Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Tue Dec 23, 2014 12:28 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 98 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2012 2:48 am 
Offline
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Posts: 3037
Location: Olympia WA
Seems there are always threads involving vigorous debate on whether Tathagatagarbha is an eternalist doctrine. So, I have a simple question.

I guess i'm missing something here, it seems to me that if we say that the Buddha Nature concept is eternalist, then also the notions of Nirvana even in the Pali Canon are eternalist, as is the entire concept of Nirvana itself.

So can someone explain to me, outside of simply disagreeing with Buddha Nature as a kind of misleading, self-advocating pedagogical tool, how exactly is the one an eternalist doctrine and the other not? What exactly makes Nirvana, or any language used to point to the unconditioned "not eternalist" in the same way that it is claimed Tathagatgarbha is?

_________________
"We're chained to the world and we all gotta pull" -Tom Waits


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2012 3:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Posts: 1302
Location: San Francisco, CA
Everything is in complete agreement. Only myopic dharma students think otherwise.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2012 3:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 2:50 am
Posts: 545
Location: Los Angeles, CA
I imagine it might have something to do with a confusion between thinking of tathagathagarba as some actual component of the mind underneath everything as opposed to the nature of the mind itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2012 5:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:14 pm
Posts: 189
Can't speak for Tathagatagarbha but the Nirvana of early Buddhism is actually a cessation of conditioned afflictions, that cessation is termed unconditioned etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 3:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 3:11 am
Posts: 383
The point is all the teachings build on one another. You can't understand emptiness without understanding that all phenomena are conditioned. If you try, you will mistake emptiness for nihilism. And you can't understand buddha nature without understanding emptiness. If you try, you will mistake it for a kind of eternalism. Because all phenomena have been empty from the beginning there is nothing to change or alter. And that is buddha nature.

_________________
Lamrim, lojong, and mahamudra are the unmistaken path.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 4:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am
Posts: 245
Johnny Dangerous wrote:
Seems there are always threads involving vigorous debate on whether Tathagatagarbha is an eternalist doctrine. So, I have a simple question.

I guess i'm missing something here, it seems to me that if we say that the Buddha Nature concept is eternalist, then also the notions of Nirvana even in the Pali Canon are eternalist, as is the entire concept of Nirvana itself.

So can someone explain to me, outside of simply disagreeing with Buddha Nature as a kind of misleading, self-advocating pedagogical tool, how exactly is the one an eternalist doctrine and the other not? What exactly makes Nirvana, or any language used to point to the unconditioned "not eternalist" in the same way that it is claimed Tathagatgarbha is?


Eternalism is basically the belief that the five khandhas or aggregates are the self and therefore eternal. Almost, ad nauseum, the Buddha in the Pali canon taught that the aggregates are impermanent and suffering in addition to the fact, that they belong to Mara (the evil one). In that regard, the five aggregates are not the self (anattâ). The Buddha even said that his self or attâ was not an aggregate (This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self [na meso attâ]” ~ S. iii. 45). The Buddha's self has nothing to do with the five khandhas because attâ is transcendent. Transcendent means "proceeding beyond or lying outside of what is perceived or presented in experience" in this case, the five khandhas. The Buddha even asked us to take refuge in the self ((attasaranâ)) and the dhamma.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 5:47 pm 
Online
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
And so we arrive once again to my original (unanswered) question to you: We have established that the five aggregates are not-self. Fine. Yes. We know and agree. But you have yet to describe what the "True Self" is composed of. What is the "True Self"? A moment of consciousness? A phenomenon? What? You say it is, so what is it?
:namaste:

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am
Posts: 245
gregkavarnos wrote:
And so we arrive once again to my original (unanswered) question to you: We have established that the five aggregates are not-self. Fine. Yes. We know and agree. But you have yet to describe what the "True Self" is composed of. What is the "True Self"? A moment of consciousness? A phenomenon? What? You say it is, so what is it?
:namaste:


Obviously the self is not consciousness (the fifth Mara aggregate). It is not a phenomenon. You might read this.

Quote:
The self (in thee), man, knows what is true or false. Surely the noble Witness, sir, the Self, you do misjudge, in that when sin is there you do conceal the Self within the self. — AN 1. 149 (trans. Horner)


Also read this.

Quote:
"He [the Buddha] does not say that we should know the true self, but that we must not regard as the self (âtmâ, p. attâ) that which is not the self. For otherwise craving clings to this false self, and thus brings about an entanglement in the cycle of beings. And salvation takes place not through our becoming consciousness of the true self, but through our recognizing as not-self (anatmâ, P. anattâ) all that is falsely regarded as the self, and so detaching desire there from" (Erich Frauwallner)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:16 pm 
Online
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
Again, both these examples outline what is not the self (ie the skhanda), the second one (not so) deftly avoids the question by deflecting the issue back to what the false self is. But my question is: What is the True Self?

or, to use Horners rather outdated terms: What is the "noble Witness"?

Is this clear? (I should hope so!)
:namaste:

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am
Posts: 245
gregkavarnos wrote:
Again, both these examples outline what is not the self (ie the skhanda), the second one (not so) deftly avoids the question by deflecting the issue back to what the false self is. But my question is: What is the True Self?

or, to use Horners rather outdated terms: What is the "noble Witness"?

