject to clinging. If
he lies down, he lies down close to those five aggregates subject
to clinging.
"Therefore, bhikkhus, one should often reflect upon one's own
mind thus: 'For a long time this mind has been defiled by lust,
hatred, and delusion.' Through the defilements of the mind beings
are defiled; with the cleansing of the mind beings are purified.
"Bhikkhus, have you seen the picture called 'Faring On'?"
"Yes, venerable sir."
"Even that picture called 'Faring On' has been designed in its
diversity by the mind, yet the mind is even more diverse than
that picture called 'Faring On.'
"Therefore, bhikkhus, one should often reflect upon one's own
mind thus: 'For a long time this mind has been defiled by lust,
hatred, and delusion.' Through the defilements of the mind
beings are defiled; with the cleansing of the mind beings are
purified.
"Bhikkhus, I do not see any other order of living beings so
diversified as those in the animal realm. Even those beings in the
animal realm have been diversified by the mind,208 yet the mind
is even more diverse than those beings in the animal realm.

"Therefore, bhikkhus, one should often reflect upon one's own
mind thus: 'For a long time this mind has been defiled by lust,
hatred, and delusion.' Through the defilements of the mind beings
are defiled; with the cleansing of the mind beings are purified.
"Suppose, bhikkhus, an artist or a painter, using dye or lac or
turmeric or indigo or crimson, would create the figure of a man
or a woman complete in all its features on a well-polished plank
or wall or canvas. So too, when the uninstructed worldling
produces anything, it is only form that he produces; only feeling
that he produces; only perception that he produces; only volitional
formations that he produces; only consciousness that he
produces.
"What do you think, bhikkhus, is form permanent or impermanent?"
- "Impermanent, venerable sir." ... - "Therefore ...
Seeing thus ... He understands: ' ... there is no more for this state
of being.'"


:namaste:
User avatar
songhill
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby deepbluehum » Sun Nov 25, 2012 4:42 pm

"What do you think Subhuti? Is it possible to recognize the Buddha by the 32 physical marks?"

Subhuti replied, "Yes, Most Honored One, the Buddha may thus be recognized."

"Subhuti, if that were true then Chakravartin, the mythological king who also had the 32 marks, would be called a Buddha."

Then Subhuti, realizing his error, said, "Most Honored One, now I realize that the Buddha cannot be recognized merely by his 32 physical marks of excellence."

The Buddha then said:

"Should anyone, looking at an image or likeness of the Buddha, claim to know the Buddha and worship him, that person would be mistaken, not knowing the true Buddha."


"However, Subhuti, if you think that the Buddha realizes the highest, most fulfilled, and awakened mind and does not need to have all the marks, you are mistaken. Subhuti, do not think in that way. Do not think that when one gives rise to the highest, most fulfilled, and awakened mind, one needs to see all objects of mind as nonexistent, cut off from life. Please do not think in that way. One who gives rise to the highest, most fulfilled, and awakened mind does not contend that all objects of mind are nonexistent and cut off from life. That is not what I say."

Diamond Sutra
http://www.diamond-sutra.com/diamond_su ... age26.html
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby deepbluehum » Sun Nov 25, 2012 4:56 pm

songhill wrote:
Jnana wrote:
songhill wrote:Permit me to give you the correct interpretation of this discourse.... On the other hand, the Buddha's self or attâ is other than these evil aggregates.

Your interpretation errs as the extreme of eternalism. There is no tathāgata or ātman to be found other than the aggregates either. SN 22.86:

    "Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"

    "No, lord."

    "And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"

    "No, lord."

    "Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress."


Where in the Anurādhasuttaṃ is it said that the Tathagata is form, feeling, perception, volitional formations and consciousness? (It doesn't.) And why does the Buddha say, in many discourses in the Khandhavagga, that he is not any of the aggregates saying: "This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self (na meso attâ)" (S. iii. 22–23). Also, keep in mind that five aggregates are Mara (the demon). Why would the Tathagata be also Mara?

“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).


As for the subject of eternalism (sassatavada) where in the Buddhist canon does it say that eternalism is a belief that the individual has an unchanging self or soul? It doesn't. The doctrine of eternalism is generally found in this form:  “the self and the world are eternal" (sassato attâ ca loka ca) (Ud VI, v). So what does this mean?

