The Mahaparinirvana Sutra

[JohnRammy]

we can consider that the original Tathagatagarbha theory was fully eternalist.

This is what I've been saying !

[JohnRammy]

I was discussing the fact that originally the MPNS introduced a eternalism into Buddhism.

M

I agree, the Tathāgatagarbha Sutras are heretical and should be discarded.

[cdpatton]

The view of "specialist scholars" is not relevant to the influence on the buddhadharma & generations of practitioners of the "standard" sutra.

The point is that part of the sutra under question, which "normalizes" the view of the MPNS does not seem to be present in any other recension. It certainly is not in the Tibetan version. Based in that, we can consider that the original Tathagatagarbha theory was fully eternalist.

Malcolm,

Is there a Tibetan translation that is not from Chinese? My understanding was that we have nothing translated from Sanskrit except for the Buddhabhadra/Faxian version (the smaller one) and Dharmaksema's (the expanded one).

One of the differences between the two Chinese versions I find interesting is not so much the apparent attempt to "break the edges" of the ideological positions, but the chapter headings. Buddhabhadra's has many relatively brief chapters and Dharmaksema has fewer, much larger chapters (even in the first third that is generally considered the first iteration of the Sutra). I wonder if this was Buddhabhadra's handiwork or if what we have with Dharmaksema is just an entirely different recension someone else produced from the first shorter text. One of the interesting things, too, about the later materials is that they are, in fact, loaded with Agama materials. Wholesale reproduction of well-known Agamas, albeit with Mahayanist motifs added. There is a large section detailing the Four Noble Truths, and so forth.

We should get Connie Willis to write a novel for Buddhologists, as far as the rest goes!

Charlie.

[Astus]

Gregory,

How is the concept of One Vehicle an important one here? I mean, even the Prajnaparamita Sutra in 8000 Verses says right in the first chapter that prajnaparamita is required by both sravakas and bodhisattvas. So, we can say that there is actually only one path and one goal taught in different ways for different audiences.

[Huifeng]

Gregory,

How is the concept of One Vehicle an important one here? I mean, even the Prajnaparamita Sutra in 8000 Verses says right in the first chapter that prajnaparamita is required by both sravakas and bodhisattvas. So, we can say that there is actually only one path and one goal taught in different ways for different audiences.

But the Prajnaparamita does not say that there is one path and one goal...

~~ Huifeng

[Astus]

But the Prajnaparamita does not say that there is one path and one goal...

True.

[Son of Buddha]

As I see it, the teaching that is at the center of the Mahaparinirvana Sutra is the Ekayana, the One Vehicle

.

I agree(Ekayana is Tathagatagarbha)Nirvana sutra.

The primary Ekayana Sutras are:
The Going Down to Lanka Sutra - Lankavatara Sutra
The Flower Garland Sutra - Avatamsaka Sutra
The White Lotus of the True Dharma Sutra - Saddharmapundarika Sutra
The Lion's Roar of Queen Srimala Sutra - Srimaladevi Simhanada Sutra
The Great Parinirvana Sutra - Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra
The Shurangama Sutra - Śūraṅgama Sutra
The Great Dharma Drum Sutra - Mahābherīhāraka-parivarta Sutra
The Diamond Samadhi Sutra - Vajrasamadhi Sutra

I agree

None of these Sutras has the sole or final word on the One Vehicle, each and all of them add depth perspective to the One Vehicle.

I view the Lotus sutra and the Mahaparinirvana sutra as higher than the rest in importance(due to the sutras making these claims themselves)but I agree that no Ekayana sutra has the final word as the other Ekayana sutras do add their own depth perspective and teachings that cover on many topics of the Ekayana.

IMHO, it is a misconception to identify the One Buddha Vehicle with just tathagata-garbha thought because it is also called Dharmakaya, Buddha Nature, Emptiness, Alaya Vijnana, True Suchness, etc. The One Vehicle (Ekayana) as the teaching of manifesting Buddha Nature is the synthetic inclusion of all three Mahayana teachings of Madhyamaka, Yogacara, and Tathagatagarbha.

I disagree,
Nirvana sutra Chapter 33 "The One Vechicle is the Buddha Nature(Tathagatagarbha).That is why I say all beings possess the Buddha Nature.All beings possess the One vechile.As ignorance is spread all over them,they cannot see."

the tathagatagarbha is the One Vechicle and it is all the other things also
Note: Buddha nature is just anouther name for Tathagatagarbha
the emptiness in the Tathagatagarbha is is other emptiness or empty-empty which is to say it is empty of all defilements but not empti of itself.
Tathagatagarbha is Dharmakaya(Enlightenment) that is undercover of defilements,Dharmakaya itself is free from defilments(the slight differnence in the two terms)
True suchness is true self which is Tathagatagrabha(Surangama sutra/Nirvana sutra)

I follow Guifeng Zongmi in this.

