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 catmoon » Sun Jan 13, 2013 12:00 pm

It is an interesting thing about the self, that it can be told by any number of people, of all degrees of education, in numerously varied ways, that it is wrong - yet the self will often utterly fail to even consider the possibility. Why is it that the self responds to overwhelming refutation by clinging to its position harder than ever?
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 2916
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sun Jan 13, 2013 12:04 pm

songhill wrote: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).
Suzuki was a brilliant pioneer of the translation of Buddhist texts into English, but like other pioneers (like I.B. Horner whom you mentioned in another thread) he suffered from having to translate into a "religious" lexicon that was severely impaired by its association to Abrahamic traditions. Then there is also the fact that Suzuki was accused by peers of his time (Hu Shih in 1951) and by modern scholars of being "guilty" of essentialism:
"In his discussion of humanity and nature, Suzuki takes Zen literature out of its social, ritual, and ethical contexts and reframes it in terms of a language of metaphysics derived from German Romantic idealism, English Romanticism, and American Transcendentalism." McMahan, David (2008), The Making of Buddhist Modernism.

That aside, in the book you quoted there are over 20 references to the concept of atman, all of which describe the atman "negatively".

For example:
"And what distinguished Buddhism most characteristically and emphatically from all other religions is the doctrine of non-Atamn, of non-ego, exactly opposite to the postulate of a soul-substance which is cherished by most of religious enthusiasts."p32
"People who take this view of the soul and its immortality must feel a great disappointment and even resentment, when they are asked to recognise the Budhist theory of non-atman."p39
etc...

Now, it is true, of course, that Suzuki then goes on to say things like: "The doctrine of non-atman liberates us from the shcakle of unfounded egoism; but as mere liberation does not mean anything positive and may perchance lead us to asceticism, we apply the energy thus released to the execution of the will of Dharmakaya." and then continues: "It is because we are all one in the Dharmakaya, because when the clouds of ignorance and egoism are totally dispersed the light of universal love and intelligence cannot but help shine in all its glory..." and then quotes passages from the bible to support his theory of the Dharmakaya. It is quite obvious where the accusations of eternalism start to find fertile ground.

But then in Chapter VII (pp140-180) he turns the whole deal over onto its head, again giving a detailed analysis and comparison of anatman from a Theravada, Mahayana and even a Vedanta persepective.

Realistically though, Suzukis main point in the book is that a beings true mode of existence is the Dharmakaya, wherein the experience is a unity of all beings ie a complete dissolution of all dualism. He argues against the reality of any type of sense of self, whether it be "True" or false.

Basically, the quote you provided is of the worst variety of cherry picking.
: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 Sherab Dorje » Sun Jan 13, 2013 12:14 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
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.
And which eye would that be? The normal everyday deluded eye or the all seeing wisdom eye? If we possess the Tathagatagarbha now we also possess the eye of wisdom, I fail to see how that could be blinded by the mote of dust which is ignorance. So, are we ignorant or are we enlightened? Are we the Dharmakaya or not? Because according to Jigten Sumgon:
Section VII 12. The three kayas reside together, without distinction." Gonchig p18
"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 futerko » Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:49 pm

Son of Buddha wrote: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?
I showed this in the quote from the Mahaparinirvana sutra, the bottom line is, if it leads to grasping and clinging then it is mistaken…

Son of Buddha wrote: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)
You referred me to the Śrīmālādevī Sūtra, where this passage stood out to me - Chapter Three: Clarifying the Final Meaning, verse 13. Intrinsic Purity of the Mind,

"Lord, the Tathagatagarbha is neither self nor sentient being, nor soul, nor personality. The Tathagatagarbha is not the domain of beings who fall into the belief in a real personality, who adhere to wayward views, whose thoughts are distracted by voidness. Lord, this Tathagatagarbha is the embryo of the Illustrious Dharmadhatu, the embryo of the Dharmakaya, the embryo of the supramundane dharma, the embryo of the intrinsically pure dharma."