“[T]hey [eternalists] take some particular item amidst (the [five] khandhas of) material form and on to be "the self" and "the world", and then describe this as "eternal, permanent", also understanding that others likewise, in accordance with which there is said: "They [eternalists] declare material form to be the self and the world, stating such to be not only the self and the world but also eternal; they declare sensation ... perception ... the formations ... consciousness to be the self and the world, stating such to be not only the self and the world but also eternal (The Udana Commentary (udanaattakatha) 344, p. 882)."


As you are probably aware, the Buddha says the five aggregates are not the self (anattâ). Obviously, the self or attâ is transcendent. By the way, who produces the five aggregates? Here is the answer:

[Like the painter or artist] So too, when the uninstructed worldling produces anything, it is only form that he produces; only feeling that he produces, only perception that he produces; only volitional formations that he produces; only consciousness that he produces” (S. iii. 152, Dutiyagaddulabaddha Sutta).


:namaste:


Neither the aggregates, nor different from the aggregates,
The aggregates are not in him, nor is he in the aggregates,
The Tathagata does not possess the aggregates.
What is the Tathagata?
...
If without depending on the aggregates
There were a Tathagata
Then now he would be depending on them.
Therefore he would exist through dependence.

Inasmuch as there is no Tathagata
Dependent upon the aggregates,
How could something that is not dependent
Come to be so?

--Nagarjuna, MMK, Ch. XXII
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby JohnRammy » Sun Nov 25, 2012 5:17 pm

SittingSilent wrote:As a student of psychology (I am nearly done completely my bachelor's degree a university here in the United States) I have often encountered the explanation that it is the brain and the "mind" that give rise the the phenomenon known as consciousness and sense of self. However, as a student of Buddhism I am learning that the self doesn't exist, something which I am willing to accept, but then the same text, magazine article, etc. then goes on to discuss the mind in three or four sentences later leaving me dramatically confused. Can someone please clarify for me what the self is, what the mind is, as well as their respective differences? Also, since there is no self, what collects karma from existence to existence? If there is no self or identity or soul on which karma can have its effects, how can any sort of effect of karma happen?

Thanks and may all of you be closer to enlightenment!

Ethan



"The Center Of The Sunlit Sky" by Karl Brunnholzl is what you want.

I'm sure you have the capability of borrowing this from a library.

Getting your information online is not a good idea.
Everything lacks the identity (atman) imputed by mere conceptual labels.
JohnRammy
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:42 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sun Nov 25, 2012 5:51 pm

The Self’ [Atman] signifies the Buddha; ’the Eternal’ signifies the Dharmakaya; ’Bliss’ signifies Nirvana, and ’the Pure’ signifies Dharma

Non-Self is Samsara, the Self is the Tathagata; impermanence is the sravakas and pratyekabuddhas, the Eternal is the Tathagata’s Dharmakaya; suffering is all tirthikas, Bliss is Nirvana; the impure is all compounded [samskrta] dharmas , the Pure is the true Dharma that the Buddha and Bodhisattvas have. This is called non-perversion/ non-inversion. By not being inverted [in one’s views], one will know [both] the letter and the meaning. If one desires to be freed from the four perverse/ inverted [views - catur-viparita-drsti], one should know the Eternal, Blissful, the Self and the Pure in this manner.

--Mahparinirvana Sutra [Yamamoto]
Yes, well, what can one say? Defining everything as the complete opposite of what it has been, and is still being described, in order to break clinging to views. Sometimes it works, sometimes it just causes even more confusion. Pointless exercises in (un)skillful means.
: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: 7940
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby songhill » Sun Nov 25, 2012 5:55 pm

The Buddha did teach anattâ which means we should not regard our psycho-physical body to be our true self. Such a body is not the self (anattâ). In fact, it belongs to Mara the Buddhist demon. Speaking of attâ or âtman, don't forget to include Theravadins like the legendary Thai Buddhist monk Phra Mongkolthepmuni (1884–1959) who held that nibbana is attâ.
Last edited by Sherab Dorje on Sun Nov 25, 2012 5:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Off topic material and references removed.
User avatar
songhill
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sun Nov 25, 2012 5:59 pm

Off topic posts and references removed, let's stick to the topic shall we?
"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: 7940
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby JohnRammy » Sun Nov 25, 2012 6:01 pm

Karl Brunnoholz says atman=dentity

Thats what he literally translates it to in both his Pali Canon and Madhyamaka translations

