Mind versus Self?

[Astus]

Exactly.

[Son of Buddha]

pretty much a word game A pretty pointless and ridiculous word game as basically you are saying that "Self" is anatman (ie you say that Atman is anatman). At the same time others are saying that "Self" (Atman) is atman. So when you all can come up with a coherent and unfied designation of what this "Self" is then please come back so we can seriously discuss the issue.

PS Realistically though, the whole thing smacks of (non-dual) Advaita Vedanta, all you need to do is replace the term "Self" with Brahman. Replacing it with Buddha is just an extraordinarily transparent disguise.

I dont see where your getting the idea that we are all saying different things about the true self.

[gregkavarnos]

From the past 14 pages of discussion?

[Son of Buddha]

From the past 14 pages of discussion?

Im not seeing what you are saying,go ahead and qoute some of the differences for me along with the page numbers.

[gregkavarnos]

I got more important things to do right now, like vacuuming and mopping.

[Son of Buddha]

I got more important things to do right now, like vacuuming and mopping.

You said for us to come back for a serious discussion when we can all agree on what the True Self is.

You made the claim we have different views concerning the subject,and when I ask for you to qoute these "different" views you simply say you have better things to do.

If you cannot qoute 2 different people with different views of the true self in this topic,you are simply speaking baseless falsehoods.

[Son of Buddha]

What do you guys think?

Well... I must admit that it wasn't exactly crystal clear to me. But what it left me with was a sense that it verified my claim, some 8 pages back, that the true self is no-self. That's what I go out of it anyway.

The True self is (((not))) no-self or not self

Not self is a list of things that are not enlightenment,
defilements,impermenance,suffering,conditioned,attachment to the "i"(false self) all these things are not my self,not our self,(not self)

Not self isnt Enlightenment not self is everything that is NOT enlightenment

True Self IS Enlightenment

Not self is a skillfull means to get too True self
not self tells us what is not enlightenment and leads us to what is.

[gregkavarnos]

Not-self is what is left when you take away (or more correctly: stop clinging to) all the factors that you impute the self onto.

[Astus]

Not self is a skillfull means to get too True self
not self tells us what is not enlightenment and leads us to what is.

If the teaching of no-self tells us what is not enlightenment, then the true self should tell what enlightenment is. However, I am still looking for a clear description of what that actually is. Yes, it is said that it is "permanent, joy, self and purity", but those are just qualities without telling the thing that has those qualities.

Just to give an example of what I'm looking for from those emphasising "true self", here is an explanation from Sallie B. King's book "Buddha Nature" that is a study of the Buddha Nature Treatise (Foxinglun):

"The essential point here is that the new teaching of atmaparamita is not in conflict with the old anatman teaching, but on the contrary is the fulfillment of it. The very anatman itself, when taken to its extreme (i.e., when perfected) is the atmaparamita. This teaching is logically parallel to the sunyavada teaching that emptiness or sunya is the characteristic or the own-being (svabhava) of all things. ... Though the language is new, the content of this message is not. What we have here is a variation on the theme enunciated previously, "Buddha nature is the Thusness revealed by the dual emptiness of person and things ... If one does not speak of Buddha nature, then one does not understand emptiness'' (787b ). Non-Buddhists are as wrong as ever in seeing a self in the changing phenomena of worldly flux." (p. 89)

[PadmaVonSamba]

The True self is (((not))) no-self or not self
Not self is a list of things that are not enlightenment,
defilements,impermenance,suffering,conditioned,attachment to the "i"(false self) all these things are not my self,not our self,(not self)
Not self isnt Enlightenment not self is everything that is NOT enlightenment
True Self IS Enlightenent
Not self is a skillfull means to get too True self
not self tells us what is not enlightenment and leads us to what is.

The true nature of mind may be without defilements,
but it is not a "self".
Whatever you are talking about isn't a "self".
That's the difference between Buddhist and non-Buddhist assertions.
And self isn't another word for non-self, or the other way around.

