Why not Theravada

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.
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
Posts: 10289
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 8:27 pm

Re: Why not Theravada

Postby Sherab Dorje » Fri Nov 30, 2012 4:05 pm

There is also the fact that most Tibetan lineages trace their origin to India. Indian Buddhists, due to their proximity to the atman "positive" theories of their Hindu opponents, guarded closely against the incursion of pro-atman ideas into Buddhism.
:namaste:
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

Son of Buddha
Posts: 963
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: Why not Theravada

Postby Son of Buddha » Fri Nov 30, 2012 4:16 pm

catmoon wrote:I did a little reading and it appears that the current Thervada mainstream thoroughly rejects the idea of nibbana as self. It also seems to run contrary to the teachings of the Buddha in the Pali canon, so on balance it can only be regarded as an aberrant teaching held by a minority and probably flat wrong at that.

To get a rough overview all one needs to do is refer to the Wiki on Anatta, which does cover these ideas.


MN Alagaddupama sutta 22 i139 "Is what is Impermenent,SUFFERING and subject to change,FIT to be regared as thus;This is mine,this I am,THIS IS MY SELF?-----NO"
in this sutta there is shown the negative,as to say what is NOT-the-Self(Anatta) in this sutta the buddha proclaims he has the Self verse 25i139 and at the same time the Buddha puts down the idea of the "self in the world(5 Aggregates) as being permanent,everlasting,eternal,this means the "I"(self) that clings to the 5 Aggregates is false self.

he goes on to show what is NOT MY SELF that which is impermenat,suffering,and subject to change is not fit to be reagared as MY SELF,likewise that which is Permenant,Bliss/Happiness,and not subject to change is FIT to be ragarded thus:THIS IS MY SELF.

also the Buddha never said there is NO-SELF (Anatta) mean NOT-SELF or as NOT the SELF,also the references to self in the pali canon are as follows (this is not my self) (this is not self) (this is not the self) (Not self) what many Buddhist propound as Buddhist teachings is simply a mistranslation of the pali word (Anatta)

SN 22:100"In the same way, an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person regards form as: 'This is mine, this is my self, this is what I am.' He regards feeling… perception… fabrications… consciousness as: 'This is mine, this is my self, this is what I am.' If he walks, he walks right around these five clinging-aggregates. If he stands, he stands right next to these five clinging-aggregates. If he sits, he sits right next to these five clinging-aggregates. If he lies down, he lies down right next to these five clinging-aggregates. Thus one should reflect on one's mind with every moment: 'For a long time has this mind been defiled by passion, aversion, & delusion.' From the defilement of the mind are beings defiled. From the purification of the mind are beings purified.

again to drive home the meaning as you can see the Buddha didnt say there is NO SELF the Buddha made it clear the 5 Aggreagates is NOT THE SELF(NOT MY SELF)what was fit to be regarded THIS IS MY SELF can be found in

The unfashioned, the unbent,
the fermentation-free, the true, the beyond,
the subtle, the very-hard-to-see,
the ageless, permanence, the undecaying,
the featureless, non-elaboration,
peace, the deathless,
the exquisite, bliss, rest,
the ending of craving,
the wonderful, the marvelous,
the secure, security,
unbinding,
the unafflicted, dispassion, purity,
release, attachment-free,
the island, shelter, harbor, refuge,
the ultimate.
— SN 43.1-44

this is all from the pali Canon I havent posted the Tathagatagarbha sutra/Nirvana sutra/Queen srimala sutra that also says the same thing.
(all translation are from Bhante Bodhi)

peace and Love

Son of Buddha
Posts: 963
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: Why not Theravada

Postby Son of Buddha » Fri Nov 30, 2012 4:22 pm

Yes, this is a specious interpretation that is unsupported by the Pāli suttas, the Theravāda commentarial tradition, and has been explicitly criticized by a number of contemporary Theravāda teachers. For example, Ven. Bodhi, The Connected Discourses of the Buddha (Note 385):

    The Buddha declares that 'all phenomena are nonself' (sabbe dhamma anatta), which means that if one seeks a self anywhere one will not find one. Since 'all phenomena' includes both the conditioned and the unconditioned, this precludes an utterly transcendent, ineffable self.



this is incorrect (sabbe dhamma anatta) doesnt mean 'all phenomena are nonself' it means "All phenomena are NOT-SELF) which is in relation to the self of he world the 5 aggregates are not self,not the self) this again is not saying there is NO self at all but is listing what is not the self via negative.