Thats what it means in Hindu texts as well

Atman is just sanskrit for identity :meditate:
Last edited by JohnRammy on Sun Nov 25, 2012 6:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Everything lacks the identity (atman) imputed by mere conceptual labels.
JohnRammy
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:42 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sun Nov 25, 2012 6:02 pm

songhill wrote:The Buddha did teach anattâ which means we should not regard our psycho-physical body to be our true self. Such a body is not the self (anattâ). In fact, it belongs to Mara the Buddhist demon. Speaking of attâ or âtman, don't forget to include Theravadins like the legendary Thai Buddhist monk Phra Mongkolthepmuni (1884–1959) who held that nibbana is attâ.
So where, apart from the one scriputral reference you provided as a response to about 6 other counter references, does the Buddha say what the true self is? We have established and agree it is not the skhanda, so what is 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: 7940
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby JohnRammy » Sun Nov 25, 2012 6:14 pm

songhill wrote:The Buddha did teach anattâ which means we should not regard our psycho-physical body to be our true self. Such a body is not the self (anattâ). In fact, it belongs to Mara the Buddhist demon. Speaking of attâ or âtman, don't forget to include Theravadins like the legendary Thai Buddhist monk Phra Mongkolthepmuni (1884–1959) who held that nibbana is attâ.



Buddhism-everything lacks the identity (atman) imputed by mere conceptual labels.
Everything lacks the identity (atman) imputed by mere conceptual labels.
JohnRammy
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:42 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby songhill » Sun Nov 25, 2012 6:25 pm

The Buddha never taught natthatta that there is categorically no self. That's absurd. That would be materialism/annihilationism. Anattâ is always used in conjunction with the five aggregates. E.g.:

Bhikkhus, form is nonself [anatta]. What is nonself should be see as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’
Feeling is nonself... Perception is nonself...Volitional formations are nonself...Consciousness is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ — S.iii.22–23 (Bodhi’s trans)


Nonself (anattâ) is fungible with each of the five aggregates. The Buddha then declares that the aggregates/nonself are not my self (na meso attâ). That is not a denial of self by any stretch of the imagination. The Buddha is really saying in plain English, don't regard the psycho-physcical body as yourself. It ain't yourself.

In Mahayana those who deny the self are essentially heretics.

nairaatmyavaadino 'bhaa.syaa bhik.sukarmaa.ni varjaya/
baadhakaa buddhadharmaa.naa.m sadasatpak.sad.r.s.taya.h// [Lanka X: 359-60 (vv. 762-71)]


Translation: "Those who propound the doctrine of No Self are to be shunned in the religous rites of the monks, and not to be spoken to, for they are offenders of the Buddhist doctrines, having embraced the dual views of being and non-Being" (Lankavatara Sutra).
User avatar
songhill
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby JohnRammy » Sun Nov 25, 2012 6:29 pm

songhill wrote:are essentially heretics.
(Lankavatara Sutra).


You haven't heard?

Those who follow this sutra are the real "heretics", as you put it.
Everything lacks the identity (atman) imputed by mere conceptual labels.
JohnRammy
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:42 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sun Nov 25, 2012 6:44 pm

Songhill, I am still waiting for an answer to: what is the self?
: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: 7940
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby songhill » Sun Nov 25, 2012 6:46 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
songhill wrote:The Buddha did teach anattâ which means we should not regard our psycho-physical body to be our true self. Such a body is not the self (anattâ). In fact, it belongs to Mara the Buddhist demon. Speaking of attâ or âtman, don't forget to include Theravadins like the legendary Thai Buddhist monk Phra Mongkolthepmuni (1884–1959) who held that nibbana is attâ.
So where, apart from the one scriputral reference you provided as a response to about 6 other counter references, does the Buddha say what the true self is? We have established and agree it is not the skhanda, so what is it?
:namaste:


Friend, it is going to be difficult to explain what the self is since you are in bondage to the psycho-physical body which is not the self and belongs to Mara. First of all, what is not the self (anattâ) is only known by a Buddha (VbhA 49 f). Sure, you can read that form or material shape is not the self, etc., but you don't really know that. You've never realized nirvana/nibbana by the inmost self (pratyatman/paccattam) which then means you don't know that the self is the noble witness (A.i.149).

