Tathagatagarbha, Eternalism, etc.

[deepbluehum]

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?

Five skandhas, unless you want to say that an awakened one has no faculty that is awake?

[deepbluehum]

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?

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?

Absolutely.

[deepbluehum]

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.

Jnana, do you recognize the Tathagatagarbha sutras? How do you understand Atman from MPNS?

[deepbluehum]

This is something I worked on related to Pali suttas and these themes

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 99#p202375

[Son of Buddha]

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.

(this answers all 3)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.

what is yours??what does belong to ourself?
the buddha didnt say there is no self the Buddha said the 5 aggregates dont belong to ourself.

[gregkavarnos]

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?

Five skandhas, unless you want to say that an awakened one has no faculty that is awake?

So you are saying that the "True Self" is the five skhandas?

[deepbluehum]

Five skandhas, unless you want to say that an awakened one has no faculty that is awake?

So you are saying that the "True Self" is the five skhandas?

No, Greg.

Are you saying no one achieves Nibbana, Greg?

[gregkavarnos]

what is yours??what does belong to ourself?
the buddha didnt say there is no self the Buddha said the 5 aggregates dont belong to ourself.

So what is "ours", what does belong to "us" then? You, deepbluehung and songhill have all been prancing around this question for pages now, is your view so shallow as not to be capable of answering such a simple question?

[deepbluehum]

Nibbana is positively described in the Kevatta Sutta and the Brahmanimantanika Sutta as

Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ, anantaṃ sabbatopabhaṃ

Viññāṇaṃ: consciousness, perception,
anidassanaṃ: [no] features, signs, characteristics
anantam: infinite, endless, eternal, boundless, unending
sabbato: all around, everywhere, in all respects
pabham: light, radiance, shine

One could say the "True Self" of the Tathagatagarbha Sutras refers to this.

[gregkavarnos]

No, Greg.

But that is what you said: you said that that the one, the noble witness, the true self, etc... is composed of the five skhanda and is the one that realises thatness.

Unless I completely and utterly misunderstood the past 3 pages of discussion.

Are you saying no one achieves Nibbana, Greg?

Not the five skhanda, that's for sure. Want to revise your logic a bit before we continue?

[gregkavarnos]

Nibbana is positively described in the Kevatta Sutta and the Brahmanimantanika Sutta as

Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ, anantaṃ sabbatopabhaṃ

Viññāṇaṃ: consciousness, perception,
anidassanaṃ: [no] features, signs, characteristics
anantam: infinite, endless, eternal, boundless, unending
sabbato: all around, everywhere, in all respects
pabham: light, radiance, shine

One could say the "True Self" of the Tathagatagarbha Sutras refers to this.

One could also say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster also refers to this. So what? This is hardly proof of the existence of the "true self".

[deepbluehum]

Nibbana is positively described in the Kevatta Sutta and the Brahmanimantanika Sutta as

Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ, anantaṃ sabbatopabhaṃ

Viññāṇaṃ: consciousness, perception,
anidassanaṃ: [no] features, signs, characteristics
anantam: infinite, endless, eternal, boundless, unending
sabbato: all around, everywhere, in all respects
pabham: light, radiance, shine

One could say the "True Self" of the Tathagatagarbha Sutras refers to this.

One could also say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster also refers to this. So what? This is hardly proof of the existence of the "true self".

You're right. True self is just a name.

[gregkavarnos]

Finally we are making headway!

[Son of Buddha]

what is yours??what does belong to ourself?
the buddha didnt say there is no self the Buddha said the 5 aggregates dont belong to ourself.

So what is "ours", what does belong to "us" then? You, deepbluehung and songhill have all been prancing around this question for pages now, is your view so shallow as not to be capable of answering such a simple question?

"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 True self is the Pure unconditioned Mind..(Tathagatagarbha)the same exact thing is also said in the Mahaparinirvana sutra

the traits of the True Self is also listed in the nirvana sutra,and these traits also corrispond to what is Nirvana listed in the Pali Canon(deep blue listed many traits already)and I have also many times over SN 22/SN 44 and I also listed what is Not our self and what is Not my self.

[deepbluehum]

Nibbana is also just a name that refers to a vijnana (consciousness) that is ananta (eternal). The Atman of the MPNS is referring to this.