Son of Buddha
Posts: 963
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: Why not Theravada

Postby Son of Buddha » Fri Nov 30, 2012 4:37 pm

JKhedrup wrote:
You must understand that the Tibetans while accepting the authority of the various Mahayana Sutras, do differentiate between them. There are sutras that are thought to require interpretation, called interpretative sutras. And sutras that are thought to directly indicate Lord Buddha's final intent, called definitive sutras.

But don't take my word for it, in the words of Yangsi Rinpoche, a well respected Geshe and resident teacher at Maitripa Institute in Portland (From Practicing the Path p.421):

"The instructions for realizing the ultimate mode of existence can be found in the sutras, the direct teachings of the Buddha. According to the Prasangika-Madhyamika system... The sutras on the ultimate nature of reality are classified as definitive sutras, while those whose main subject matter is the conventional mode of existence are classified as interpretative. "


Basically what happens because of this, as Yangsi Rinpoche mentions later in the paragraph, is that the Sutra basket is divided into Three Turnings of the Wheel- and these turnings of the wheel are said by many Tibetan scholars to be determined by subject matter rather than chronologically. The Middle Wheel, on the ultimate nature, is considered the Definitive Wheel, while the two others are considered Interpretative. Another well respected scholar, Alex Berzin elaborates:

http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/ar ... ories.html



yes and none of this is supported by the sutras whatseoever its simply Tibetians picking and choseing what they want to be definite and ignoring what the sutras proclaim to be definite.the 2nd wheel is covered very well in the Lotus sutra
the third turning sutras make no bones about what is definite and what is provisional do you disagree with the Lotus sutra???
if not then you are saying the provisional is above the definite.(by the sutras standards not tibetans the True Self is a definite teaching)

have you ever read the definite sutras?and their views on no self?

Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
Posts: 10289
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 8:27 pm

Re: Why not Theravada

Postby Sherab Dorje » Fri Nov 30, 2012 4:38 pm

Well Son of Buddha, I am hoping that you did not purposefully misquote the Alagaddupama Sutta, that actually you just had access to an incomplete translation because this is what I found:
Six View-Positions
"Monks, there are these six view-positions (ditthitthana). Which six? There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes about form: 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.'

"He assumes about feeling: 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.'

"He assumes about perception: 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.'

"He assumes about fabrications: 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.'

"He assumes about what seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.'

"He assumes about the view-position — 'This cosmos is the self. [8] After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity': 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.'

"Then there is the case where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma assumes about form: 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.'

"He assumes about feeling: 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.'

"He assumes about perception: 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.'

"He assumes about fabrications: 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.'

"He assumes about what seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.'

"He assumes about the view-position — 'This cosmos is the self. After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity': 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.'

"Seeing thus, he is not agitated over what is not present." [9]

When this was said, a certain monk said to the Blessed One, "Lord, might there be agitation over what is externally not present?"

"There might, monk," the Blessed One said. "There is the case where someone thinks, 'O, it was mine! O, what was mine is not! O, may it be mine! O, I don't obtain it!' He grieves & is tormented, weeps, beats his breast, & grows delirious. It's thus that there is agitation over what is externally not present."

"But, lord, might there be non-agitation over what is externally not present?"