(edit) The reference to the Noble Witness is not in the Anuttara Nikaya itself, as Songhill claims, but from the 1932 commentary/introduction to the Anguttara-Nikaya by F.L. WOODWARD (Introduction by Mrs. C.A.F. Rhys Davids)
12-20a09be795.jpg
12-20a09be795.jpg (60.13 KiB) Viewed 198 times
User avatar
songhill
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby JohnRammy » Sun Nov 25, 2012 6:48 pm

songhill wrote:Friend, it is going to be difficult to explain what the self is since you are in bondage to the psycho-physical body which is not the self and belongs to Mara. First of all, what is not the self (anattâ) is only known by a Buddha (VbhA 49 f). Sure, you can read that form or material shape is not the self, etc., but you don't really know that. You've never realized nirvana/nibbana by the inmost self (pratyatman/paccattam) which then means you don't know that the self is the noble witness (A.i.149).


You do realize the whole Tathāgatagarbha Sutras genre is incompatible with mainstream Buddhism right?
Everything lacks the identity (atman) imputed by mere conceptual labels.
JohnRammy
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:42 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sun Nov 25, 2012 6:52 pm

Friend, it is going to be difficult to explain what the self is since you are in bondage to the psycho-physical body which is not the self and belongs to Mara. First of all, what is not the self (anattâ) is only known by a Buddha (VbhA 49 f). Sure, you can read that form or material shape is not the self, etc., but you don't really know that. You've never realized nirvana/nibbana by the inmost self (pratyatman/paccattam) which then means you don't know that the self is the noble witness (A.i.149).
This is not an answer to my question. You claim that there is a self, that you know that there is a self. So are you saying that you are no longer in bondage to the skhanda and have reached Nirvana? That, since I have not realised Nirvana, I cannot know what the true self is?

What is this Noble witness that you are refering to?

Please, from now on, when you make references to sutra/sutta either link to the source or make the references clearer so we can find and read the full reference and not just your (possibly out of context) interpretation of 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: 7940
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby deepbluehum » Sun Nov 25, 2012 6:54 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
The Self’ [Atman] signifies the Buddha; ’the Eternal’ signifies the Dharmakaya; ’Bliss’ signifies Nirvana, and ’the Pure’ signifies Dharma

Non-Self is Samsara, the Self is the Tathagata; impermanence is the sravakas and pratyekabuddhas, the Eternal is the Tathagata’s Dharmakaya; suffering is all tirthikas, Bliss is Nirvana; the impure is all compounded [samskrta] dharmas , the Pure is the true Dharma that the Buddha and Bodhisattvas have. This is called non-perversion/ non-inversion. By not being inverted [in one’s views], one will know [both] the letter and the meaning. If one desires to be freed from the four perverse/ inverted [views - catur-viparita-drsti], one should know the Eternal, Blissful, the Self and the Pure in this manner.

--Mahparinirvana Sutra [Yamamoto]
Yes, well, what can one say? Defining everything as the complete opposite of what it has been, and is still being described, in order to break clinging to views. Sometimes it works, sometimes it just causes even more confusion. Pointless exercises in (un)skillful means.
:namaste:


It's not just a trick to flip the chart upside down in order to break attachment to ideas. There is a consistent message come from the Pali canon to the Tathagata-garbha sutras. As in the Itivutaka, Nibbana is ananta, endless, eternal, etc.

The subtlety introduced by Buddha is that the skandhas are not ordinary. In the Vedic system, the body is ordinary, and to shed it is the important task so that the Self can be realized after death. In Buddha-dharma, the Tathagata is not the skandhas and is not apart from the skandhas. The skandhas are not impurities the must be excised. They are primordially emptiness due to the nature of interdependent conditionality. Impurity only comes based on nominal designation: as if treatment, treating the body as if it were real lasting thing. Once we stop that recognition by seeing through it, we recognize nothing truly arises or dissolves, even the skandhas.
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby deepbluehum » Sun Nov 25, 2012 6:55 pm

JohnRammy wrote:
songhill wrote:Friend, it is going to be difficult to explain what the self is since you are in bondage to the psycho-physical body which is not the self and belongs to Mara. First of all, what is not the self (anattâ) is only known by a Buddha (VbhA 49 f). Sure, you can read that form or material shape is not the self, etc., but you don't really know that. You've never realized nirvana/nibbana by the inmost self (pratyatman/paccattam) which then means you don't know that the self is the noble witness (A.i.149).


You do realize the whole Tathāgatagarbha Sutras genre is incompatible with mainstream Buddhism right?


Tathagatagarbha sutras are completely compatible with mainstream Tibetan Buddhism.
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests

>