Mind versus Self?

No holds barred discussion on the Buddhadharma. Argue about rebirth, karma, commentarial interpretations etc. Be nice to each other.

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Mon Jan 07, 2013 1:20 am

songhill wrote:

Here is still another:

Therefore, Ânanda, go along having Self as lamp, Self as refuge and none other refuge; having dhamma as lamp, dhamma as refuge, and none other refuge" (S.vi.162–163; cf. S.v.164; D.ii.100) (Coomaraswamy & Isaline Blew Horner, The Living Thoughts of Gotama the Buddha, p. 153)



The Living Thoughts of Gotama the Buddha
This source is from a book published in 1948!!!
Reprinted by Dover.
Most of the translations before the 1970's were by western (mostly British) scholars who had little or no actual grasp of Buddhist teachings, had never been instructed directly by monks, and frequently used words such as "self' or even "soul" when translating texts. Most of the translations by British scholars are of Pali texts, and their erroneous translations still linger. You can even find translations employing Old English (ye, thou, thine, etc.), as it was thought by some that "Holy books" should be written that way, regardless of what they were.

A local Thai wat where I used to visit posts their calendar of events on the wall, which includes something they called "Buddhist Lent", referring to a time corresponding to the monsoon season, in which monks may not travel overnight from the Wat. So, even the Thai monks rely on these terrible English translations!

Since the 1970's, partly due to the influx of Tibetan lamas (Tarthang Tulku, Chogyam Trungpa) who in turn helped to established new translation institutes and publishing houses, much more accurate translations of texts from all traditions are available.

It works both ways. British missionaries in Tibet were unsuccessful at converting Tibetans, as they had used the Tibetan word for "zombie" to describe Christ's resurrection.

accesstoinsight may be incomplete, but I think it is more accurate, at least in its use of terminology.
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2796
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby songhill » Mon Jan 07, 2013 1:28 am

catmoon wrote:
gregkavarnos wrote:Whose translation is this? What is the source? Because when I looked it up I got this translation:
33. "Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge.


Yumpin' Yiminy what a difference a translation makes. Now you have me wondering who did the translations being shown in this thread. At least with Greg's version there's no problem with harmonizing with other scriptures.


Difference? You jest. Do you really think attasaranâ refers to a finite, temporal refuge for yourself? Why would the Buddha declare a temporal refuge?
User avatar
songhill
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Karma Dorje » Mon Jan 07, 2013 1:34 am

Asanga uses the terms shuddhatman, paramatman and mahatman (I believe in the Mahayanasutralankara), Ashvaghosha uses atman and I believe you will find the term mahatman in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra but I don't have the time now to go look.

All philosophical viewpoints are provisional. At certain points, the empty facet is emphasized and at others the luminosity/cognitive aspect. I don't think there is anything wrong with pointing to a true self or nature beyond the thinking, judging mind. If you pursue that thoroughly, at a certain point the empty aspect will reveal itself. Similarly, if you pursue emptiness you are at a certain point left with the pure fact of luminosity. Having an opinion about atman or anatman is not the same as realization of it. I think there may also be those that have the realization and yet describe it in different terms based on their own context and/or those they are speaking to.

There seems to be a tendency for some to say "this sounds like this thing that was refuted" without looking to see whether there are in fact commonalities to other teachings. According to Mahayana thought, anatman itself is not enough to achieve full and complete Buddhahood. We need to stop getting hung up on the words and look to the meaning. Current advaita vedantic thought does not posit atomic souls any more than Buddhism does. The appearance of phenomena is similarly viewed as a cognitive distortion. Color me stupid but I frankly can't see a shred of difference between dharmadhatu and paramatman.
Karma Dorje
 
Posts: 731
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:35 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby songhill » Mon Jan 07, 2013 1:43 am

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
songhill wrote:

Here is still another:

Therefore, Ânanda, go along having Self as lamp, Self as refuge and none other refuge; having dhamma as lamp, dhamma as refuge, and none other refuge" (S.vi.162–163; cf. S.v.164; D.ii.100) (Coomaraswamy & Isaline Blew Horner, The Living Thoughts of Gotama the Buddha, p. 153)



The Living Thoughts of Gotama the Buddha
This source is from a book published in 1948!!!
Reprinted by Dover.
Most of the translations before the 1970's were by western (mostly British) scholars who had little or no actual grasp of Buddhist teachings, had never been instructed directly by monks, and frequently used words such as "self' or even "soul" when translating texts. Most of the translations by British scholars are of Pali texts, and their erroneous translations still linger. You can even find translations employing Old English (ye, thou, thine, etc.), as it was thought by some that "Holy books" should be written that way, regardless of what they were.