"There might, monk," the Blessed One said. "There is the case where someone doesn't think, 'O, it was mine! O, what was mine is not! O, may it be mine! O, I don't obtain it!' He doesn't grieve, isn't tormented, doesn't weep, beat his breast, or grow delirious. It's thus that there is non-agitation over what is externally not present."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

As for SN 43.1 notice how the use of the epithet "True Self" or even "Self" does not appear to describe Nirvana?
:namaste:
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

songhill
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:23 pm

Re: Why not Theravada

Postby songhill » Fri Nov 30, 2012 4:39 pm

Jnana wrote:
songhill wrote:
"[T]he uniqueness of the Buddhist doctrine of anattâ [not-Self] is realised once attâ [the Self] has been attained. The Buddha discovered that nibbana is attâ and only by doing so, was able to say that the five aggregates are anattâ. The anattâ doctrine of the Buddha is the doctrine of only Buddhism because the Buddha realised attâ that is different from conditioned dhammas. Nibbana is the purity of an object, it is void of defilements [cf. the tathagatagarbha] and once it is reached there is no more clinging. As purity, it must [be] situate[d] within an object. That object is self. Anattâ is a tool that the Buddha uses for [his] disciples to reject the conditioned dhamma and to accept nibbana. If nibbana is anattâ, then, nibbana is to be rejected and there would be no purpose in practising the Noble Eightfold Path."


Yes, this is a specious interpretation that is unsupported by the Pāli suttas, the Theravāda commentarial tradition, and has been explicitly criticized by a number of contemporary Theravāda teachers. For example, Ven. Bodhi, The Connected Discourses of the Buddha (Note 385):

    The Buddha declares that 'all phenomena are nonself' (sabbe dhamma anatta), which means that if one seeks a self anywhere one will not find one. Since 'all phenomena' includes both the conditioned and the unconditioned, this precludes an utterly transcendent, ineffable self.

Ven. Ṭhānissaro's Introduction to DN 15 Mahānidāna Sutta:

    The scheme of analysis introduced in this section — classifying views of the self according to the variables of form and formless; finite and infinite; already existing, naturally developing in the future, and alterable through human effort — covers all the theories of the self proposed in the classical Upanisads, as well as all theories of self or soul proposed in more recent times. The inclusion of an infinite self in this list gives the lie to the belief that the Buddha's teachings on not-self were denying nothing more than a sense of "separate" or "limited" self. The discourse points out that even a limitless, infinite, all-embracing sense of self is based on an obsession in the mind that has to be abandoned.

And Ven. Ñāṇananda, Nibbāna: The Mind Stilled:

    Some are in the habit of getting down to a discussion on Nibbāna by putting saṅkhata on one side and asaṅkhata on the other side. They start by saying that saṅkhata, or the 'prepared', is anicca, or impermanent. If saṅkhata is anicca, they conclude that asaṅkhata must be nicca, that is the unprepared must be permanent. Following the same line of argument they argue that since saṅkhata is dukkha, asaṅkhata must be sukha. But when they come to the third step, they get into difficulties. If saṅkhata is anattā, or not-self, then surely asaṅkhata must be attā, or self.... All this confusion arises due to a lack of understanding of the law of Dependent Arising, paṭicca samuppāda....

    Now this is the exorcism the Buddha had to carry out. He smoked out the term attā, "self", so dear to the whole world. Of course, he could not help making use of that word as such. In fact there is an entire chapter in the Dhammapada entitled Attavagga. But it must be emphasized that the term in that context does not refer to a permanent self.



When the Buddha declares that 'all phenomena are nonself' (sabbe dhamma anatta) it is important to read the commentary (atthakatha) to the Dhammapada on this particular usage. It says: "By "sabbe dhammâ the five aggregates themselves are intended." For that reason, we cannot include nirvana or even attâ under sabbe dhamma. We cannot overlook, also, the fact that the bestial five aggregates refer to Mara (the evil one) who is the killer (S.iii.189). Since sabbe dhammâ and the five aggregates are fungible, we are permitted to say that all things are Mara (the evil one). Only the self and nirvana are not under the dominion of the Evil One.