5. That Which Is The One Vehicle's (Ekayana) Teaching Of Manifesting Nature.

To clarify for everyone having sentience, everybody has the root enlightenment of true mind. Beginningless is how it comes, and it always abides clear and pure. Its luminosity does not darken and is completely and constantly aware.

[As an aside, I've recently completed a first draft of my translation of Queen Srimala's Lion's Roar Sutra. If your sangha would like to look at it let me know the contact info.]

_/|\_
Gregory

I agree and i will be sending you a message soon
Peace and Love

[Son of Buddha]

we can consider that the original Tathagatagarbha theory was fully eternalist.

This is what I've been saying !

No its not,tathagatagarbha is not eternalism,when Buddha spoke of eternalists in was never in realation to enlightenemnt/Tathagatgarbha but was in relation to the false self not being eternal.
nilhism and eternalism in Buddhist sutras are in realation to the tainted self(5 aggregates/Skandalas)

Buddhism teaches that nhilism is wrong view so Enlightenment doesnt cease(if it did cease then it would annhilate=nhilism
eternalism in Buddhism was in realation to the 5 Skandalas tainted self(as the Brahmas beleived the 5 Skandala self was eternal)the Buddha taught this eternalism was wrong view.

even from the Pali canon to the Mahayana canon you can see the Buddha teaching that enlightenement is the Immortality the Deathless,Eternal,and that impermenance is suffering/Samsara and that the Buddha is not impermenant.

so while the Tathagatagarbha/Buddha/Dharmakaya is Eternal,the eternalist view was given in realation to false self being eternal(which is wrong view)

why does Buddha Nature sutras threaten you so much?

[Astus]

No its not,tathagatagarbha is not eternalism,when Buddha spoke of eternalists in was never in realation to enlightenemnt/Tathagatgarbha but was in relation to the false self not being eternal.
nilhism and eternalism in Buddhist sutras are in realation to the tainted self(5 aggregates/Skandalas)

Buddhism teaches that nhilism is wrong view so Enlightenment doesnt cease(if it did cease then it would annhilate=nhilism
eternalism in Buddhism was in realation to the 5 Skandalas tainted self(as the Brahmas beleived the 5 Skandala self was eternal)the Buddha taught this eternalism was wrong view.

This idea that there is a true eternal self beyond the five aggregates is exactly the atman of outsiders and the teaching refuted by the doctrine of the five aggregates itself. If the buddha-nature were like that it would be indeed nothing but false teachings.

[Son of Buddha]

No its not,tathagatagarbha is not eternalism,when Buddha spoke of eternalists in was never in realation to enlightenemnt/Tathagatgarbha but was in relation to the false self not being eternal.
nilhism and eternalism in Buddhist sutras are in realation to the tainted self(5 aggregates/Skandalas)

Buddhism teaches that nhilism is wrong view so Enlightenment doesnt cease(if it did cease then it would annhilate=nhilism
eternalism in Buddhism was in realation to the 5 Skandalas tainted self(as the Brahmas beleived the 5 Skandala self was eternal)the Buddha taught this eternalism was wrong view.

This idea that there is a true eternal self beyond the five aggregates is exactly the atman of outsiders and the teaching refuted by the doctrine of the five aggregates itself. If the buddha-nature were like that it would be indeed nothing but false teachings.

not true,the 5 aggregates refuted the Brahman idea of self which was based on the 5 Aggregates((The pre-Buddhist Upanishads link the Self to the feeling "I am."[40] The Chandogya Upanishad for example does, and it sees Self as underlying the whole world))), .While, older Upanishads such as the Brihadaranyaka, mention several times that the Self is described as Neti neti or ((((((not this - not this))))),[5] Upanishads post Buddhism, like the Maitri Upanishad, define Ātman as only the defiled individual self, rather than the universal self.

SOOOO as you can see here the Brahmans had two different views of what the self was in their copus of holy texts the Brihadaranyaka text view on SELF is exactly what can be found in the Buddhist pali canon(not the self,not self,not this,this is not I,this is NOT MY SELF)
NOW the Buddha was in agreement with the Brihadaranyaka VIEW ......but the Buddha refuted the contradictory view which was found in the Chandogya Upanishad which equated the real self with this "I am"(5 aggregates) of the worldly.

