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 futerko » Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:00 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
futerko wrote:Yes, but, the word "possess" makes it sound like an element in a set, whereas I would suggest it may be more accurate to say it is the name of the set.
Yes, well, that's why I put it in quotation marks... So when you say the "name of the set" what exactly does this set consist of? AND coz, it is kind of important, is it part "of the set" right now?
:namaste:

The set includes all beings in the desire realms, and it is potential, so we "have" it in the same way that we "have our whole lives ahead of us", as a possibility.

To me this suggests that nirvana is somehow fundamental and foundational, and that samsara is a sort of wrong turn within that - that is my understanding of the word "transcendent" in this context.
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 Azidonis » Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:24 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
Son of Buddha wrote:
Mahaparinirvana sutra chapter 3(end of the chapter) ...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!"


The issue is like asking whether or not wine is just spoiled grapes.
When wine is made, a transformation takers place.
What was previously regarded, by its component parts, as 'a "grape" is abandoned.
What remains is something totally different, yet not totally separate from grapes.

So, it is as though we are a bunch of grapes having this discussion
and to regard wine in the same way that we regard ourselves as grapes is totally misleading.
Any notion that we entertain, of "self" or 'atman' ---grapewise, that is, is pointless.
So, if we ask, does that tathagatha wine have some kind of characteristics
we can answer, yes. We can say it is forever unchanging
(which, for wine in a bottle compared with a grape on a vine, is true).
We can use our very limited terminology to describe something
which is not separate from who we are,
but which does not contain any notion of "self" as we know it
precisely because all definitions of 'self' as we can imagine them are inadequate.
If the question is asked, "is enlightenment eternal"
the answer, as I understand it, is that enlightenment goes beyond any notion of eternal vs.temporary.
It's a whole different ball game
just as wine is different from grapes.
.
.
.


I can agree with this. But I do not think this "Self" is a single self, or a set of single selves. I do not think it is one out of many bottles of wine. It is just wine, all wine. It is for that perception that I assert the term "Self" is misleading. And to chase after it, is an effort in futility. It is more expedient then, in my opinion, to assert there is no self, therefore not seeking to form an image or attachment to a Self which is beyond image, form, and attachment.
Azidonis
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 1:04 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Sat Jan 12, 2013 5:58 pm

There is an assertion, within the Mahayana tradition,
That a Buddha is a manifestation of the aspect of Dharmakaya
which in this context is, not unlike the term, dharmadhatu,
meanining the "isness' of everything
which suggests both simply and entirely
a pure distillation of just what is.

So, it's sort of like, if you summed up all of the ultimate truth about everything,
infinitely, clearly and without distortion,
and you slapped a face on it
That would be the face of a Buddha.

It is only due to picking and choosing, grasping to the aggregates and so on,
that we selectively construct our limited realities as the various realms of existence
and the Buddha face is not seen.

The face that appears has no particular reality to it.
it is the expression of dharmakaya that arises, that manifests in the context of our own being.
This is why the question of whether or not tathagatha is atman makes no sense.

When you remove the clinging, you see the face of Buddha.
It is already there, but it has no self-nature.
.
.
.
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: 2800
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Son of Buddha » Sat Jan 12, 2013 7:40 pm

"Son of Buddha"you do realise that Enlightenement is described in the suttas/sutras don't you?since you do not wish to answer my question would you please tell me how the SUTRAS discribe Enlightenement?
also does the Sutras ever discribe Enlightenement as being permenant/eternal/everlasting/and unchanging?
Please Explain(also can you source where in the sutra or tantras this view comes from)


"futerko"Yes they do, and this clearly from the point of view of the relative rather than absolute.
I have a wooden table in front of me, if I torch the table then the idea of "this table" is gone, but does the ash disappear from existence? I have no idea what you mean by impermanent outside of the concept itself. Of course there is change and impermanence in relative terms, but in absolute terms nothing has come into or gone out of existence. Therefore the idea of permanence and impermanence is a purely relative concept.



*again you have not provided a passage from the sutras to show that your view is indeed correct and in line with what is taught in the sutras.