JKhedrup
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 7:28 am

Re: Why not Theravada

Postby JKhedrup » Fri Nov 30, 2012 4:48 pm

Son of Buddha, I have read the Lotus Sutra and its commentary by Ven. Hsuan Hua. I have also read parts of the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras.
It is not possible at the moment for me to read through the entire Mahayana Sutra basket (for one thing, I have responsibilities). But I can tell you I was not immediately convinced of the Tibetan approach. I studied with teachers in Theravada and Chinese Mahayana as well- and I have listened to many of the lectures on the East Asian Mahayana side of things, for example by Ven. Heng Sure (both in person and online).
Having heard these different presentations, I find that actually the Classification mentioned by Berzin makes quite a lot of sense. I also have some degree of faith in Tsongkhapa and Gampopa, who uphold this view and also makes the Sutra basket approachable and applicable in practice through their masterly meditation manuals- Lam Rim Chenmo and Jewel Ornament. Also, from having attended many of HH Dalai Lama's teachings on a variety of topics, but especially his teachings on the Diamond Sutra and Heart sutra, my confidence has increased even more. You might be interested to know that when HHDL teaches on these "Middle Wheel" sutras, regarded as the definitive according to the Tibetan system, highly regarded scholars from both the Korean Chogye order and Taiwanese monasteries attend in great numbers. Sometimes hundreds of east asian sangha show up.
I think the danger is that without wise guidance from realized commentators, one can go off on many tangents quoting from Sutras, but not realize their intent. The danger is one can find passages to defend one's own idea about things. Therefore, I have chosen to follow the example of great teachers such as HHDL (to the extent of my limited capacity) and use the commentarial literature from the Great Indian Pandits of Nalanda University and associated texts by the well regarded Tibetan scholars like Tsongkhapa, Gampopa and Sakya Pandita.
In order to ensure my mind never comes under the power of the self-cherishing attitude,
I must obtain control over my own mind.
Therefore, amongst all empowerments, the empowerment that gives me control over my mind is the best,
and I have received the most profound empowerment with this teaching.
-Atisha Dipamkara
brtsal ba'i bkhra drin

songhill
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:23 pm

Re: Why not Theravada

Postby songhill » Fri Nov 30, 2012 4:51 pm

Son of Buddha wrote:
Yes, this is a specious interpretation that is unsupported by the Pāli suttas, the Theravāda commentarial tradition, and has been explicitly criticized by a number of contemporary Theravāda teachers. For example, Ven. Bodhi, The Connected Discourses of the Buddha (Note 385):

    The Buddha declares that 'all phenomena are nonself' (sabbe dhamma anatta), which means that if one seeks a self anywhere one will not find one. Since 'all phenomena' includes both the conditioned and the unconditioned, this precludes an utterly transcendent, ineffable self.



this is incorrect (sabbe dhamma anatta) doesnt mean 'all phenomena are nonself' it means "All phenomena are NOT-SELF) which is in relation to the self of he world the 5 aggregates are not self,not the self) this again is not saying there is NO self at all but is listing what is not the self via negative.


This is correct according to the Dhammapada Atthakatha (commentary). "By "all dhammas" the five aggregates are intended." Most Buddhists don't pay attention to just what exactly the five aggregates are about. They are the bad guys. For example, look at the First Ariyan truth, the five aggregates are suffering. They are also impermanent and they belong to Mara (the evil one). So why would one wish to think of them as their self? Obviously, they are not the self (anattâ).

But monks, an instructed disciple [ariya-savako] of the pure ones...taking count of the true men...well trained in the dhamma of the true men, regards material shape as: ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self;’ he regards feeling as: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self;’ he regards perception as: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self;’ he regards the habitual tendencies as: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self;’ he regards consciousness as: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ And also he regards whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognised, reached, looked for, pondered by the mind as: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self’ (M. i. 136)

Son of Buddha
Posts: 963
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: Why not Theravada

Postby Son of Buddha » Fri Nov 30, 2012 4:53 pm

PorkChop wrote:
Son of Buddha wrote:also I was a soldier most my life and the Pureland aspect appeals to me(I need help)
and the ending 5 fetters to go to pureabodes or the monk path to cleanse my karma like Angulimala is not an option for me(I have a small child that I cant abandon)


The 5 fetters are defined as "Self-identity views, uncertainty, grasping at precepts & practices, sensual desire, & ill will."
Practicing recollection of the Tathagatha allows for cutting of the 5 fetters and being reborn in a Pure Abode - where one will soon attain realizations (eventually Nibbana), according to the Pali Canon. Check out all the conversations with Mahanama/Mahaanaama, not super-different than Pure Land teachings imho.