The Buddha like wise never said there is no self the Buddha stated Anatta which is NOT-SELF or not the self.Alagaddupama sutta(majjhima nikaya sutta 22)when talking about the 5 aggreagates he stated these things are and I qoute "This is not mine,this I am not,this is not my self" now where did he say there is no self?what the Buddha said is the 5 aggrregates are (((not the self))) Anatta which implies there is a self but these things are not it. hence in agreement with what is taught in the Upanishad Brihadaranyaka (((the self is NOT THIS))(neti-neti)

"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)))))))).SN 22:100========the false self is the 5 Aggregates the True self is the Pure unconditioned Mind..(Tathagatagarbha)

The Tathagatagarbha sutras are in agreement with the pali canon,when it says the 5 aggregates are not the self,the tathagatagarbha sutras are also in agreement with the pali canon in the teaching of "(((((((From the defilement of the mind are beings defiled. From the purification of the mind are beings purified")))))))).which is the exact teaching of what the Buddha nature is(purified mind under defilements)the mind(Tathagatagarbha/Buddha Nature) is listed as the True Self.

[Astus]

If there were a self beyond the aggregates, one could not touch it, feel it, think of it, or experience it in any way, because those are all within the aggregates. Something beyond the aggregates is beyond perception, beyond reality, therefore unreal and only a mental fabrication, an idea only. Realisation of such a self would also be impossible, as such a permanent self would either be already realised or never realised, since realisation is change and experience. A self beyond the aggregates has no function, therefore no existence.

"If the aggregates were self, it would be possessed of arising and decaying. If it were other than the aggregates, it would not have the characteristics of the aggregates."
(Nagarjuna: MMK 18.1)

Commentary from the Zhonglun:

"If the soul existed apart from the five skandhas, the soul would not have the characteristics of the five skandhas. As it says in the verse: 'if the soul is different from the five skandhas, then it will not have the characteristics of the five skandhas'. Yet no other dharma exists apart from the five skandhas. If there were any such dharma apart from the five skandhas, by virtue of what characteristics, or what dharmas, would it exist?"

Commentary from the Prasannapada:

"And so, in the first place, the Self is not the aggregates; but it is also not reasonable for the Self to be different from the aggregates. For if the Self were something other than the aggregates, then the aggregates would not be its defining characteristics. For example, a horse, which is different from a cow, does not have a cow as its defining characteristic. In the same manner, the Self, when it is conceived as different from the aggregates, would not have the aggregates as its defining characteristics. Here, because they are conditioned (saṃskṛta), the aggregates arise from causes and conditions and their defining characteristics are occurrence, perdurance and decay. Therefore, if the Self does not have the aggregates as its defining characteristics, as you maintain, then the Self would not have occurrence, perdurance and decay as its defining characteristics. And in that case, the Self would either be like a sky flower, because it does not exist, or it would be like nirvāṇa, because it is unconditioned. As such, it would not be called the “Self,” nor would it be reasonable for it to be the object of the habitual sense of ‘I.’ Therefore, it is also not reasonable for the Self to be different from the aggregates.
Alternatively, here is another meaning of the statement, “If the Self were different from the aggregates, the aggregates would not be its defining characteristics.” These are the defining characteristics of the five aggregates: (1) malleability, (2) experience, (3) the apprehension of an object’s sign, (4) conditioning, and (5) representation of an object. If, just as consciousness is asserted to be different from material form, the Self were asserted to be different from the aggregates, then the Self would be established with a distinct defining characteristic. As such, it would be apprehended as being established with a distinct defining characteristic, just as consciousness is apprehended as established with a defining characteristic distinct from material form. The Self is not, however, apprehended in that fashion; hence, there is no Self distinct from the aggregates.
Someone objects, «The Tīrthikas know of a Self separate from the aggregates, and they thus speak of its defining characteristics. Hence, this way of refuting the Self does not refute them. And the way that the Tīrthikas speak of a separate defining characteristic for the Self is stated in the following verse from Encountering Madhyamaka:
The Tīrthikas conceive of a Self that is by nature eternal; it is an experiencer without being an agent; it is devoid of qualities and inactive. The Tīrthikas’ system has come to be further divided in terms of this or that distinction in the qualities predicated of the Self.» (MAV 6.142)
We respond as follows. It is true that the Tīrthikas state a defining characteristic of the Self separate from the aggregates, but they do not state its defining characteristic after having perceived the Self in its actuality. Rather, through not properly understanding dependent designation, they do not realize, due to their fear, that the Self is merely nominal. Not realizing this, they depart even from conventional reality, and due to their false concepts, they become confused by what is merely spurious inference. Thus confused, they conceptually construct a Self due to their confusion, and they then state its defining characteristic. In the “Analysis of Factors in Action and their Object” (MMK 8), Nāgārjuna says that the Self and its substratum are established in mutual dependence on each other; and by saying this, he refutes the above notion of Self in even conventional terms."

