futerko wrote:I think we can agree on this statement, so in the light of this, which version seems more feasable?Son of Buddha wrote:Lotus sutra says (chapter 2) "I will say no more.Why?Because what the Buddha has acheived is the rarest and most difficult to understand Law. The true entity of all phenomena canonly be understood and shared between Buddhas"
This idea of some eternal "true" self like a soul as opposed to the aggregates - is that difficult to understand or not? Compare that to what PadmaVonSamba wrote;PadmaVonSamba wrote:You can put the label "self" on anything you like,
but if you define 'self' as an independently arising state of cognition
you cannot arrive at any final point that is the self.
If you want to know
"who is the one that is aware (buddha) of its own "non-self" nature?
at that point, there is no distinction between that which perceives and that which is perceived
so the question then becomes moot.
There is no arising of 'self' because anything which would stand in relation to that 'self',
and which would thus define it,
is also "understood" as having no intrinsic self (likewise doesn't arise) either.
Even the "understood' part does not arise as a conceptual thing.
The first is dualistic and gives us something to cling to, the second is non-dual and gives us nothing to cling to.
So we have one idea which is pretty straightforward and another which is not so easy to understand - which do the sutras refer to?
Mahaparinirvana sutra chapter 3(end of the chapter)
it is [also] said that there is the Self. This is as in the case of the learned Doctor, who knows well the medicinal and non-medicinal qualities of milk. It is not as with common mortals, who might measure the size of their own self. Common mortals and the ignorant may measure the size of their own self and say, 'It is like the size of a thumb, like a mustard seed, or like the size of a mote.' When the Tathagata speaks of Self, in no case are things thus. That is why he says: 'All things have no Self.'
Even though he has said that all phenomena [dharmas] are devoid of the Self, it is not that they are completely/ truly devoid of the Self. What is this Self? Any phenomenon [dharma] that is true [satya], real [tattva], eternal [nitya], sovereign/ autonomous/ self-governing [aisvarya], and whose ground/ foundation is unchanging [asraya-aviparinama], is termed 'the Self' [atman]. This is as in the case of the great Doctor who well understands the milk medicine. The same is the case with the Tathagata. For the sake of beings, he says "there is the Self in all things" O you the four classes! Learn Dharma thus!"
I never said the True Self was a "thing" and neither does the Buddha Nature sutras say the Self is a "thing"
to say I beleive this is to misrepresent my view and to misrepresent the views of the Buddha Nature sutras themselves concering the True Self.
simply said you guys are claiming this is my view(when it is NOT)then you turn around and are trying to refute a view that wasnt even mine to begin with.
also i asked you a question that you didnt answer:
(1)is a Buddhas enlightenment Permenent or impermenant?(does the Buddha Lose his enlightenement)
(2)is the Buddhas Enlightenment Eternal/everlasting or does enlightenement cease?
(3)is Enlightenment unchanging or does it change?(note if it changes then that means it is apart of D.O since it changes dependent upon object/preception which would mean enlightenment has its origin in Ignorance)