[gregkavarnos]

'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[/color].SN 22:100 the True self is the Pure unconditioned Mind..(Tathagatagarbha)the same exact thing is also said in the Mahaparinirvana sutra.

But the Tahagatagarbha is beyond unconditioned mind and thus cannot be tainted anyway. It is realised. It is not understood by conditioned mind.

Gain certaintly that the nature of mind is birthless. None of the phenomena of appearance and existence in samsara and nirvana have any independent existence whatsoever; they are by nature empty. Therefore, there is certainty that the nature of mind is birthless.
Gampopa A String of Pearls

[tomamundsen]

It is realised. It is not understood by conditioned mind.

What's the difference between realizing and understanding that your'e proposing here?

[Son of Buddha]

'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[/color].SN 22:100 the True self is the Pure unconditioned Mind..(Tathagatagarbha)the same exact thing is also said in the Mahaparinirvana sutra.

But the Tahagatagarbha is beyond unconditioned mind and thus cannot be tainted anyway. It is realised. It is not understood by conditioned mind.

Queen srimala sutra
"Lord, whoever does not doubt that the Tathagatagarbha is wrapped up in all the defilement-store, also does not doubt that the Dharmakaya of the Tathagata is liberated from all the defilement-store. When anyone's mind reaches the ultimate purport of the Tathagatagarbha, the Dharmakaya of the Tathagata and inconceivable realm of the Buddha.
the Tathagatagarbha is not tainted the term is used to show it is under the defilements not that it is defiled itself.
thats true the conditioned mind is the "I" that clings to the 5 aggreagates the "I" cannot realise enlightenement cause the "I" "me" is the defilement itself.

Gain certaintly that the nature of mind is birthless. None of the phenomena of appearance and existence in samsara and nirvana have any independent existence whatsoever; they are by nature empty. Therefore, there is certainty that the nature of mind is birthless.
Gampopa A String of Pearls

[/quote]


"Lord, samsara is based on the Tathagatagarbha. It was with reference to the Tathagatagarbha that the Lord pointed out and explained, '[It is] without limit in the past.' Since there is the Tathagatagarbha, there is reason for speaking of 'cyclical flow' (samasra). Lord, as to 'cyclical flow,' no sooner do the sense organs for perception pass away than it [the Tathagatagarbha] takes hold of sense organs for perception, and that is 'cyclical flow.' Lord, the two natures, 'passing away' and 'rebirth' are conventional terminology for the Tathagatagarbha. Lord, 'perished' and 'born' are conventional terminology for the world (loka). 'Perished' is the loss of the senses. 'Born' is the renewal of the senses. But, Lord, the Tathagatagarbha is not born, does not die, does not pass away to become reborn. The Tathagatagarbha excludes the realm with the characteristic of the constructed. The Tathagatagarbha is permanent, steadfast, eternal. Therefore the Tathagatagarbha is the support, the holder, the base of constructed [Buddha natures] that are nondiscrete, not dissociated, and knowing as liberated from the stores [of defilement]; and furthermore is the support, the holder, the base of external constructed natures that are discrete, dissociated, and knowing as not liberated.

peace and love

[songhill]

That mind which is said to be intrinsically pure is the tathagata-garbha. That is foremost of all phenomena, for all phenomena have the tathagata-garbha as their intrinsic nature (svabhâva).” ~ Angulimaliya Sutra

"The intrinsically pure mind is called the tathagatagarbha. it is stirred by the wind of ignorance to give rise to birth-and-death." ~ subcommentary to the Scripture of Perfect Enlightenment (Gregory, Tsung-mi and the Sinification of Buddhism, p. 181).

[Jikan]

Worldlings (prithagjana) who have never entered the stream or those who have not been graced with genuine bodhicittotpada are confused, almost beyond help. When they hear words like the unconditioned, tathagatagarbha, pure Mind or âtman, they conceive these words with a conventional, conditioned mind which is always defiled. Like people suffering from the effects of a drug, they foolishly declare these terms to be wrong view not realizing that these words point, instead, to the referent (the actual unconditioned, tathagatagarbha, Mind, âtma, etc). No amount of arguing with them can help them to distinguish between the conventional sign, which lies in front of their mind's eye, and the actual referent which is transcendent.

Would you please clarify what you mean by "transcendent"?