A local Thai wat where I used to visit posts their calendar of events on the wall, which includes something they called "Buddhist Lent", referring to a time corresponding to the monsoon season, in which monks may not travel overnight from the Wat. So, even the Thai monks rely on these terrible English translations!

Since the 1970's, partly due to the influx of Tibetan lamas (Tarthang Tulku, Chogyam Trungpa) who in turn helped to established new translation institutes and publishing houses, much more accurate translations of texts from all traditions are available.

It works both ways. British missionaries in Tibet were unsuccessful at converting Tibetans, as they had used the Tibetan word for "zombie" to describe Christ's resurrection.

accesstoinsight may be incomplete, but I think it is more accurate, at least in its use of terminology.
.
.
.


Sorry, I don't buy your antiquarian argument. It's quite a lame. Are you in an upper graduate course in a university? Do you really think that argument wouldn't impress your faculty members? By the way, have you read what Tucci said about translation from Tibetan into English?

"I become convinced of this when I showed Tibetans who knew English well certain translations which had recently appeared of particular works or of commentaries on the doctrines they contained. The Tibetan scholars found it difficult to make any sense of these translations, since Buddhist thought was expressed in them in a mode other than that in which they were used to understanding it. Besides this, many Tibetan concepts and doctrines refer to interior and mystical experiences, and their transposition into rational concepts and expressions is extremely problematic. The corresponding Tibetan words are symbols, which can evoke living experiences which the word as such can only suggest but not define. We are faced here with an extremely difficult, almost impossible task: to coin equivalent technical terms for experiences which take place with the spiritual realm, and which can radically modify our psychic and spiritual reality" (Tucci, The Religions of Tibet).
User avatar
songhill
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby anjali » Mon Jan 07, 2013 2:22 am

catmoon wrote:...It turns out some of the very biggest academic guns around here have quietly weighed in as well, and the outlook for the idea of an intrinsic self is deader than the the proverbial doornail.


I'd like to provide a different perspective on this notion of the tathagata-garbha (as a True Self). My personal opinion, which is rather speculative, is that the TG concept can be traced back as far as the Buddha's third sermon (the fire sermon), and has it's roots in the vedic understanding of the physics of fire. Sounds pretty far-fetched, huh? Well, let me give it a go and see what folks think.

First, if you are not familiar with the fire sermon, it's fairly short, and can be read here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... 17.html#s3. My speculation is based on this essay by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, entitled, Mind Like Fire Unbound An Image in the Early Buddhist Discourses, and can be found here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... index.html. It's an excellent essay and well worth the time to read. Of particular interest is Chapter I which discusses the vedic understanding of fire: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... e/2-1.html. For our discussion, here is a rather extensive excerpt. I apologize for it's length, it is all relevant,

To understand the implications of nibbāna in the present life, it is necessary to know something of the way in which fire is described in the Pali Canon. There, fire is said to be caused by the excitation or agitation of the heat property. To continue burning, it must have sustenance (upādāna). Its relationship to its sustenance is one of clinging, dependence, & entrapment. When it goes out, the heat property is no longer agitated, and the fire is said to be freed. Thus the metaphor of nibbāna in this case would have implications of calming together with release from dependencies, attachments, & bondage. This in turn suggests that of all the attempts to describe the etymology of the word nibbāna, the closest is the one Buddhaghosa proposed in The Path of Purification: Un- (nir) + binding (vāna): Unbinding. [Note: This is quoted from the Intro, the rest is quoted from Chapter 1.]

The discourses report two instances where brāhmans asked the Buddha about the nature of the goal he taught, and he responded with the analogy of the extinguished fire. There is every reason to believe that, in choosing this analogy, he was referring to a concept of fire familiar to his listeners, and, as they had been educated in the Vedic tradition, that he probably had the Vedic concept of fire in mind. This, of course, is not to say that he himself adhered to the Vedic concept or that he was referring to it in all its details. He was simply drawing on a particular aspect of fire as seen in the Vedas so that his listeners could have a familiar reference point for making sense of what he was saying.