"Self" implies a primordially existent, independently arising thing.
Once I hold this idea, then it becomes "my thing", meaning "me", or "who I really am"
which is very self-affirming, but it isn't Buddhist.

I understand what you are saying about one's true nature,
but as soon as you call it a self, that blows it.
.
.
.

[futerko]

That's the difference between Buddhist and non-Buddhist assertions.

Well, I did once have a dream where Spongebob Squarepants was teaching the path of no-path pathlessness path, but I woke up.
I like to think that in that talk he may well have spoken about the doctrine of the selfless self of no-self.

[songhill]

What do you guys think?

Well... I must admit that it wasn't exactly crystal clear to me. But what it left me with was a sense that it verified my claim, some 8 pages back, that the true self is no-self. That's what I go out of it anyway.

The True self is (((not))) no-self or not self

Not self is a list of things that are not enlightenment,
defilements,impermenance,suffering,conditioned,attachment to the "i"(false self) all these things are not my self,not our self,(not self)

Not self isnt Enlightenment not self is everything that is NOT enlightenment

True Self IS Enlightenment

Not self is a skillfull means to get too True self
not self tells us what is not enlightenment and leads us to what is.

You might enjoy this:

"Radha, you should abandon desire for whatever is nonself [anattâ]" (S.iv.49, brackets are mine).

In another passage the Buddha says:

“Bhikkhu, you should abandon desire for whatever does not belong to the self” (S.iii.78).

[gregkavarnos]

You think that by capitalisng the "A" in atman it makes it something different to atman?

And this leads you to believe that the Buddha taught anatman but did not teach anAtman.

And all of this based on a couple of quotes from the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, some sentences in the Lankavatara Sutra (that are contradicted by some sentences a little further down in the same paragraph) and out of context quotes from (dubious translations of) the Nikayas?

If you are fishing for fools, you are going to have to use some better bait to catch this one.

[songhill]

Not self is a skillfull means to get too True self
not self tells us what is not enlightenment and leads us to what is.

If the teaching of no-self tells us what is not enlightenment, then the true self should tell what enlightenment is. However, I am still looking for a clear description of what that actually is. Yes, it is said that it is "permanent, joy, self and purity", but those are just qualities without telling the thing that has those qualities.

Just to give an example of what I'm looking for from those emphasising "true self", here is an explanation from Sallie B. King's book "Buddha Nature" that is a study of the Buddha Nature Treatise (Foxinglun):

"The essential point here is that the new teaching of atmaparamita is not in conflict with the old anatman teaching, but on the contrary is the fulfillment of it. The very anatman itself, when taken to its extreme (i.e., when perfected) is the atmaparamita. This teaching is logically parallel to the sunyavada teaching that emptiness or sunya is the characteristic or the own-being (svabhava) of all things. ... Though the language is new, the content of this message is not. What we have here is a variation on the theme enunciated previously, "Buddha nature is the Thusness revealed by the dual emptiness of person and things ... If one does not speak of Buddha nature, then one does not understand emptiness'' (787b ). Non-Buddhists are as wrong as ever in seeing a self in the changing phenomena of worldly flux." (p. 89)

Looking for the self using the nets of the five aggregates is an impossible task. It isn't a particular shape or a pleasant feeling. It isn't a percept. It isn't a formation or consciousness. In addition, the five aggregates are produced by worldlings (S. iii. 152). The aggregates also belong to Mara the Buddhist devil (S.iii.189). From passage after passage, for example in the Khandhavagga of the Samyutta-Nikaya we learn that aggregates are not the self or not my self (na meso attâ). From this we can surmise that the self is most intrinsic. It doesn't have to be made or produced. In a manner of speaking it finds itself by putting away desire for what is not itself (S.iii.78). But as we know, worldlings produce and crave the five aggregates which are suffering; which are not the self.

[songhill]

The true nature of mind may be without defilements,
but it is not a "self".