*you state that by relative terms there is change and impermenance(hence apart of dependent origination/Ignorance)(hence since realitive is changeing the absolute would be unchangeing correct?)realitive would be impermenant absolute would be permenant correct)

* and you state that in Absolute terms nothing has come into or gone out of existance.hence that it is permenant,eternal,everlasting,being uncreate its hasnt come into existance it doesnt go out of existance it is unchanging.


Mahaparinirvana sutra chapter 7


The Buddha said to Kasyapa: "Or there may be good men and women who may say: "The Tathagata is non-eternal. How can we know that he is non-eternal? The Buddha says that when the fire of illusion is extinguished, there is Nirvana. This is as when there is nothing [left over] to be seen when the fire is extinguished. The same is the case when all illusions are annihilated. This, he says, is Nirvana. How can the Tathagata claim that he is the Dharma eternal and unchanging? The Buddha says that when we part from existence, there is Nirvana. In this Nirvana, there cannot be anything that exists. How, then, can the Tathagata be eternal and unchanging? When a piece of clothing is torn, we do not call it anything. The same with Nirvana. When all illusions are done away with, there can be no thing. How can the Tathagata be eternal and unchanging? The Buddha says that separation from desire and arrival at quietude is Nirvana. If a person's head is cut off, there is no head any more. The same with separation from desire and arrival at quietude. What there is is Voidness. There is nothing there. Hence, Nirvana. How can the Tathagata be eternal and unchanging? The Buddha says:

[This is as in the case of heated iron.

When beaten by a hammer, sparks shoot out.

These flash and die out; nothing remains.

The same applies to attaining emancipation.

Once the muddle of carnal desire has been crossed,

One gains the immovable state.

One no longer has a place to move to].

"How can the Tathagata be one eternal and unchanging?" O Kasyapa! One who reproaches me thus commits slander, which is wrong. O Kasyapa! You must not entertain such a notion and say that the nature of the Tathagata perishes. O Kasyapa! We do not place the annihilation of illusion in the category of matter [rupa]. Why not? Because of the fact of the ultimacy of Eternity. Hence, we say Eternal. [Nirvanic] quietude has nothing to supercede it. All phenomenal existences are done away with, with nothing remaining. This indicates what is fresh, clear, eternal, and unretrogressive. That is why we say that Nirvana is eternal. It is the same with the Tathagata. He is eternal, with no change. "Stars sweep". This refers to illusion. Once swept, all is gone and no trace remains of any existence. This indicates that all Tathagatas are those who have done away with illusion and are no longer in the five realms. This means that the Tathagata is one eternal and that there is no change [with him]. Also next, O Kasyapa! It is the Dharma which is the teacher of all Buddhas. Hence, the Tathagata respectfully makes offerings. As the Dharma is eternal, so too are all Buddhas eternal."

Bodhisattva Kasyapa said again to the Buddha: "If the flame of illusion dies out, the Tathagata must also die out. This indicates that there can be no ground where the Tathagata is eternal. This is similar to the situation in which hot iron slag can no longer be seen when the red colour disappears. The same with the Tathagata and illusion. Gone, there is no other pace to go to. And it is like the case of iron. The heat and the red colour gone, there remains nothing to be seen. The same with the Tathagata. Once extinguished, what remains is non-eternal. The fire of illusion done away with, he enters Nirvana. This tells us that the Tathagata is non-eternal." "O good man! The iron you speak of refers to common mortals. Illusion done away with, the common mortal comes about again. That is why we say non-eternal. This is not the case with the Tathagata. Gone, there is no coming about. Hence, eternal." Kasyapa further said to the Buddha: "If we place the colour-robbed iron back into the fire, the red colour will return. It it is thus with the Tathgata, illusion will again form. If illusion again forms, this is nothing but the non-eternal." The Buddha said: "O Kasyapa! Do not say that the Tathagata is non-eternal. Why not? Because the Tathagata is one Eternal. O good man! When wood is burnt, extinction comes about, and there remain behind the ashes. When illusion is done away with, there remains Nirvana. All such parables as of the torn garment, beheading and broken earthenware enunciate the same truth. All such things have such names as torn garment, beheading, and broken earthenware. O Kasyapa! The iron that has become cold can be made hot again. But this is not the case with the Tathagata. Illusion once done away with, what there is is utmost purity and coolness. The blazing flame never comes back again. O Kasyapa! Know that the situation of innumerable beings is like that of the iron. With the blazing fire of Wisdom free from the “asravas” [defilements], I now burn off the bonds of illusion of all beings." Kasyapa said further: "It is good, it is good that I now clearly see what the Tathagata means when he says that all Buddhas are eternal."