Now, although the Vedic texts contain several different theories concerning the physics of fire, there is at least one basic point on which they agree: Fire, even when not manifest, continues to exist in a latent form. The Vedic view of all physical phenomena is that they are the manifestation of pre-existent potencies inherent in nature. Each type of phenomenon has its corresponding potency, which has both personal & impersonal characteristics: as a god and as the powers he wields. In the case of fire, both the god & the phenomenon are called Agni....When fire is extinguished, Agni and his powers do not pass out of existence. Instead, they go into hiding.
...
The implications of Agni's being an embryo are best understood in light of the theories of biological generation held in ancient India:
    The husband, after having entered his wife, becomes an embryo and is born again of her.— Laws of Manu, 9,8
Just as ancient Indians saw an underlying identity connecting a father & his offspring, so too did they perceive a single identity underlying the manifest & embryonic forms of fire. In this way, Agni, repeatedly reborn, was seen as immortal; and in fact, the Vedas attribute immortality to him more frequently than to any other of the gods.
    To you, immortal! When you spring to life, all the gods sing for joy... By your powers they were made immortal...[Agni], who extended himself over all the worlds, is the protector of immortality.— RV 6,7
...
This view that Agni/fire in a latent state is immortal & omnipresent occurs also in the Upaniṣads that were composed circa 850-750 B.C. and later accepted into the Vedic Canon.

....the thought of a fire going out carried no connotations of going out of existence at all. Instead, it implied a return to an omnipresent, immortal state. This has led some scholars to assume that, in using the image of an extinguished fire to illustrate the goal he taught, the Buddha was simply adopting the Vedic position wholesale and meant it to carry the same implications as the last quotation above: a pleasant eternal existence for a tranquil soul.

But when we look at how the Buddha actually used the image of extinguished fire in his teachings, we find that he approached the Vedic idea of latent fire from another angle entirely: If latent fire is everywhere all at once, it is nowhere in particular. If it is conceived as always present in everything, it has to be so loosely defined that it has no defining characteristics, nothing by which it might be known at all. Thus, instead of using the subsistence of latent fire as an image for immortality, he uses the diffuse, indeterminate nature of extinguished fire as understood by the Vedists to illustrate the absolute indescribability of the person who has reached the Buddhist goal.

Just as the destination of a glowing fire
struck with a [blacksmith's] iron hammer,
gradually growing calm,
isn't known:
Even so, there's no destination to describe

for those who are rightly released
— having crossed over the flood
of sensuality's bonds —
for those who've attained
unwavering ease.

— Ud 8.10

Ok. Enough quoting. The notion of immortal, omnipresent, latent potentiality described here sure sounds awfully familiar, doesn't it? ;-) What is interesting though, is how the tathagata-garbha notion turns the vedic notion upside down.

In the vedic concept of fire/agni, the agni-nature is diffuse and embryonic until a fire is manifest, at which point, agni-nature is no longer latent in the womb of space but is born in the physical fire. In the Buddhist model of tathagata-garbha, the vast Buddha-nature is potential and embryonic until the fires of clinging go out, at which point unbinding occurs resulting in expansive awakening.

So, does the TG doctrine have it's roots as far back as the Buddha himself? Possibly. (How's that for a wishy-washy answer.) If nothing else, it's fun to speculate.
  • The object of the game is to go on playing it. --John Von Neumann
  • All activities are like the games children play. If started, they can never be finished. They are only completed once you let them be, like castles made of sand. --Khenpo Nyoshul Rinpoche
anjali
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:33 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:06 am

songhill wrote:
Sorry, I don't buy your antiquarian argument. It's quite a lame. Are you in an upper graduate course in a university? Do you really think that argument wouldn't impress your faculty members?


What in the world are you talking about?

And that quote from Tucci merely emphasizes the point I made.
Translations can be erroneous
The interpretations of translations can also be erroneous.
Perhaps your interpretation,
based on bad translation, is also erroneous.

Anyway, to prove that there is some logic to your argument,
Please answer these questions I asked you before:

What do you mean by "abandon" ?
How can you abandon form, or sensation, perception, mental formations, or consciousness?
Where can you go that they won't follow you?

All this talk about "true self" is nice and all,
But show me some way that you can actually abandon the skandhas themselves
that isn't, in fact, merely abandoning one's clinging to them.

If you think the Buddha said that this is how it is done,
then please explain how one actually abandons form, abandons consciousness, and so on.
Again, What do you mean by "abandon" ?