[Son of Buddha]

If there were a self beyond the aggregates, one could not touch it, feel it, think of it, or experience it in any way, because those are all within the aggregates. Something beyond the aggregates is beyond perception, beyond reality, therefore unreal and only a mental fabrication, an idea only. Realisation of such a self would also be impossible, as such a permanent self would either be already realised or never realised, since realisation is change and experience. A self beyond the aggregates has no function, therefore no existence.

as the sutras/suttas say the self is not the 5 aggregates,as you say "such a permenant self would already be realised" the self(mind) is already realised the "I" is the defilment that is on top of the mind(self)
"you" the "I" cannot realise the self "you" will never find the self,"you" will NEVER be enlightened,"you" cannot touch,feel,preceive or experience Nirvana "you" and "I" are the defilement and this defilement "I" will never be enlightened,if this "I" was "enlightened" then that would be saying the 5 Aggregates is the True self(enlightenment)
the "I" cannot be enlightenement for ONLY enlightenment is Enlightenment(hence already realised) but under the cover of "you" "I"(defilement)(and i apologise if "I" confuse)

[

i]"If the aggregates were self, it would be possessed of arising and decaying. If it were other than the aggregates, it would not have the characteristics of the aggregates."[/i]
(Nagarjuna: MMK 18.1)

yes the aggregates are not the self they arise and decay,the "I" of the 5 aggregates is changing every nano second the True Self is Permenant.

Commentary from the Zhonglun:

"If the soul existed apart from the five skandhas, the soul would not have the characteristics of the five skandhas. As it says in the verse: 'if the soul is different from the five skandhas, then it will not have the characteristics of the five skandhas'. Yet no other dharma exists apart from the five skandhas. If there were any such dharma apart from the five skandhas, by virtue of what characteristics, or what dharmas, would it exist?"

First of all Nirvana sutra "Depend Upon Sutras not upon persons" commentary does not trump sutras,also (no disrespect) but Zhonglun is incorrect Majjhima Nikaya Culamalunkya sutta 63 i429
"the soul is the same as the body'the soul is one thing and the body anouther" the Tathagata leaves undeclared,the Buddha never said the soul didnt exist,he stated he would not declare where the soul is located.If i told you that I would not tell you where the CAR is,would you go around telling people I said the CAR doesnt exist?or would you think i'm implying the CAR exists,and that Im just leaving out where it is located?kinda like when the Buddha says this is NOT MY SELF,this is NOT the SELF,is the Buddha saying there is no self?or saying these things(5 aggreagates) are NOT THE SELF?implying a self exists and these things are not it.thats kinda like me saying this is NOT MY CAR,by saying this am I saying a CAR doesnt exist or simply THIS is NOT MY "car"

Commentary from the Prasannapada:

"And so, in the first place, the Self is not the aggregates; but it is also not reasonable for the Self to be different from the aggregates. For if the Self were something other than the aggregates, then the aggregates would not be its defining characteristics. For example, a horse, which is different from a cow, does not have a cow as its defining characteristic. In the same manner, the Self, when it is conceived as different from the aggregates, would not have the aggregates as its defining characteristics. Here, because they are conditioned (saṃskṛta), the aggregates arise from causes and conditions and their defining characteristics are occurrence, perdurance and decay. Therefore, if the Self does not have the aggregates as its defining characteristics, as you maintain, then the Self would not have occurrence, perdurance and decay as its defining characteristics. And in that case, the Self would either be like a sky flower, because it does not exist, or it would be like nirvāṇa, because it is unconditioned. As such, it would not be called the “Self,” nor would it be reasonable for it to be the object of the habitual sense of ‘I.’ Therefore, it is also not reasonable for the Self to be different from the aggregates.

I likey....tell me does the Buddha not have the Dharmakaya Body?or the 3 bodies?1."form"2."sensation" perception"mental formations"consciousness" does the Buddha not think or is it a zombie?
"suffering arises when one identifies with or clings to an aggregate. Suffering is extinguished by relinquishing attachments to aggregates".the 5 Aggregates dont cease to exist,the "I" preceives itself to exist based on clinging to the Aggregates when the mind no longer conceives itself as an "I" clung to aggreagates the defilement(false self) is removed from the Pure lumonious Mind(True Self)(as you have heard Enlightenment exists within everything but not everything exists withing enlightenement)

Alternatively, here is another meaning of the statement, “If the Self were different from the aggregates, the aggregates would not be its defining characteristics.” These are the defining characteristics of the five aggregates: (1) malleability, (2) experience, (3) the apprehension of an object’s sign, (4) conditioning, and (5) representation of an object. If, just as consciousness is asserted to be different from material form, the Self were asserted to be different from the aggregates, then the Self would be established with a distinct defining characteristic. As such, it would be apprehended as being established with a distinct defining characteristic, just as consciousness is apprehended as established with a defining characteristic distinct from material form. The Self is not, however, apprehended in that fashion; hence, there is no Self distinct from the aggregates.

yes the the distict chararistic is pure unconditioned mind(even the basic teachings in the pali canon make its clear the 5 Aggregates are not the self)the Nirvana sutra makes it even more clear on the true self.