this is what i mean about Impermenance.

also my friend I have already shown that SELF means permenant/eternal/everlasting/and unchanging,and you yourself has stated that the sutras DO STATE that the Buddha is permenant/eternal/everlasting/and unchanging (hence the True Self)so you yourself do admit that the True Self exists in Buddhism and Buddhist sutras
(of course in your view as realitive)

so why are you argueing against the idea of the true Self when you already knew that it exists in the Sutras? why not save the many pages and just state yea True Self is taught in the Sutras and I view it as Relative,and then support your views with sutras that make the SAME claims??
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 777
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby wisdom » Sat Jan 12, 2013 7:49 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:So here's a question that you may be able to reply to: Do we all "possess" the Tathagatagarbha right now?


Who could be said to possess the Tathagatagarbha? Though it is inherent as the absolute nature of all beings, there are no sentient beings who can be said to be possessing it or grasping it in any way. This is because with the knowledge of emptiness it becomes apparent that there is no self which can possess nor is there any object to be possessed. Upon examination then it appears that the Tathagatagarbha is self possessed, self seen and self heard. This is because when it is possessed, seen, or heard, that which possesses, sees or hears is none other than the Tathagatagarbha itself. It is only possessed, seen or heard by itself because it is only reached through the complete relinquishment of attachment to everything which is not it, which includes any self which might be capable of grasping it. It is therefore not the positive seizing of a thing, an addition to oneself, but rather it is whats left when you've removed all other extraneous things, like cleaning a dirty mirror and making it clear again.

What is possessed? The ever present realization of emptiness and abiding in that realization. What is seen? The emptiness nature of all phenomena of self and other, revealing that the Tathagatagarbha is inherent in all things. What is heard? The wisdom of emptiness, the supreme knowledge of prajnaparamita.

So although it can be said that the ultimate nature of all beings is the Tathagatagarbha and that all sentient beings "have" this ultimate nature, it cannot be demonstrated that there is any such thing as someone, a sentient being, who possesses something called the "Tathagatagarbha" that can in any way be held onto. Everything appears to point to no, we don't possess the Tathagatagarbha. We either are the Tathagatagarbha and so have realized our Buddha Nature, or we are still deluded and have not yet realized that nature.

This is the opinion of a deluded sentient being.
User avatar
wisdom
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 4:33 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sat Jan 12, 2013 7:53 pm

wisdom wrote:We either are the Tathagatagarbha and so have realized our Buddha Nature, or we are still deluded and have not yet realized that nature.
How can we become something we are not? How can an apple tree sprout from a mango seed?
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7899
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby wisdom » Sat Jan 12, 2013 8:02 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
wisdom wrote:We either are the Tathagatagarbha and so have realized our Buddha Nature, or we are still deluded and have not yet realized that nature.
How can we become something we are not? How can an apple tree sprout from a mango seed?
:namaste:


Because its not a matter of becoming. Becoming is a quality of the egoistic self which adds experiences and karma to itself and so develops habits, propensities, opinions an so forth. Yet no matter how many experiences are had, no matter how much is added to the egoistic self, it will never "add up" to the Tathagatagarbha. Its not possible for this self to ever become the Tathagatagarbha. It is however possible for this self to relinquish its hold on its own delusions and in doing so stop obscuring the Buddha Nature which is always seeking to manifest itself. The self is the dirt on the mirror, adding more dirt through experiences and becoming will never make the mirror shine again.
User avatar
wisdom
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 4:33 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sat Jan 12, 2013 8:10 pm

Surely, if we are this pure transcendental enlightened nature now, then it is manifesting now, ie we are enlightened now. Otherwise, how do we get to this state if it is seperate to now?
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7899
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Son of Buddha » Sat Jan 12, 2013 8:14 pm

"Azidonis"
Son of Buddha wrote:you keep asking me to prove something the SUTRAS themselves state neither i nor you can understand/observe or prove.
do you wish to state the Lotus sutra is a liar when it says I and you cannot observe and understand the true entity of all phenomena?
if it is not a lair then why keep asking me to prove something that can only be understood amongst Buddhas.


I'm just asking you to look at it, and tell me what you see. What you will see has no inherent qualities. It is formless. You don't have to be a "buddha" to grasp that.


you are aware that the inherent qualities(body of attributes) is known as the Dharmakaya?

"Azidonis"
Son of Buddha wrote:(did you even read the Lotus sutra passage I sent you if you did you wouldnt be accuseing me of this)


I'm not "accusing you" of anything. I'm simply trying to hold a dialogue with you. Unfortunately for us both, it does not seem to be working out so well. And no, I didn't read the Lotus Sutra passage. I was under the impression I was having a conversation with you, not the Lotus Sutra.

um yes you tried to state I held a view I did not,then you tried to refute this view while saying it was mine,the view and the refutation of the view had nothing whatseoever to do with me or my views you were simply debateing yourself. :D
yes you didnt read the Lotus sutra passage cause obviously what is taught in the Buddhist sutras has less athuority than your opinion
and if you didnt notice you are having a converstation with me about a topic that is taught in the Sutras,hence why the sutras are used to support the views.

"Azidonis"
Son of Buddha wrote:the sutras that BROUGHT you Buddha Nature


Are you trying to tell me that if the sutras did not exist, then people would not have "Buddha Nature"?

The term, "True Self" implies an actual being. The term, "Buddha Nature", does not.

And since you mention that we all have Buddha Nature, which I agree we all have, how do you propose to reconcile that very sentiment with the statement that something can only be understood between Buddhas? From the point of view you seem to be approaching it, you give the impression that you will never be able to understand it, as you are not a Buddha. Why sell yourself short?


No im not saying that if the sutras did not exist,then people would not have Buddha Nature Im saying that the UNDERSTANDING of what Buddha Nature IS comes from these sutras,these very sutras are the sutras that bring you the UNDERSTANDING of what Buddha Nature is,without them the very term Buddha Nature or its meaning would not exist.
So why would you disagree with the very sutras that teach you what Buddha Nature means?

YOU STATED:"The term, "True Self" implies an actual being. The term, "Buddha Nature", does not"

Mahaparinirvana sutra chapter 12
The Buddha said: "O good man! "Self" means "Tathagatagarbha" [Buddha-Womb, Buddha-Embryo, Buddha-Nature]. Every being has Buddha-Nature. This is the Self. Such Self has, from the very beginning, been under cover of innumerable defilements. That is why man cannot see it. O good man!

why sell MYSELF short well sir as the sutras state 'i' "you' 'me" 'man" cannot see it or understand it. and that SELF you are saying I am selling short is the very self that is based on Dependent origination which is originated in ignorance and Samsara.for someone who champions NO SELF you sure do rely this false self for alot.seems like everything needs to be seen and ran by this 5 aggreagate self for it to be "True"

is your opinion more authorative than the Sutras that teach you what Buddha Nature is?also where does your opinion come from?

"Azidonis"
Son of Buddha wrote:also you didnt answer my questions i asked you:

(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)


Surely you know the answers to these.


Yes would you like for me to show you what it states in the Sutras of just give you my opinion?
why cant you answer them?(are you dancing around my questions? :mrgreen: )
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 777
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Son of Buddha » Sat Jan 12, 2013 8:19 pm

wisdom wrote:
gregkavarnos wrote:So here's a question that you may be able to reply to: Do we all "possess" the Tathagatagarbha right now?


Who could be said to possess the Tathagatagarbha? Though it is inherent as the absolute nature of all beings, there are no sentient beings who can be said to be possessing it or grasping it in any way. This is because with the knowledge of emptiness it becomes apparent that there is no self which can possess nor is there any object to be possessed. Upon examination then it appears that the Tathagatagarbha is self possessed, self seen and self heard. This is because when it is possessed, seen, or heard, that which possesses, sees or hears is none other than the Tathagatagarbha itself. It is only possessed, seen or heard by itself because it is only reached through the complete relinquishment of attachment to everything which is not it, which includes any self which might be capable of grasping it. It is therefore not the positive seizing of a thing, an addition to oneself, but rather it is whats left when you've removed all other extraneous things, like cleaning a dirty mirror and making it clear again.

What is possessed? The ever present realization of emptiness and abiding in that realization. What is seen? The emptiness nature of all phenomena of self and other, revealing that the Tathagatagarbha is inherent in all things. What is heard? The wisdom of emptiness, the supreme knowledge of prajnaparamita.

So although it can be said that the ultimate nature of all beings is the Tathagatagarbha and that all sentient beings "have" this ultimate nature, it cannot be demonstrated that there is any such thing as someone, a sentient being, who possesses something called the "Tathagatagarbha" that can in any way be held onto. Everything appears to point to no, we don't possess the Tathagatagarbha. We either are the Tathagatagarbha and so have realized our Buddha Nature, or we are still deluded and have not yet realized that nature.

This is the opinion of a deluded sentient being.



:jawdrop: :bow: :bow: :bow: (can I have permission to use your qoute in the future?)
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 777
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby wisdom » Sat Jan 12, 2013 8:27 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:Surely, if we are this pure transcendental enlightened nature now, then it is manifesting now, ie we are enlightened now. Otherwise, how do we get to this state if it is seperate to now?


It is manifesting now, although for deluded beings it manifests as the suns light does through clouds. It makes the day bright, but it is not the same as the sun shining in a clear sky. The clouds are the delusions of sentient beings, the movement of clouds are their actions, the building of a storm is their becoming, the accumulation of karma. The more karma that's accumulated, the darker the day becomes. Eventually it might seem that there is no sun at all, but thats not true.
User avatar
wisdom
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 4:33 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sat Jan 12, 2013 8:47 pm

wisdom wrote:
gregkavarnos wrote:Surely, if we are this pure transcendental enlightened nature now, then it is manifesting now, ie we are enlightened now. Otherwise, how do we get to this state if it is seperate to now?


It is manifesting now, although for deluded beings it manifests as the suns light does through clouds. It makes the day bright, but it is not the same as the sun shining in a clear sky. The clouds are the delusions of sentient beings, the movement of clouds are their actions, the building of a storm is their becoming, the accumulation of karma. The more karma that's accumulated, the darker the day becomes. Eventually it might seem that there is no sun at all, but thats not true.
How is it possible that something dependently arising, and thus limited, can obscure something that is eternal and infinite in extent? How can a mote of dust oscure an elephant?
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7899
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby songhill » Sat Jan 12, 2013 8:50 pm

wisdom wrote:
gregkavarnos wrote:Surely, if we are this pure transcendental enlightened nature now, then it is manifesting now, ie we are enlightened now. Otherwise, how do we get to this state if it is seperate to now?


It is manifesting now, although for deluded beings it manifests as the suns light does through clouds. It makes the day bright, but it is not the same as the sun shining in a clear sky. The clouds are the delusions of sentient beings, the movement of clouds are their actions, the building of a storm is their becoming, the accumulation of karma. The more karma that's accumulated, the darker the day becomes. Eventually it might seem that there is no sun at all, but thats not true.


:good:

In Cleary's translation of The Flower Ornament Scripture we learn that great disciples even like Shariputra, Mahakashyapa and others failed to see the transfiguration of the Buddha in the Jeta Grove, his adornments, etc.
User avatar
songhill
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sat Jan 12, 2013 8:55 pm

songhill wrote:In Cleary's translation of The Flower Ornament Scripture we learn that great disciples even like Shariputra, Mahakashyapa and others failed to see the transfiguration of the Buddha in the Jeta Grove, his adornments, etc.
I think you'll find that this is perfect example of what us lesser beings call Mahayana triumphalism. It's also called avoiding logical questions by hiding behind pseudo-mystical claptrap.
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7899
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Son of Buddha » Sat Jan 12, 2013 9:17 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:How is it possible that something dependently arising, and thus limited, can obscure something that is eternal and infinite in extent? How can a mote of dust oscure an elephant?


a mote of dust cannot obscure an elephant,mabey an dust storm can obscure an elephant.

although I think a better question is how can a mote of dust become an Elephant?