oh no i dont disagree they are very similar,the pure abode in the pali canon is discribed exactly the same as the Pureland in mahayana(in the KN jewled land and place of non retrogression the only true differences between the lands is the manner in which enter these places(Mayahana through faith and asking,Theravadan through the 5 fetters)also note the Pureland sutras of Amitabha speak of the 5 burnings which is a direct corralation with the 5 fetters(the difference is it is not mandatory for entrance but as a means to giude us in how to live this life)

the problem I had with the Pureabodes was completely ending anger/ill will to get into that land thats not something that is an easy goal for someone who isnt a monk,lets be honest If i told you I CANNOT get angry or mad EVER and I was purely cleansed of all anger,you would probley think the chances of that being true would very slim,which would be my chances of getting into the pureabodes(its better for Theravadans to try to go to Tusita Heaven with maitreya)(my opionion)

Peace an Love

Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
Posts: 10289
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 8:27 pm

Re: Why not Theravada

Postby Sherab Dorje » Fri Nov 30, 2012 4:59 pm

Yes, but that does not autmoatically mean that anything that is not based in the skhanda is self. Just because something is not white, does not mean that it is black.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

songhill
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:23 pm

Re: Why not Theravada

Postby songhill » Fri Nov 30, 2012 5:00 pm

JKhedrup wrote:Son of Buddha, I have read the Lotus Sutra and its commentary by Ven. Hsuan Hua. I have also read parts of the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras.
It is not possible at the moment for me to read through the entire Mahayana Sutra basket (for one thing, I have responsibilities). But I can tell you I was not immediately convinced of the Tibetan approach. I studied with teachers in Theravada and Chinese Mahayana as well- and I have listened to many of the lectures on the East Asian Mahayana side of things, for example by Ven. Heng Sure (both in person and online).
Having heard these different presentations, I find that actually the Classification mentioned by Berzin makes quite a lot of sense. I also have some degree of faith in Tsongkhapa and Gampopa, who uphold this view and also makes the Sutra basket approachable and applicable in practice through their masterly meditation manuals- Lam Rim Chenmo and Jewel Ornament. Also, from having attended many of HH Dalai Lama's teachings on a variety of topics, but especially his teachings on the Diamond Sutra and Heart sutra, my confidence has increased even more. You might be interested to know that when HHDL teaches on these "Middle Wheel" sutras, regarded as the definitive according to the Tibetan system, highly regarded scholars from both the Korean Chogye order and Taiwanese monasteries attend in great numbers. Sometimes hundreds of east asian sangha show up.
I think the danger is that without wise guidance from realized commentators, one can go off on many tangents quoting from Sutras, but not realize their intent. The danger is one can find passages to defend one's own idea about things. Therefore, I have chosen to follow the example of great teachers such as HHDL (to the extent of my limited capacity) and use the commentarial literature from the Great Indian Pandits of Nalanda University and associated texts by the well regarded Tibetan scholars like Tsongkhapa, Gampopa and Sakya Pandita.


Have you also Dr. S.K. Hookham's book, The Buddha Within? By the way, Dr. Shenpen Hookham is a Kagyu lama and scholar.

JKhedrup
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 7:28 am

Re: Why not Theravada

Postby JKhedrup » Fri Nov 30, 2012 5:11 pm

I have not read Dr. Hookham's book but I know she is a well-respected Oxford Scholar. Maybe when I have some time and money I will get her book, but my reading list is pretty full at the moment.

Having just looked her up and read her statements about self, though, I should tell you that when she says

Many venerable saints and scholars have argued for the Self in the past and do so in the present. Great teachers of the Tibetan Nyingma, Kagyu and Sakya schools have and do argue that such a view [i.e. the reality of an essential True Self] is fundamental to the practice of the Buddhist path and the attainment of Enlightenment.'


People might understand this to mean ALL the scholars of those traditions hold this view (which has to be understood in context anyways). "Many" does not mean "All" of the scholars of those traditions. This is important to know.