If you read the commentary to this passage: The well-tamed self is the light of man (S. i. 169) it says Attâti cittam (trans. the self is the mind). One gets a different picture—a clearer picture—of what the Buddha taught if they check out the commentaries.

[Astus]

Looking for the self using the nets of the five aggregates is an impossible task. It isn't a particular shape or a pleasant feeling. It isn't a percept. It isn't a formation or consciousness. In addition, the five aggregates are produced by worldlings (S. iii. 152). The aggregates also belong to Mara the Buddhist devil (S.iii.189). From passage after passage, for example in the Khandhavagga of the Samyutta-Nikaya we learn that aggregates are not the self or not my self (na meso attâ). From this we can surmise that the self is most intrinsic. It doesn't have to be made or produced. In a manner of speaking it finds itself by putting away desire for what is not itself (S.iii.78). But as we know, worldlings produce and crave the five aggregates which are suffering; which are not the self.

You think that because it is taught that the five aggregates are not self that there must be a self somewhere else. However, if there were a self outside of the five aggregates that self would be without any sensory ability or even consciousness. Who believes in an unconscious, inactive self, and what would be the point of such a self anyway? On the other hand, the Buddha teaches that people think something to be a self or a possession of the self among the five aggregates, and that's why he teaches again and again that the five aggregates are not the self. But imagining a self beyond the five aggregates makes no sense even in everyday terms, not to mention Buddhism. Nevertheless, if you find a self appealing that is without thoughts, feelings and sense faculties, go on. It's just I don't see what Buddhism has to do with that idea of a non-functional self.

[gregkavarnos]

Looking for the self using the nets of the five aggregates is an impossible task.

And looking for the "True Self" is also an impossible task given that, right now, we only have the five aggregates to look for it. Oh wait on, but it's our true nature right now isn't it. So we have it now, but we can't see it? We can't see it via the five aggregates although it constitutes "us" and "we" are the five aggregates right now. It is our essence yet we cannot see our essence with our essence? It is our essence but it is beyond our current form of existence?

So is it our future existence or is it our current existence? If it is our future existence it is unattainable since we can only exist in the now. If it is our current existence then we have it right now and the aggregates are a part of it (since the aggregates is what we have right now).

Do we leave our current existence of body and form and go to this true existence that is beyond our current existence? So does it exist somewhere else apart from here and now? If so when and where? If it exists beyond the here and now then we can never achieve it. If it exists here and now then we have it and are enlightened right now. If it is not "us" then it cannot be "us". Mangoes don't grow on olive trees.

It is a permanent state and it is our True Nature. If it is permanent then it has always existed and will always exist. So that also means that we have always existed and will always exist since, logically, it has to be our true state right now.

From passage after passage, for example in the Khandhavagga of the Samyutta-Nikaya we learn that aggregates are not the self or not my self (na meso attâ).

Yup, this is certainly the case. But your logic leap in the next statement:

From this we can surmise that the self is most intrinsic.

Is a massive leap backwards.

Why, because the Buddha does not say that the aggregates are the problem, he says that clinging to the aggregates as if there was something permanent there is the problem. You see, you have overlooked a minor point, a minor point that is actually REALLY important. The Buddha achieved enlightenment while constituted of the five aggregates. He stated that his enlightened state cannot be identified by his body, not that it was something beyond his existence.

So now we reach the closing scene and our hero is faced with two choices: Tathagatagarbha (unaligned to any notion of self) here and now and thus enlightenment here and now, or Tathagatagarbha (aligned with a notion of Self) beyond the here and now and thus unattainable enlightenment.

Cake-eat it-cake-eat it-cake-eat it. It's a difficult choice but you gotta make it at some point in time.

[oushi]

Buddhahood as a matter of choice

[gregkavarnos]

Buddhahood as a matter of choice

Most definitely. Without a doubt.

[songhill]

Why, because the Buddha does not say that the aggregates are the problem, he says that clinging to the aggregates as if there was something permanent there is the problem.

Well, yes he does say they are the problem which is suffering. The aggregates ARE suffering (D.ii.305, S.iii.20).