Peace and Love Greg

I gotta roll to the store see you guys around.
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 777
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby futerko » Sat Jan 12, 2013 9:37 pm

wisdom wrote:Who could be said to possess the Tathagatagarbha? Though it is inherent as the absolute nature of all beings, there are no sentient beings who can be said to be possessing it or grasping it in any way. This is because with the knowledge of emptiness it becomes apparent that there is no self which can possess nor is there any object to be possessed. Upon examination then it appears that the Tathagatagarbha is self possessed, self seen and self heard. This is because when it is possessed, seen, or heard, that which possesses, sees or hears is none other than the Tathagatagarbha itself. It is only possessed, seen or heard by itself because it is only reached through the complete relinquishment of attachment to everything which is not it, which includes any self which might be capable of grasping it. It is therefore not the positive seizing of a thing, an addition to oneself, but rather it is whats left when you've removed all other extraneous things, like cleaning a dirty mirror and making it clear again.

What is possessed? The ever present realization of emptiness and abiding in that realization. What is seen? The emptiness nature of all phenomena of self and other, revealing that the Tathagatagarbha is inherent in all things. What is heard? The wisdom of emptiness, the supreme knowledge of prajnaparamita.

So although it can be said that the ultimate nature of all beings is the Tathagatagarbha and that all sentient beings "have" this ultimate nature, it cannot be demonstrated that there is any such thing as someone, a sentient being, who possesses something called the "Tathagatagarbha" that can in any way be held onto. Everything appears to point to no, we don't possess the Tathagatagarbha. We either are the Tathagatagarbha and so have realized our Buddha Nature, or we are still deluded and have not yet realized that nature.

This is the opinion of a deluded sentient being.


I agree with most of this, I think it makes it clear that, "there is no self which can possess nor is there any object to be possessed." - "complete relinquishment of attachment to everything which is not it, which includes any self", but you do seem to be talking about Tathagata rather than Tathagatagarbha. If we have realized our Buddha-nature we are not the Tathagatagarbha, we are the Buddha, so when you say that it is "the opinion of a deluded sentient being", it would seem that is exactly the aim of this teaching - but this is just a minor point.
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 Sherab Dorje » Sat Jan 12, 2013 9:41 pm

Son of Buddha wrote:a mote of dust cannot obscure an elephant,mabey an dust storm can obscure an elephant.
Your metaphor insinuates that ignorance is also infinite and eternal. This would mean that enlightenment is impossible. I think you will find that Shariputra, Mahakashyapa, all the other Arahats, Pratyekabuddhas, Bodhisattvas and fully enlightened BUddhas may disagree.
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7899
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby deepbluehum » Sat Jan 12, 2013 9:57 pm

All this is just a dream. A mirage contradicting an illusion ain't saying nothing.
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Azidonis » Sat Jan 12, 2013 10:00 pm

Son of Buddha wrote:yes you didnt read the Lotus sutra passage cause obviously what is taught in the Buddhist sutras has less athuority than your opinion


No. It has nothing to do with authority.

Son of Buddha wrote:is your opinion more authorative than the Sutras that teach you what Buddha Nature is?also where does your opinion come from?


Again, it has nothing to do with authority.

It has only to do with the experiences that I have had up to a point. Those experiences, whatever they may or may not be, propound an actual framework with which I can work. The sutras provide a frame of reference with which I can relate, but if the sutras and my own experiences do not meet up, then it is my task to see where they do or do not meet up, not yours, and certainly not within "your interpretation" of them, but my own.

If I can relate my experience to you, and you can relate yours to me, we can see where they meet up and do not meet up. If, instead of relating your experience, you simply run to quoting sutras, then you have driven a wedge between our communication.

I still maintain that there is no central core, no ghost in the shell, no inherent individual within the bodily machine. PadmaVonSamba's analogies are more than apt to cover this assertion in detail, along with futerko's observations, and wisdom's.
Azidonis
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 1:04 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sat Jan 12, 2013 10:14 pm

deepbluehum wrote:All this is just a dream. A mirage contradicting an illusion ain't saying nothing.
No beginning, no end
no middle; not existence
and not nirvana;

well, that utmost great bliss
is not an other
and not a self.

Saraha Tantric Treasures
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7899
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexa [Bot], JKhedrup, Johnny Dangerous, smcj and 16 guests

>