This book is an excellent resource. I have looked at parts of it and found them very compelling, I hope to be able to read significant portions of it soon: "The Karmapa's Middle Way" http://books.google.nl/books/about/The_ ... edir_esc=y

There is a great section on differing interpretations of the Middle Way in the Tibetan Schools by the book's translator here:
http://karmapasmiddleway.blogspot.com
In order to ensure my mind never comes under the power of the self-cherishing attitude,
I must obtain control over my own mind.
Therefore, amongst all empowerments, the empowerment that gives me control over my mind is the best,
and I have received the most profound empowerment with this teaching.
-Atisha Dipamkara
brtsal ba'i bkhra drin

songhill
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:23 pm

Re: Why not Theravada

Postby songhill » Fri Nov 30, 2012 5:25 pm

JKhedrup wrote:I have not read Dr. Hookham's book but I know she is a well-respected Oxford Scholar. Maybe when I have some time and money I will get her book, but my reading list is pretty full at the moment.

Having just looked her up and read her statements about self, though, I should tell you that when she says

Many venerable saints and scholars have argued for the Self in the past and do so in the present. Great teachers of the Tibetan Nyingma, Kagyu and Sakya schools have and do argue that such a view [i.e. the reality of an essential True Self] is fundamental to the practice of the Buddhist path and the attainment of Enlightenment.'


People might understand this to mean ALL the scholars of those traditions hold this view (which has to be understood in context anyways). "Many" does not mean "All" of the scholars of those traditions. This is important to know.

This book is an excellent resource. I have looked at parts of it and found them very compelling, I hope to be able to read significant portions of it soon: "The Karmapa's Middle Way" http://books.google.nl/books/about/The_ ... edir_esc=y

There is a great section on differing interpretations of the Middle Way in the Tibetan Schools by the book's translator here:
http://karmapasmiddleway.blogspot.com


She presents the Gelugpa's position in The Buddha Within. I would recommend those interested in Tibetan Buddhism begin with her book.

Son of Buddha
Posts: 963
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: Why not Theravada

Postby Son of Buddha » Fri Nov 30, 2012 5:26 pm

"gregkavarnos"]Well Son of Buddha, I am hoping that you did not purposefully misquote the Alagaddupama Sutta, that actually you just had access to an incomplete translation because this is what I found:
Six View-Positions
"Monks, there are these six view-positions (ditthitthana). Which six? There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes about form: 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.'

"He assumes about feeling: 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.'

"He assumes about perception: 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.'

"He assumes about fabrications: 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.'

"He assumes about what seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.'

"He assumes about the view-position — 'This cosmos is the self. [8] After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity': 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.'

"Then there is the case where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma assumes about form: 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.'

"He assumes about feeling: 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.'

"He assumes about perception: 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.'

"He assumes about fabrications: 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.'

"He assumes about what seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.'

"He assumes about the view-position — 'This cosmos is the self. After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity': 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.'


you have done nothing but prove my postion,as you can see in the qoutes from you the Buddha is saying the 5 aggreagates are NOT MY SELF,this is not saying there is NO SELF it is saying THESE things are NOT THE SELF/NOT MY SELF

As for SN 43.1 notice how the use of the epithet "True Self" or even "Self" does not appear to describe Nirvana?
:namaste:
[/quote]

again NIRVANA is the TRUE SELF as you can see when the Buddha is talking about THIS IS MY SELF he is refering to NIRVANA.again go back to Alagaddupama sutta 22 i 139 the Buddha shows what is NOT THE SELF via negative "what is impermenant suffering of happiness?(suffering Ven sir)-Is what is Impermananet,suffering,and subject to change FIT to be ragarded thus:This is mine,this I am,THIS IS MY SELF?"
okay friend WHAT is FIT to be regarded as THIS IS MY SELF?lets look at the POSTIVE that which is Permenant,happiness/bliss,and not subject to change is FIT to be regarded as THIS IS MY SELF.this backs up what is written in SN 43.1(permanence,bliss,the undecaying) this is what is FIT to be regarded as THIS IS MY SELF.the others are not FIT to be regarded as THIS IS MY SELF.

now what does the Nirvana sutra say about this?(Permenance,Self,Bliss,Purity,is fit to regarded as MY SELF

again sir you have not shown where the Buddha said there is NO SELF,you have shown the Buddha saying these things are not FIT to be regarded as MY SELF,these things are NOT MY SELF,this 5 aggregates IS NOT MY SELF.

so what is FIT to be regared as SELF?suffering or happiness(note happiness is listed as Permenant in the above sutta while suffering is listed as impermenant)

Son of Buddha
Posts: 963
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: Why not Theravada

Postby Son of Buddha » Fri Nov 30, 2012 5:40 pm

JKhedrup wrote:Having heard these different presentations, I find that actually the Classification mentioned by Berzin makes quite a lot of sense.