Someone objects, «The Tīrthikas know of a Self separate from the aggregates, and they thus speak of its defining characteristics. Hence, this way of refuting the Self does not refute them. And the way that the Tīrthikas speak of a separate defining characteristic for the Self is stated in the following verse from Encountering Madhyamaka:
The Tīrthikas conceive of a Self that is by nature eternal; it is an experiencer without being an agent; it is devoid of qualities and inactive. The Tīrthikas’ system has come to be further divided in terms of this or that distinction in the qualities predicated of the Self.» (MAV 6.142)
We respond as follows. It is true that the Tīrthikas state a defining characteristic of the Self separate from the aggregates, but they do not state its defining characteristic after having perceived the Self in its actuality. Rather, through not properly understanding dependent designation, they do not realize, due to their fear, that the Self is merely nominal. Not realizing this, they depart even from conventional reality, and due to their false concepts, they become confused by what is merely spurious inference. Thus confused, they conceptually construct a Self due to their confusion, and they then state its defining characteristic. In the “Analysis of Factors in Action and their Object” (MMK 8), Nāgārjuna says that the Self and its substratum are established in mutual dependence on each other; and by saying this, he refutes the above notion of Self in even conventional terms."

guess I will have to refute Nagarjuna then....
NAGARJUNA="but they do not state its defining characteristic after having perceived the Self in its actuality. Rather, through not properly understanding dependent designation"
MY REPLY:True self is that which is not clung to the 5 aggreagates,for the "I" is what is clung to the 5 aggregates,the true self is Pure and Perfect mind not covered with defilements,it is permenant and never changing(if it was changing then this "enlightenment" could change back into that of the ordinary persons meaning it would not be the end of suffering but be anouther impermenant object itself)
also sir Dependent designation(12 links DO) is rooted in ignorance(1 of the 3 poisons)and was meant to discribe what SAMSARA consists of the Buddha is not under the 12 loinks of DO cause the Buddha is not impermenant,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"(TEXT SHOWS THE OPPOSITES)(like wise what is PERMENANT,HAPPINESS/BLISS,AND NOT SUBJECT TO CHANGE IS FIT TO BE REGARDED AS THIS IS MY SELF)(note the Nirvana sutra states the same exact thing(Permenant,Bliss,Self,Purity)(purity is found in above prior messge qoute from SN 22)
so what is under Dependent designation is not FIT to be regarded as MY SELF.
how can Nagarjuna refute the notion of self when the Buddha states there is a SELF?(is he going to refute the both the pali canon and the Mahayana canon?)

[Son of Buddha]

One of the interesting things, too, about the later materials is that they are, in fact, loaded with Agama materials. Wholesale reproduction of well-known Agamas, albeit with Mahayanist motifs added. There is a large section detailing the Four Noble Truths, and so forth.

We should get Connie Willis to write a novel for Buddhologists, as far as the rest goes!

Charlie.

All mahayana Sutras are loaded with Agama(Pali canon) materials do you know most of the Lotus sutra can be found in the Pali canon also?so im not seeing the point you are trying to make?

[cdpatton]

One of the interesting things, too, about the later materials is that they are, in fact, loaded with Agama materials. Wholesale reproduction of well-known Agamas, albeit with Mahayanist motifs added. There is a large section detailing the Four Noble Truths, and so forth.

We should get Connie Willis to write a novel for Buddhologists, as far as the rest goes!

Charlie.

All mahayana Sutras are loaded with Agama(Pali canon) materials do you know most of the Lotus sutra can be found in the Pali canon also?so im not seeing the point you are trying to make?

*Wholesome reproduction of well-known Agamas* does not occur in all Mahayana Sutras, nor the Lotus Sutra. That was my point, Buddhaputra, sir. I can't think of any others, off the top of my head. Sure, you see alot of basic doctrines and metaphors taken from the Agamas, but not entire Sutras taken, given a Mahayana face lift, and then spliced into a Mahayana Sutra.

Charlie.

[cdpatton]

If there were a self beyond the aggregates, one could not touch it, feel it, think of it, or experience it in any way, because those are all within the aggregates. Something beyond the aggregates is beyond perception, beyond reality, therefore unreal and only a mental fabrication, an idea only. Realisation of such a self would also be impossible, as such a permanent self would either be already realised or never realised, since realisation is change and experience. A self beyond the aggregates has no function, therefore no existence.

as the sutras/suttas say the self is not the 5 aggregates,as you say "such a permenant self would already be realised" ...