Show me something that isn't just an imaginary hypothesis.
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2796
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:52 am

To understand the implications of nibbāna in the present life, it is necessary to know something of the way in which fire is described in the Pali Canon. There, fire is said to be caused by the excitation or agitation of the heat property. To continue burning, it must have sustenance (upādāna). Its relationship to its sustenance is one of clinging, dependence, & entrapment. When it goes out, the heat property is no longer agitated, and the fire is said to be freed. Thus the metaphor of nibbāna in this case would have implications of calming together with release from dependencies, attachments, & bondage.


Thanks for posting that.

It's funny that you mention this, because I was just thinking about this the other day.

It was once believed in the west that "fire" was some sort of self-existent thing, something that you could isolate, that lay hidden inside all sorts of different things, waiting to be released.

The phlogiston theory (from the Ancient Greek φλογιστόν phlogistón "burning up", from φλόξ phlóx "flame"), first stated in 1667 by Johann Joachim Becher, is an obsolete scientific theory that postulated the existence of a fire-like element called "phlogiston", which was contained within combustible bodies and released during combustion. The theory was an attempt to explain processes of burning such as combustion and the rusting of metals, which are now collectively known as oxidation.**

I think this is very much the same idea as a 'true self', that exists almost as some sort of element.
One might find a translation of Buddhist texts that use the word "self",
But since the bulk of teachings explain that there is nothing that can be called "me" or "mine"
such a notion of a "self" should probably be regarded as a misunderstanding.

**
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2796
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Karma Dorje » Mon Jan 07, 2013 4:27 am

PadmaVonSamba wrote:I think this is very much the same idea as a 'true self', that exists almost as some sort of element.
One might find a translation of Buddhist texts that use the word "self",
But since the bulk of teachings explain that there is nothing that can be called "me" or "mine"
such a notion of a "self" should probably be regarded as a misunderstanding.


Yet one can use "true self" as a cipher, much the same that one can use shunyata, tathagathagarbha, etc. Any single term is functionally equivalent to any other single term. The problem comes when one thinks of this as some sort of atomic ens. For post-Shankara advaitins that use the term paramatman to mean something approaching true self this is equivalent to parabrahman viz. there is no separate entity found either within or without the skandhas.

One can't say that dharmadhatu exists in the way that objects exist, but this does not mean it is utterly non-existent either.
Karma Dorje
 
Posts: 731
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:35 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby songhill » Mon Jan 07, 2013 4:29 am

PadmaVonSamba wrote:What do you mean by "abandon" ?
How can you abandon form, or sensation, perception, mental formations, or consciousness?


Because I regard each aggregate: "This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self (na meso attâ)” (S. iii. 45).
(edit) The entire teaching in order to add context.
45 (3) Impermanent (1)
At Savatthi. "Bhikkhus, form is impermanent. What is impermanent
is suffering. [45] What is suffering is nonself. What is
nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus:
'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.' When one
sees this thus as it really is with correct wisdom, the mind
becomes dispassionate and is liberated from the taints by nonclinging.
"Feeling is impermanent.... Perception is impermanent....
Volitional formations are impermanent.... Consciousness is
impennanent. What is impermanent is suffering. What is suffering
is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is with
correct wisdom thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not
my self.' When one sees this thus as it really is with correct wisdom,
the mind becomes dispassionate and is liberated from the
taints by nonclinging.
"If, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu's mind has become dispassionate
towards the form element, it is liberated from the taints by nonclinging.
If his mind has become dispassionate towards the feeling
element ... towards the perception element ... towards the
volitional formations element ... towards the consciousness element,
it is liberated from the taints by nonclinging.
"By being liberated, it is steady; by being steady, it is content;
by being content, he is not agitated. Being unagitated, he personally
attains Nibbana. He understands: 'Destroyed is birth, the
holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there
is no more for this state of being."

What is not ours we can abandon it (S.iii.33-34). And what does the Buddha say is not ours? The five aggregates.

Suppose, bhikkhus, people were to carry off the grass, sticks, branches, and foliage in the Jeta's Grove, or to burn them, or to do with them as they wish. Would you think: 'People are carrying us off, or burning us, or doing with us as they wish?
"No, venerable sir. For what reason? Because, venerable sir, that is neither our self nor what belong to our self
"So too, bhikkhus, form is nor yours ... consciousness is not yours: abandon it. When you have abandoned it, that will lead to your welfare and happiness" (S.iii.33-34). (trans. Bhikkhu Bodhi)
User avatar
songhill
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby songhill » Mon Jan 07, 2013 4:42 am

Karma Dorje wrote:
PadmaVonSamba wrote:I think this is very much the same idea as a 'true self', that exists almost as some sort of element.
One might find a translation of Buddhist texts that use the word "self",
But since the bulk of teachings explain that there is nothing that can be called "me" or "mine"
such a notion of a "self" should probably be regarded as a misunderstanding.