Hello Ven JKhedrup I find the classification mentioned in the sutras to make more sense,than a classification form a man that goes against what the sutras themselves posit.

I think the danger is that without wise guidance from realized commentators, one can go off on many tangents quoting from Sutras, but not realize their intent. The danger is one can find passages to defend one's own idea about things. Therefore, I have chosen to follow the example of great teachers such as HHDL (to the extent of my limited capacity) and use the commentarial literature from the Great Indian Pandits of Nalanda University and associated texts by the well regarded Tibetan scholars like Tsongkhapa, Gampopa and Sakya Pandita.
[/quote]

I beleive the danger is that many commentators havent even qouted the sutras but go off views that are made up themselves,these people havent even found passages in the sutras to defend their ideas but have simply created their own views from thin air which are not supported by sutra passages at all.(it can only be a danger to find passages from sutras to defend ones own ideas if the person actaully uses a passage from the sutras to begin with)

JKhedrup
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 7:28 am

Re: Why not Theravada

Postby JKhedrup » Fri Nov 30, 2012 5:44 pm

In Lam Rim Chenmo Tsongkhapa quotes extensively from the Sutras. This is even more so in his other more exhaustive works on emptiness. Similarly, Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti quote exhaustively from the Sutras in their works. The works of Tsongkhapa, Sakya Pandia and others had as their precedent the commentaries of the Indian Pandits, so it is not like this is just a Tibetan innovation.

I don't recommend Berzin lightly, he is one of a very few Westerners to have studied really extensively with the mind to present what he learned in a way that makes sense to Westerners.
In order to ensure my mind never comes under the power of the self-cherishing attitude,
I must obtain control over my own mind.
Therefore, amongst all empowerments, the empowerment that gives me control over my mind is the best,
and I have received the most profound empowerment with this teaching.
-Atisha Dipamkara
brtsal ba'i bkhra drin

Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
Posts: 10289
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 8:27 pm

Re: Why not Theravada

Postby Sherab Dorje » Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:11 pm

Son of Buddha wrote:you have done nothing but prove my postion,as you can see in the qoutes from you the Buddha is saying the 5 aggreagates are NOT MY SELF,this is not saying there is NO SELF it is saying THESE things are NOT THE SELF/NOT MY SELF
Yes, well...
again NIRVANA is the TRUE SELF as you can see when the Buddha is talking about THIS IS MY SELF he is refering to NIRVANA.
Not according to SN 43.1 which YOU originally quoted.
okay friend WHAT is FIT to be regarded as THIS IS MY SELF? lets look at the POSTIVE that which is Permenant,happiness/bliss,and not subject to change is FIT to be regarded as THIS IS MY SELF.
Says you, not the Buddha. The Buddha is describing Nirvana in this excerpt, you make the leap of logic to claim that he is talking about a self.
this backs up what is written in SN 43.1(permanence,bliss,the undecaying) this is what is FIT to be regarded as THIS IS MY SELF.the others are not FIT to be regarded as THIS IS MY SELF.
Except that the Buddha does not say this (the big bit) either in the Alagaddupama sutta or in SN 43.1 this is your "logical" extension.
so what is FIT to be regared as SELF?suffering or happiness(note happiness is listed as Permenant in the above sutta while suffering is listed as impermenant)
What colour is the horn on a horned hare? How tall is the son of a barren woman? etc...
:namaste:
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

PorkChop
Posts: 888
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 10:17 pm

Re: Why not Theravada

Postby PorkChop » Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:32 pm

Son of Buddha wrote:the problem I had with the Pureabodes was completely ending anger/ill will to get into that land thats not something that is an easy goal for someone who isnt a monk,lets be honest If i told you I CANNOT get angry or mad EVER and I was purely cleansed of all anger,you would probley think the chances of that being true would very slim,which would be my chances of getting into the pureabodes(its better for Theravadans to try to go to Tusita Heaven with maitreya)(my opionion)


So in the discussions with Mahanama/Mahaanaama, the Buddha says that recollection of the Tathagatha severs those 5 fetters.
I took that to mean that while one is recollecting the Tathagatha, those 5 fetters are not occurring.
If one can do that at death, upon rebirth in the next world, those 5 fetters will drop off.
At the very least, the more one recollects, the longer one goes without those 5 fetters, and eventually succumbing to them will not be the normal state.