Is this clear? (I should hope so!)
:namaste:


The self transcends the five aggreagetes and that is precisely what you want to realize the self with. :rolling:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 7:08 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Posts: 2808
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA
:coffee: :popcorn:

_________________
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 8:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Posts: 1302
Location: San Francisco, CA
gregkavarnos wrote:
And so we arrive once again to my original (unanswered) question to you: We have established that the five aggregates are not-self. Fine. Yes. We know and agree. But you have yet to describe what the "True Self" is composed of. What is the "True Self"? A moment of consciousness? A phenomenon? What? You say it is, so what is it?
:namaste:


The one who realizes Thatness.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 8:52 pm 
Offline
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Posts: 3037
Location: Olympia WA
I still don't understand the fundamental difference here other than a pedagogical one - which I grant might be very important.

Whether we refer to the unconditioned we aspire to as "not having a self", or whether we say it is a "self" of a sort that phenomenal things are not; they are both just labels for something which we all know we can't describe linguistically anyway, and is not really self, non-self, nor anything we can actually define the qualities of - by definition. Something that only comes through realization anyway - right? Other than misrepresentation of the teachings to someone who doesn't yet understand "Buddhism 101", I have to say the differences between these labels seems completely semantic to me.

It sounds to me like the sutra(s) where Buddha talks about the "Nirvana of the philosophers" being a false one, borne out of constant obsession with negation and affirmation of views.

_________________
"We're chained to the world and we all gotta pull" -Tom Waits


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 9:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 963
Johnny Dangerous wrote:
Seems there are always threads involving vigorous debate on whether Tathagatagarbha is an eternalist doctrine. So, I have a simple question.

I guess i'm missing something here, it seems to me that if we say that the Buddha Nature concept is eternalist, then also the notions of Nirvana even in the Pali Canon are eternalist, as is the entire concept of Nirvana itself.

So can someone explain to me, outside of simply disagreeing with Buddha Nature as a kind of misleading, self-advocating pedagogical tool, how exactly is the one an eternalist doctrine and the other not? What exactly makes Nirvana, or any language used to point to the unconditioned "not eternalist" in the same way that it is claimed Tathagatgarbha is?


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

does this sound like eternalist?I think the question really is what is Eternalist?what was the Buddha talking about when he was talking about the eternalist view?
Songhill answered this question when he stated Eternalism was based on the view that the 5 aggregates are eternal.this was what was meant by eternalist view.the Buddha never considered his view of deathless and undecaying Nirvana to be wrong even though he was stateing it was eternal and unchanging,Permenant.

simply said their Idea of what is eternal is wrong what I am saying is eternal is right.so its not that eternal is wrong its WHAT is considered to be eternal that is the question.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 9:30 pm 
Offline
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Posts: 3037
Location: Olympia WA
Eternal, self..these are all just terms, obviously Nirvana cannot actually be described, i'm sure everyone will agree on that.

So what's the left is just whatever method is used to allude to it...beyond the very beginnings of learning about Buddhism, I don't really see how one position or the other makes alot of difference. Once someone accepts and has basic understanding of ideas of non-self and emptiness, dependent origination, understands there can be no cause separate from effect etc.. this is the protection against wrong views on the self and causality isn't it, rather than splitting hairs over the terminology used?

It seems irrelevant to me whether or not someone uses the term "true self" to label potential of realizing what lies outside of conditioned existence, or spends all their time arguing that it MUST not be called "true self".

In the end it's just an argument about labels and views anyway, I can see how it might matter in terms of not confusing people completely new to Dharma, but it really seems to be quibbling over nothing otherwise.

Again maybe my lack of scholarship shows here I don't know, but it seems like a bizarre thing to me, endless affirmation and negation of terms and views, arguing over what exact terms we use to define what is by definition undefinable.

:shrug:

_________________
"We're chained to the world and we all gotta pull" -Tom Waits


Last edited by Johnny Dangerous on Fri Nov 30, 2012 10:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 10:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:58 pm
Posts: 1106
Son of Buddha wrote:
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

does this sound like eternalist?

Firstly, this quotation is actually an extremely abridged edit of 44 suttas. Secondly, there is no reference in any of these terms to a Self. Thirdly, there's no need for a "Self" in the Buddhadharma. It's just one more thing to let go of.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 10:09 pm 
Online
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
Fourthly, he used it again in the "Why not Theravadra" thread were I made a very similar critique.

I shut down the "Why not Theravadra" thread and I will shut down this one if it devolves into the same old round of repetitive and circular arguments.
:namaste:

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 10:11 pm 
Online
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
deepbluehum wrote:
The one who realizes Thatness.
And the "one" that realises Thatness is obviously not the "one" which we impute onto the skhanda so now there is a second "one'? ie You have not answered my question: What is this "one" composed of?
:namaste:

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 11:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 2:50 am
Posts: 545
Location: Los Angeles, CA
deepbluehum wrote:
gregkavarnos wrote:
And so we arrive once again to my original (unanswered) question to you: We have established that the five aggregates are not-self. Fine. Yes. We know and agree. But you have yet to describe what the "True Self" is composed of. What is the "True Self"? A moment of consciousness? A phenomenon? What? You say it is, so what is it?
:namaste:


The one who realizes Thatness.

I always thought that the "one who realizes Thatness" is just the reflexive action of consciousness realizing that it is not self. No?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 11:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:58 pm
Posts: 1106
songhill wrote:
Obviously the self is not consciousness (the fifth Mara aggregate).

Then your precious self is unconscious. Soul theories are irrelevant for the realization of knowledge. A complete waste of time. The Buddhadharma is not an ātmavāda.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 98 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: conebeckham, Yahoo [Bot] and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group