Yet one can use "true self" as a cipher, much the same that one can use shunyata, tathagathagarbha, etc. Any single term is functionally equivalent to any other single term. The problem comes when one thinks of this as some sort of atomic ens. For post-Shankara advaitins that use the term paramatman to mean something approaching true self this is equivalent to parabrahman viz. there is no separate entity found either within or without the skandhas.

One can't say that dharmadhatu exists in the way that objects exist, but this does not mean it is utterly non-existent either.


Atman, tathagatagarbha, buddhata are signifiers which represent the true enlightenment experience. These signifiers are vastly different than the five aggregates which are, essentially, illusory (e.g., form is like foam) in addition to being empty (P. rittaka), hollow (P. tucchaka) and insubstantial (P. asâraka).
User avatar
songhill
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby jeeprs » Mon Jan 07, 2013 4:49 am

(I wrote a much better reply than this one but the Browser God decided to vaporise it, so now I can only remember the main point.)

I think 'Anjali's post was very good, and is similar to arguments made by Gombrich who often noted how the Buddha retained key Vedic concepts like 'karma' and 'brahmin' but changed their meaning. The same can be said about the imagery of 'fire' (in fact Gombrich talks a lot about Buddhist re-interpretaton of the Vedic fire imagery in his What the Buddha Taught.)

However


Anjali wrote:...the thought of a fire going out carried no connotations of going out of existence at all. Instead, it implied a return to an omnipresent, immortal state.



I think this needs to be analysed in the terminology of metaphysics. My interpretation of the word 'exist' is as follows: 'ex-', outside of, apart from; and '-ist', 'to be'. So 'exist' means 'to be separate or apart from'. Now anything of the nature of 'omnipresent or immortal' cannot be said to exist. Existence pertains to phenomenal objects of the six senses. So anything 'omnipresent' or 'immortal' can't be said, strictly speaking to exist. However it is also not non-existent. It is of a different order of being to things which exist or don't exist. That is why to say 'it exists' is to fall into the trap of eternalism, and 'it doesn't exist', the trap of nihilism. The very nature of this subject is such that whatever is said about it is incorrect. In fact the Buddha was simply more consistent about this than his opponents. They named the omnipresent and immortal as 'self', but they also often said that 'nothing could be said about it', but then continued to name it regardless.

'That of which we cannot speak, of that we must remain silent'.
He that knows it, knows it not.
User avatar
jeeprs
 
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby futerko » Mon Jan 07, 2013 5:29 am

:good:
we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche
User avatar
futerko
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:58 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Son of Buddha » Mon Jan 07, 2013 6:38 am

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
To understand the implications of nibbāna in the present life, it is necessary to know something of the way in which fire is described in the Pali Canon. There, fire is said to be caused by the excitation or agitation of the heat property. To continue burning, it must have sustenance (upādāna). Its relationship to its sustenance is one of clinging, dependence, & entrapment. When it goes out, the heat property is no longer agitated, and the fire is said to be freed. Thus the metaphor of nibbāna in this case would have implications of calming together with release from dependencies, attachments, & bondage.


Thanks for posting that.

It's funny that you mention this, because I was just thinking about this the other day.

It was once believed in the west that "fire" was some sort of self-existent thing, something that you could isolate, that lay hidden inside all sorts of different things, waiting to be released.

The phlogiston theory (from the Ancient Greek φλογιστόν phlogistón "burning up", from φλόξ phlóx "flame"), first stated in 1667 by Johann Joachim Becher, is an obsolete scientific theory that postulated the existence of a fire-like element called "phlogiston", which was contained within combustible bodies and released during combustion. The theory was an attempt to explain processes of burning such as combustion and the rusting of metals, which are now collectively known as oxidation.**

I think this is very much the same idea as a 'true self', that exists almost as some sort of element.
One might find a translation of Buddhist texts that use the word "self",
But since the bulk of teachings explain that there is nothing that can be called "me" or "mine"
such a notion of a "self" should probably be regarded as a misunderstand

**
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory


.
.
.



Hello sorry I am on my phone,so I cannot copy paste sutras/commentaries ect..

In the Nirvana sutra a fire analogy is given it goes something like this,
You have what is called wood,then one applies fire to this wood,now after the wood is burned all up the fire no longer has anything to feed on,so both the wood and fire cease to exist,but what is left is the ashes.

(this is off the top of my head,I will post the actual qoute from the sutra when I get a chance too)
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 777
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Son of Buddha » Mon Jan 07, 2013 6:55 am

gregkavarnos wrote: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.
:namaste:


Hello Greg.
Peace and love to you.

In the pali canon Not self,not my self,not our self,this is not mine,was used to show what was not Nirvana

so Not-Self is not what was left when you take away all the defilements.
Not-Self is is the list of all the defilements and Samsara that is Not Enlightenment.
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 777
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Son of Buddha » Mon Jan 07, 2013 7:51 am

Astus wrote:
Son of Buddha wrote: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.


Hey Astus
The True Self is the Dharmakaya,Buddha,Enlightenment,Pristine wisdom,clear light.
The Buddha is the "thing" that has these qualities(treasure storehouse)


"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.


Yes Not-Self tells what is not Enlightenment,one sees what is Not,and is left with what is.hence the Not self teaching is fullfilled when all that is not enlightenment is weeded out,until one gets to Enlightenment.

The very anatman itself, when taken to its extreme (i.e., when perfected) is the atmaparamita.


As said above Not self weeds out what is not,and leaves you with what is.

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)


If you had a cup of water,you would say the cup has water in it.
If you had a cup that had nothing in it you would say the cup is Empty,so what is the cup empty of?
It is empty of everything but itself.this is known as Other-Emptyness.

Would you say the cup is empty of Cup also?no you can say it is empty of water or anything you put into the cup,but the cup will still be the cup.

Like wise so is Enlightenment it is empty of everything but itself.
If you say all of Samsara,defilements,suffering are all impermenant and empty,then turn around and say the Buddha is empty also,you are putting the Buddha in the catogory of the created,conditioned and impermenant along with all of Samsara.doing this is known as
Empty-Empty.
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 777
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby futerko » Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:28 am

Son of Buddha wrote:If you had a cup of water,you would say the cup has water in it.
If you had a cup that had nothing in it you would say the cup is Empty,so what is the cup empty of?
It is empty of everything but itself.this is known as Other-Emptyness.

Would you say the cup is empty of Cup also?no you can say it is empty of water or anything you put into the cup,but the cup will still be the cup.

Like wise so is Enlightenment it is empty of everything but itself.
If you say all of Samsara,defilements,suffering are all impermenant and empty,then turn around and say the Buddha is empty also,you are putting the Buddha in the catogory of the created,conditioned and impermenant along with all of Samsara.doing this is known as
Empty-Empty.


So the cup is identical to itself from one moment to the next and is therefore truly existing and permanent? I guess you've logically disproved Buddhism and now we should all worship the cup?
Last edited by futerko on Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche
User avatar
futerko
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:58 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby greentara » Mon Jan 07, 2013 1:07 pm

The great Master Dogen said, "To study the Buddha Way is to study the self, to study the self is to forget the self, and to forget the self is to be enlightened by the ten thousand things." To be enlightened by the ten thousand things is to recognize the unity of the self and the ten thousand things.
greentara
 
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:03 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby futerko » Mon Jan 07, 2013 1:29 pm

greentara wrote:The great Master Dogen said, "To study the Buddha Way is to study the self, to study the self is to forget the self, and to forget the self is to be enlightened by the ten thousand things." To be enlightened by the ten thousand things is to recognize the unity of the self and the ten thousand things.


And are they unifed on the side of the self or on the side of the ten thousand things, or both, or neither?
we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche
User avatar
futerko
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:58 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby greentara » Mon Jan 07, 2013 1:42 pm

'is to recognize the unity of the self and the ten thousand things.'
All are self, so where are the (ten thousand) others?
I think the key word is unity ....all one unit.
greentara
 
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:03 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby futerko » Mon Jan 07, 2013 2:00 pm

greentara wrote:'is to recognize the unity of the self and the ten thousand things.'
All are self, so where are the (ten thousand) others?
I think the key word is unity ....all one unit.


Surely recognizing the identity of the observer and the observed must in some way change the nature of both the self and the other?
we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche
User avatar
futerko
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:58 am

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Norwegian, smcj and 12 guests

>