Anger's my big issue too, and my kid makes it seem impossible to ever go away completely.
I will say I think I've gotten a little better.
The more I meditate and chant, the less anger becomes my natural state, the easier it is to see arise, and the easier it is to see it dissipate.
At first, it was actually worse, I was more sensitive to it, but over time it gets easier.
These baby steps give me a little hope that some day it'll go away.

Son of Buddha
Posts: 963
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: Why not Theravada

Postby Son of Buddha » Fri Nov 30, 2012 7:07 pm

PorkChop wrote:
Son of Buddha wrote:the problem I had with the Pureabodes was completely ending anger/ill will to get into that land thats not something that is an easy goal for someone who isnt a monk,lets be honest If i told you I CANNOT get angry or mad EVER and I was purely cleansed of all anger,you would probley think the chances of that being true would very slim,which would be my chances of getting into the pureabodes(its better for Theravadans to try to go to Tusita Heaven with maitreya)(my opionion)


So in the discussions with Mahanama/Mahaanaama, the Buddha says that recollection of the Tathagatha severs those 5 fetters.
I took that to mean that while one is recollecting the Tathagatha, those 5 fetters are not occurring.
If one can do that at death, upon rebirth in the next world, those 5 fetters will drop off.
At the very least, the more one recollects, the longer one goes without those 5 fetters, and eventually succumbing to them will not be the normal state.

Anger's my big issue too, and my kid makes it seem impossible to ever go away completely.
I will say I think I've gotten a little better.
The more I meditate and chant, the less anger becomes my natural state, the easier it is to see arise, and the easier it is to see it dissipate.
At first, it was actually worse, I was more sensitive to it, but over time it gets easier.
These baby steps give me a little hope that some day it'll go away.


I would agree with that,but again whats the chances of you recollecting the Buddha when you die(counting car accidents,stray bullets,intentional bullets,allergic reaction,death in sleep)the chances again start to seem slim.

also the other side of the coin is by complete destruction of the 5 fetters which would mean I have ended anger in my everyday life not just in Recollection practices.(which is how I viewed the doctrine in meaning)
oh the practices do work for a fact I quit cussing and I quit hitting things or grabbing my gun in attempts to stick it in peoples mouths,the key is to realise the emotion at the moment it is triggered be aware/mindfull and dont EXPLODE,train your mind and it becomes as we called it "muscle memory".keep up your practices and always strive for a higher goal.

Theravadan Path can be very hard for Laity.exspecially those who have long lived a destructive life and finally come to see their self in others.suffering is brutal.
I would have to say my weakness lead me to Pureland Mahayana..of course through my weakness I am made strong,its funny how you fear hell so you run for comfort only to understand the suffering of those in hell and wish to enter hell to save them(Earth store Bodhisattva)funny how the fear of not wanting to go to hell leads you to wanting to go to hell for others)

Peace and love

Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
Posts: 10289
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 8:27 pm

Re: Why not Theravada

Postby Sherab Dorje » Fri Nov 30, 2012 9:01 pm

Okay. To recapitulate:

One group claims that the Buddha considers Nirvana as the True Self and bases this claim on excerpts from the Tathagatagarbha group of Sutras.

Another group claims that the entire Pali Canon, Sutras in the Mahayana Canon and the Tantras show that the Buddha considers both the conventional and the True Self as not existing.

And never the twain shall meet.

Both sides have laid out the arguments, logic and scriptural basis for their view so I'm going to put this one to rest and let those who read this thread decide for themselves. If anybody has anything (intelligent) to add that has not already been said please feel free to contact me.
:namaste:
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Return to “Exploring Buddhism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests