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 deepbluehum » Sat Jan 12, 2013 10:24 pm

The Mahapari Nirvana Sutra's description of the self being unchanging etc. is a challenge to the practitioner to point that out. So many sutras and tantras have explained that the Dharmakaya is just like space.
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby deepbluehum » Sat Jan 12, 2013 10:25 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
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


Good one.
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby futerko » Sat Jan 12, 2013 10:27 pm

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.

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."
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 deepbluehum » Sat Jan 12, 2013 10:36 pm

The nirmanakaya and the sambhogakaya are only in deluded perception. In Dharmakaya nothing appears as this or that. Buddha is Dharmakaya not these illusions.
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Karma Dorje » Sat Jan 12, 2013 10:43 pm

deepbluehum wrote:The nirmanakaya and the sambhogakaya are only in deluded perception. In Dharmakaya nothing appears as this or that. Buddha is Dharmakaya not these illusions.


What part of "form is emptiness, emptiness itself is form" did you miss? ;)

All three terms are merely conventional conceptual designations. One should have bias towards neither appearance nor emptiness.
Karma Dorje
 
Posts: 731
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:35 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby deepbluehum » Sat Jan 12, 2013 10:51 pm

Karma Dorje wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:The nirmanakaya and the sambhogakaya are only in deluded perception. In Dharmakaya nothing appears as this or that. Buddha is Dharmakaya not these illusions.


What part of "form is emptiness, emptiness itself is form" did you miss? ;)


The snide part.
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby deepbluehum » Sat Jan 12, 2013 10:51 pm

;)
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby deepbluehum » Sat Jan 12, 2013 10:56 pm

Form emptiness is something to be experienced. It is beyond description. The Buddha isn't form. It is complete misunderstanding of dharma to equate the heart sutra and the rūpakaya.
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Karma Dorje » Sat Jan 12, 2013 11:03 pm

deepbluehum wrote:Form emptiness is something to be experienced. It is beyond description. The Buddha isn't form. It is complete misunderstanding of dharma to equate the heart sutra and the rūpakaya.


Well I am glad that it is complete then and that I am in the good company of Dolpopa in saying so. You should go back and re-read the snide part.
Karma Dorje
 
Posts: 731
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:35 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby deepbluehum » Sat Jan 12, 2013 11:31 pm

Karma Dorje wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:Form emptiness is something to be experienced. It is beyond description. The Buddha isn't form. It is complete misunderstanding of dharma to equate the heart sutra and the rūpakaya.


Well I am glad that it is complete then and that I am in the good company of Dolpopa in saying so. You should go back and re-read the snide part.


I'm merely reporting the Kagyu and Dzogchen views taught by my teachers. The rūpakaya is only in the deluded perceptions of students. The Buddha is the Dharmakaya. The Dharmakaya has no form. In the HS form is no form. The Buddha doesn't perceive form. There is no Buddha. The snide being emotionally deluded is fooled by words that sound alike. See Jewel Ornament final chapter.
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Karma Dorje » Sat Jan 12, 2013 11:49 pm

deepbluehuh wrote:I'm merely reporting the Kagyu and Dzogchen views taught by my teachers. The rūpakaya is only in the deluded perceptions of students. The Buddha is the Dharmakaya. The Dharmakaya has no form. In the HS form is no form. The Buddha doesn't perceive form. There is no Buddha. The snide being emotionally deluded is fooled by words that sound alike.


You interpret but say you are reporting. The trikaya are all simply conventional designations. Can you please give a Kagyu or Dzogchen source that substantiates your view that the Dharmakaya is real and the rupakaya are unreal? Leaving aside the shentong view, I have never heard that said that way before.

Saying that there is no Buddha without any qualification is simply wrong. The scriptures all say at the same time "no Buddha, no sentient beings"... meaning that there are no entities-- things do not exist as they appear. That does not mean there is no appearance whatsoever. There is vivid appearance, there is simply nothing graspable.

You make a lot of definitive pronouncements about things you haven't experienced. At very least, provide some scriptural support for your hypotheses.
Karma Dorje
 
Posts: 731
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:35 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby deepbluehum » Sun Jan 13, 2013 12:06 am

Regardless of my lack of experience, the Kagyu view of this issue comes from Ch 20 of Gampopa's Jewel Ornament.
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Sun Jan 13, 2013 12:20 am

gregkavarnos wrote: How can a mote of dust obscure an elephant?


It certainly can, if it gets in your eye
and that is exactly what not realizing buddha-nature is.

.
.
.
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 » Sun Jan 13, 2013 12:25 am

futerko wrote:
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?

"futerko"
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)
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 777
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Son of Buddha » Sun Jan 13, 2013 12:44 am

"Azidonis"
"Son of Buddha"]
okay and you are simply refusing to say wether your opinion is more or less correct than the sutras themselves.


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.



oh i love wisdoms observations I already posted that.
and based on Wisdoms observations "you" have no relasations nor experiences "you" are the delousion/defilement that is obscuring the Tathagatagarbha(True Self)
"you" will always be the delousion and will never be the Tathagatagarbha.(which is exactly what i told you earlier)

also your trying to argue Buddhism based on your opinions from a defiled self and you do not rely on the sutras,by this view we can make up anything we want and call it Buddhism without haveing to show a shred of proof that our views are actually founded in the sutras.
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 777
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby songhill » Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:37 am

Some rather interesting stuff about the dharmakaya and the âtman.

When Nagarjuna say in is Madhyamika Shastra: "That is called Nirvana which is not wanting, is not acquired, is not intermittent, is not non-intermittent, is not subject to destruction, and is not created;" he evidently speaks of Nirvana as a synonym of Dharmakaya, that is, in its first sense as above described. Chandra Kirti, therefore, rightly comments that Nirvana is sarva-kalpanâ-ksaya-rupam, i.e., that which transcends all the forms of determination. Nirvana is an absolute, it is above the relativity of existence (bhâva) and non-existence (abhâva). Nirvana is sometimes spoken of as possessing four attributes; (1) eternal (nitya), (2) blissful (sukha) (3) self-acting (âtman), and (4) pure (shushi). Judging from these qualities thus ascribed to Nirvana as its essential features, Nirvana is here again identified with the highest reality of Buddhism, that is, with the Dharmakaya. It is eternal because it is immaterial; it is blissful because it is above all sufferings; it is self-acting because it knows no compulsion; it is pure because it is not defiled by passion and error" (Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki, Outline of Mahayana Buddhism, p. 347–348, http://goo.gl/cVYei).
User avatar
songhill
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Lotus_Bitch » Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:53 am

songhill wrote:
Lotus_Bitch wrote:
Here the Buddha explicitly states that an Ātman, or Soul, or Self, is nowhere to be found in reality, and it is foolish to believe that there is such a thing.


The sutta is talking about attavādupādānaṃ, that is, grasping at a theory of self. In the same sutta, further on, he tells his monks to put to put away what is not yours which happens to be all of the five aggregates. In other suttas, for example, the Buddha's disciples regard material shape and the rest of the aggregates as: ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self. This is clearly the via negativa.

Whose translations, influenced your interpretation of the Dhamma?
Lotus_Bitch
 
Posts: 164
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:24 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby wisdom » Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:13 am

gregkavarnos wrote:
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?


A mote of dust obscures an elephant when it gets into our eye.

[Edit, just read Padmavonsambas post who said the same thing]

At any rate all thoughts are just one thought transforming itself over and over again, the thoughts change as we receive new impressions from without or arising from within. There is only one thought, one mote in the one eye of awareness. Follow that thought with attachment and aversion and you lose sight of the Buddha Nature. Just like when you have something in your eye you rub it and focus on it and everything seems to be blurry, but that doesn't make the room you are in disappear even though you're no longer aware of it. Really if you stopped and just let your eye be, there would be a blur but you can see a lot easier than when you are freaking out about it. Also if you just leave your eye alone, using your awareness, it will clear itself with its tears and blinking, no need to rub which can just make it worse.
Last edited by wisdom on Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
wisdom
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 4:33 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby songhill » Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:22 am

Lotus_Bitch wrote:
songhill wrote:
Lotus_Bitch wrote:
Here the Buddha explicitly states that an Ātman, or Soul, or Self, is nowhere to be found in reality, and it is foolish to believe that there is such a thing.


The sutta is talking about attavādupādānaṃ, that is, grasping at a theory of self. In the same sutta, further on, he tells his monks to put to put away what is not yours which happens to be all of the five aggregates. In other suttas, for example, the Buddha's disciples regard material shape and the rest of the aggregates as: ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self. This is clearly the via negativa.

Whose translations, influenced your interpretation of the Dhamma?


Early on it was Fung Yu-lan, Suzuki, Charles Luk, and Blofeld. This was in the period of the early 1960s. Basically, you have to read a lot of stuff, and that is the easy part.
User avatar
songhill
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Azidonis » Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:28 am

Son of Buddha wrote:and based on Wisdoms observations "you" have no relasations nor experiences "you" are the delousion/defilement that is obscuring the Tathagatagarbha(True Self)
"you" will always be the delousion and will never be the Tathagatagarbha.(which is exactly what i told you earlier)


All the "you" has to realize is that there is nothing to realize.

And you can call that nothing by any name you want, even "True Self". It will not change what it is. It will not change what it is not. All it may change is one's perception and approach to it, which are illusions.

The fact is that the term "True Self" implies a spirit, or central core, which is simply non-existent.

self [Emphasis added.]
1. The total, essential, or particular being of a person; the individual.
2. The essential qualities distinguishing one person from another; individuality.
3. One's consciousness of one's own being or identity; the ego.
4. One's own interests, welfare, or advantage: thinking of self alone.
5. [In] Immunology - That which the immune system identifies as belonging to the body:

You can remain attached to that term if you like. It is no odds to me.

Son of Buddha wrote:also your trying to argue Buddhism based on your opinions from a defiled self and you do not rely on the sutras,by this view we can make up anything we want and call it Buddhism without haveing to show a shred of proof that our views are actually founded in the sutras.


Actually, if I am aruging anything about the sutras, it is simply that there are as many interpretations of the sutras as there are people, and your attempts to force one particular view of the sutras down someone else's throat is appalling, no matter who's commentary it is.

Since you insist on playing sutras though, here's one:

"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."

So now, if you refuse to join me in a scientific approach and conversation about the matter, and instead refer to continue the way you have gone about the conversation thus far, then I have nothing more to say to you about the subject at this time.
Azidonis
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 1:04 am

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: daverupa, hop.pala, jeeprs, JohnJ, Simon E., smcj and 22 guests

>