It's a very weak argument to claim that the old tradition (Nikaya/Agama) Buddha merely said that the five skandhas were not "the" self, but he never said there was no self; therefore, that Buddha did not refute an atman. If the Buddha in those texts had believed there was a self beyond the five aggregates *he would have said so*. This entire "Oh, he was telling riddles that the Mahayanists solved" line is a transparent apology for introducing new doctrines and interpretations, but attempting to appear orthodox, all the same. It's basically trying to break with the old traditions but continue to remain within them at the same time. (No one wants to be called a heretic.) A necessary evil in the religious world, where one must always try to show his ideas are orthodox - but it gets pretty obvious at a certain point when you've moved on and created a new tradition or sect. One might as well just be honest about it at that point. Mind you, I have nothing against this process. I think, like other human endeavors, religious traditions usually improve over time through refinement. This whole "we must have the original teaching because that one was the perfect one" line of thought religions get into is self-frustrating. Either you disallow any improvements over the initial teaching or you play these intellectual camouflage games as you introduce new ideas.

*But that's the opinion of an old man who's read too much already.*

It's a reality that the early traditions held that 1) atman is not one of the five skandhas and 2) there isn't a sixth skandha. There's no point (other than deception of oneself and others) in trying to rationalize that away.

And, anyway, the issue here to me (re: the Nirvana Sutra) is the assertion of a (or, *the*) *Buddha* who is the self. That is what the Nirvana Sutra says continuously from Chapter 3 on. It doesn't say the sattvas have selves. Rather, it says that the sattva's possession of the tathagata-garbha is the meaning of "self" in that context. This is somewhat different than saying, for instance, that each sattva has a soul that will re-join Brahma, etc. It is, rather, saying that the potential of becoming a Buddha always resides in sattvas. They just need to actualize the causes and conditions to become Buddhas themselves. The meaning of self, as used in this schema, is degraded to me, into a mere label. A strict Nagarjunist, I suppose, will always balk at saying anything at all (except, "that's not so" - it must such a burden), but the rest of us can probably live with having a goal in mind.

Charlie.

[songhill]

If there were a self beyond the aggregates, one could not touch it, feel it, think of it, or experience it in any way, because those are all within the aggregates. Something beyond the aggregates is beyond perception, beyond reality, therefore unreal and only a mental fabrication, an idea only. Realisation of such a self would also be impossible, as such a permanent self would either be already realised or never realised, since realisation is change and experience. A self beyond the aggregates has no function, therefore no existence.

as the sutras/suttas say the self is not the 5 aggregates,as you say "such a permenant self would already be realised" ...

It's a very weak argument to claim that the old tradition (Nikaya/Agama) Buddha merely said that the five skandhas were not "the" self, but he never said there was no self; therefore, that Buddha did not refute an atman.

From the Pali Nikayas we learn that the Buddha rejected each khandha as being attâ. Why did he do this? In all probability because there were those who asserted that each or some aggregates were the attâ which, incidentally, is the eternalist position. This is where Ockham's Razor comes in handy (the principle of simplicity). If we posit some theory or view that the Buddha unambigiously denied the self, which in Pali is natthatta (which our dear scholars have missed), we move to Ockham's spatula with it nothing but confusion. It is difficult to read the Khandhasamyutta, for example, and not see it other than a teaching which is correcting the belief that the khandhas are the attâ. In addition, the implicit referent is always the actual attâ which transcends any capture by the khandhas which are fundamentally—let's admit it—evil.

[Son of Buddha]

It's a very weak argument to claim that the old tradition (Nikaya/Agama) Buddha merely said that the five skandhas were not "the" self, but he never said there was no self; therefore, that Buddha did not refute an atman. If the Buddha in those texts had believed there was a self beyond the five aggregates *he would have said so*.

MN Alagaddupama sutta 22
"Therefore, monks, whatever isn't yours: Let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term welfare & happiness. And what isn't yours? Form (body) isn't yours: Let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term welfare & happiness. Feeling isn't yours... Perception... Thought fabrications... Consciousness isn't yours: Let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term welfare & happiness.

"What do you think, monks: If a person were to gather or burn or do as he likes with the grass, twigs, branches & leaves here in Jeta's Grove, would the thought occur to you, 'It's us that this person is gathering, burning, or doing with as he likes'?"

"No, lord. Why is that? Because those things are not our self, nor do they belong to our self." "Even so, monks, whatever isn't yours: Let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term welfare & happiness. And what isn't yours? Form isn't yours... Feeling isn't yours... Perception... Thought fabrications... Consciousness isn't yours: Let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term welfare & happiness.

we have a self the Buddha made it clear these things are not our self

This entire "Oh, he was telling riddles that the Mahayanists solved" line is a transparent apology for introducing new doctrines and interpretations, but attempting to appear orthodox, all the same

.

its not a riddle at all,if i told you these things were not my car would you say my car doesnt exist,there is no car?or would you think their is a car and im simply telling people that this is not my car(self)as I posted above it is made very clear our self exists(and the 5 aggreagates is not our self MN 22

It's basically trying to break with the old traditions but continue to remain within them at the same time.

when does qouteing old tradition break it?I have qouted tradtion which speaks of our self,where does it say there is no self?

*But that's the opinion of an old man who's read too much already.*

the key word is your opinion of what the old tradtion says,not what is actually written in the 5 Nikayas

It's a reality that the early traditions held that 1) atman is not one of the five skandhas and 2) there isn't a sixth skandha. There's no point (other than deception of oneself and others) in trying to rationalize that away.

notice how nowhere in that does it say there is no self,and I agree our self(MN 22) is not the 5 skandhas

And, anyway, the issue here to me (re: the Nirvana Sutra) is the assertion of a (or, *the*) *Buddha* who is the self. That is what the Nirvana Sutra says continuously from Chapter 3 on. It doesn't say the sattvas have selves. Rather, it says that the sattva's possession of the tathagata-garbha is the meaning of "self" in that context. This is somewhat different than saying, for instance, that each sattva has a soul that will re-join Brahma, etc. It is, rather, saying that the potential of becoming a Buddha always resides in sattvas. They just need to actualize the causes and conditions to become Buddhas themselves. The meaning of self, as used in this schema, is degraded to me, into a mere label. A strict Nagarjunist, I suppose, will always balk at saying anything at all (except, "that's not so" - it must such a burden), but the rest of us can probably live with having a goal in mind.

[/quote]

the sattvas have the false self "I" of the 5 aggreagates at the 10th stage they see the Tathagatagarbha and the "I" ceases to exist.the "I" does not re-join Buddha cause the "I" is the taint to begin with.there is ZERO potential for "YOU" "I" "ME" to become a Buddha the "I" itself is defilement,the Tathagatagarbha(Buddha/Dharmakaya) is under cover of defilements("I")("ME")

you be a strict Nagarjunist,I'll be a strict Sutra/sutta follower

[Jnana]

the key word is your opinion of what the old tradtion says,not what is actually written in the 5 Nikayas

You're not following any tradition or living lineage in your rambling musings on the Pāli Nikāyas. You're just following your own whims. Here is what the Pāli tradition says about the self and nirvāṇa. The Paṭisambhidāmagga Aṭṭhakathā:

The dhamma called 'Nibbāna' is empty of self only on account of the non-existence of self [i.e., not on account of impermanence, etc.]. Secondly, conditioned dhammas, both mundane and supramundane, are all empty of a living being on account of the non-existence of a living being of any sort whatever. The unconditioned, the dhamma called 'Nibbāna', is empty of formations on account of the absence [there] of formations. Lastly, all dhammas, conditioned and unconditioned, are empty of self on account of the non-existence of any person who could be classed as 'a self'.

There are numerous Mahāyāna sūtras that make very similar statements.

[Son of Buddha]

the key word is your opinion of what the old tradtion says,not what is actually written in the 5 Nikayas

You're not following any tradition or living lineage in your rambling musings on the Pāli Nikāyas. You're just following your own whims. Here is what the Pāli tradition says about the self and nirvāṇa. The Paṭisambhidāmagga Aṭṭhakathā:

The dhamma called 'Nibbāna' is empty of self only on account of the non-existence of self [i.e., not on account of impermanence, etc.]. Secondly, conditioned dhammas, both mundane and supramundane, are all empty of a living being on account of the non-existence of a living being of any sort whatever. The unconditioned, the dhamma called 'Nibbāna', is empty of formations on account of the absence [there] of formations. Lastly, all dhammas, conditioned and unconditioned, are empty of self on account of the non-existence of any person who could be classed as 'a self'.

There are numerous Mahāyāna sūtras that make very similar statements.

The Paṭisambhidāmagga Aṭṭhakathā
are all empty of a living being on account of the non-existence of a living being of any sort whatever
are empty of self on account of the non-existence of any person who could be classed as 'a self'.

Speaking in this way, teaching in this way, I have been erroneously, vainly, falsely, unfactually misrepresented by some brahmans and contemplatives [who say], ‘Gotama the contemplative is one who misleads. He declares the annihilation, destruction, extermination of the existing being.’ But as I am not that, as I do not say that, so I have been erroneously, vainly, falsely, unfactually misrepresented by those venerable brahmans and contemplatives [who say], ‘Gotama the contemplative is one who misleads. He declares the annihilation, destruction, extermination of the existing being.’ (MN 22, trans. Thanissaro, 2004)
Another passage can be found in the Yamaka Sutta, where some of the Buddha’s disciples advise Yamaka against annihilationism:
Don't say that, friend Yamaka. Don't misrepresent the Blessed One. It's not good to misrepresent the Blessed One, for the Blessed One would not say, ‘A monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, and does not exist after death.’ (SN 22.85, trans. Thanissaro, 1997)

You're not following any tradition or living lineage in your rambling musings on the Pāli Nikāyas. You're just following your own whims. Here is what the Pāli tradition says about the self and nirvāṇa. The Paṭisambhidāmagga Aṭṭhakathā

are you sure about that?

“The great light of the self (attâ/atma) is the great-self (mahâtman) which is an illumination beyond the physical (rûpa). The great-self is similar to the solar sphere as the source of the sphere’s brightness, as such, the radiant power.”— Vimanavatthu Atthakatha No. 268
“The Tathâgata is the true reality of the self (attâ).” — Majjhimapannasa Atthakatha 3.379
The true nature (bhâva) of the Tathâgata is the self (attano). — Itivuttaka Atthakatha 2.187
“The Blessed One (bhagavat) is the origin of his lineage, [which is] the great perfection (mahâsammâ).” — Mahâvagga Atthakatha 2.677
“What is external (parato) is empty (suññato), is inanimate (anatta), is the mark of the inanimate (anattalakkana).” — Majjhimapannsapali Atthakatha 3.146
“The vision of perfection of the path of the self (maggatta).” — Patisambhidamagga Atthakatha 3.608
“The self’s perfection (sammattâ) is the Noble Eightfold Path.” — Nettippakarana Atthakatha No.184
“The self is deathless (amara) and is identical with one’s true nature (sabhâva).” — Jataka Atthakatha No. 6 6.370
“The Tathagata is the Buddha, and the self.” — Itivuttaka Atthakatha 2.187
“Samsara is samsara as non-immortal faring. Awareness of the immortal supreme self is the faring of the immortal supreme self.” — Therigatha Atthakatha 289
“Just so it is that the self (attâ) is none of the five aggregates (Skt., skandha).” — Udana Atthakatha No. 376
“The one self, the one true reality (ekabhâva), is without emptiness (asuññata).” — Uparipannasapali Atthkatha 4.151

Have and Nice Day

[Jnana]

Speaking in this way, teaching in this way, I have been erroneously, vainly, falsely, unfactually misrepresented by some brahmans and contemplatives [who say], ‘Gotama the contemplative is one who misleads. He declares the annihilation, destruction, extermination of the existing being.’ But as I am not that, as I do not say that, so I have been erroneously, vainly, falsely, unfactually misrepresented by those venerable brahmans and contemplatives [who say], ‘Gotama the contemplative is one who misleads. He declares the annihilation, destruction, extermination of the existing being.’ (MN 22, trans. Thanissaro, 2004)

This is because "all dhammas, conditioned and unconditioned, are empty of self on account of the non-existence of any person who could be classed as 'a self'." Therefore, there is no existing being to be annihilated.

are you sure about that?

“The great light of the self (attâ/atma) is the great-self (mahâtman) which is an illumination beyond the physical (rûpa). The great-self is similar to the solar sphere as the source of the sphere’s brightness, as such, the radiant power.”— Vimanavatthu Atthakatha No. 268
“The Tathâgata is the true reality of the self (attâ).” — Majjhimapannasa Atthakatha 3.379
The true nature (bhâva) of the Tathâgata is the self (attano). — Itivuttaka Atthakatha 2.187
“The Blessed One (bhagavat) is the origin of his lineage, [which is] the great perfection (mahâsammâ).” — Mahâvagga Atthakatha 2.677
“What is external (parato) is empty (suññato), is inanimate (anatta), is the mark of the inanimate (anattalakkana).” — Majjhimapannsapali Atthakatha 3.146
“The vision of perfection of the path of the self (maggatta).” — Patisambhidamagga Atthakatha 3.608
“The self’s perfection (sammattâ) is the Noble Eightfold Path.” — Nettippakarana Atthakatha No.184
“The self is deathless (amara) and is identical with one’s true nature (sabhâva).” — Jataka Atthakatha No. 6 6.370
“The Tathagata is the Buddha, and the self.” — Itivuttaka Atthakatha 2.187
“Samsara is samsara as non-immortal faring. Awareness of the immortal supreme self is the faring of the immortal supreme self.” — Therigatha Atthakatha 289
“Just so it is that the self (attâ) is none of the five aggregates (Skt., skandha).” — Udana Atthakatha No. 376
“The one self, the one true reality (ekabhâva), is without emptiness (asuññata).” — Uparipannasapali Atthkatha 4.151

These "translations" are bogus.