Son of Buddha wrote:*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.
No, this is not what I am trying to say.
From a relative viewpoint there appears to be both permanence and impermanence.
From an ultimate viewpoint nothing has come into or gone out of existence.
again you have not shown where in the Sutras this (realitive/absolute) view exists.is this just your opinion?
(1)and again sir you have already stated that the Sutras do in fact state the Buddha is permenant,eternal,everlasting,being unchanging have you not?
(2)you do realise that what is permenant,eternal,everlasting,being uncreate is the discription of the SELF dont you?
(3)with that said do you accept that the sutras do speak of the True Self(Buddha as permenant,eternal,everlasting,being unchanging)(at least in the manner "YOU" consider to be Relative terminology?
Mahaparinirvana sutra chapter 7
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."
This passage makes it clear.
Kaspaya's view is from a relative viewpoint, so he thinks that when something dies out it must be non-eternal. Buddha's reply is to say that "there is no coming about", and from just before this passage, in the section you quoted, Buddha says, "What there is is Voidness. There is nothing there. Hence, Nirvana."
yes and you chose to leave out the part where the Buddha corrects him and states Nirvana is (((ETERNAL)))
and as the Buddha says "there is no coming about". Hence, eternal
so is eternal that which is a discription of the True self?
Mahaparinirvana sutra chapter 12(last page)
Noble Son,the True Self that the Tathagata expounds today is called the Buddha-Dhatu(Buddha Nature)
So do you accept that the True Self is the Buddha Nature? or are you going to say the Buddha nature sutras are wrong about their teaching on Buddha Nature?
(please go back to where you qouted mister wisdom and add True Self in every place he mentions Tathagatagarbha(Buddha Nature)