The argument here is not about the true, actual nature of Tathāgata. The point being made is that the words "true self", and "eternal" can only represent a false identity and a false infinity respectively, due to the fact that they are relative words used by a relative being from a relative perspective.

If a relative being can realise that they are nothing but a false and finite self then what is produced is by definition neither false nor finite.
If a relative being tries to grasp a true and eternal self then what is produced is simply relative and false.

In other words, the idea that "unborn" means either that there was never anything there, or that there was always something there are both incorrect.

The Kevatta (Kevaddha) Sutta, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Consciousness without feature,[1]
without end,
luminous all around:
Here water, earth, fire, & wind
have no footing.
Here long & short
coarse & fine
fair & foul
name & form
are all brought to an end.
With the cessation of [the activity of] consciousness
each is here brought to an end.'"


1. Viññanam anidassanam. This term is nowhere explained in the Canon, although MN 49 mentions that it "does not partake in the allness of the All" — the "All" meaning the six internal and six external sense media (see SN 35.23). In this it differs from the consciousness factor in dependent co-arising, which is defined in terms of the six sense media. Lying outside of time and space, it would also not come under the consciousness-aggregate, which covers all consciousness near and far; past, present, and future. However, the fact that it is outside of time and space — in a dimension where there is no here, there, or in between (Ud 1.10), no coming, no going, or staying (Ud 8.1) — means that it cannot be described as permanent or omnipresent, terms that have meaning only within space and time. The standard description of nibbana after death is, "All that is sensed, not being relished, will grow cold right here." (See MN 140 and Iti 44.) Again, as "all" is defined as the sense media, this raises the question as to whether consciousness without feature is not covered by this "all." However, AN 4.174 warns that any speculation as to whether anything does or doesn't remain after the remainderless stopping of the six sense media is to "complicate non-complication," which gets in the way of attaining the non-complicated. Thus this is a question that is best put aside. (my emphasis)
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 futerko » Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:09 pm

What is infinity?

Usually we tend to think of the biggest number we can, but then we can always just add 1 and get a bigger number - so this is a false infinite.

The simple way to true infinity is to divide any number by zero.

I could speculate that the same holds true for dependent origination and emptiness

Ah, but I hear you exclaim - emptiness is not nothing…

Well, neither is zero because if is were the same there would just be a blank space instead of a zero - this is because zero represents nothing for all the other numbers.

I could speculate that this is remarkably similar to the idea that dependently originated phenomena never attain true/inherent existence, and so emptiness represents that fact in relation to them.

Emptiness taken alone appears as nothing, and dependent origination taken alone appears as being - it is only in the relationship between the two that we arrive at a theory that is neither eternalist nor annihilationist.

This is also the only possible interpretation of eternal/infinite that maintains any consistency within these apparently contradictory teachings.
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 oushi » Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:53 pm

Just get ride of meaning, and all those philosophical problems are gone :smile: . Meaning is the only thing that can delude the mind. Without it, you simply cannot fall for this or that... But people want to understand liberation and that's the showstopper, because knowing through meaning is never true knowing, in the same way there is no flavor in meaning of sugar. Being liberated is not having liberation trapped in philosophical interpretations. It is seeing that there is no one to liberate, as everything is empty.

Now, read this and laugh:
"Consciousness without feature,[1]
without end,
luminous all around:
Here water, earth, fire, & wind
have no footing.
Here long & short
coarse & fine
fair & foul
name & form
are all brought to an end.
With the cessation of [the activity of] consciousness
each is here brought to an end.'"

:lol:
User avatar
oushi
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am
Location: Chrząszczyrzewoszyce

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby songhill » Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:29 pm

Much of this discussion suffers from the fact that most of the discussants are unfamiliar with the via negativa. Without a careful background study of the via negativa in religious literature I think it is fair to say that what the Buddha really taught has been misrepresented to a large degree. Certainly, I can make a solid case that the often repeated phrase in the Nikayas form is not the self [anatta] (ditto with feeling, perception, volitional formations, consciousness), perfectly expresses the via negativa. Others, I am sure, who hold that the five aggregates are the metric for determining self can make a case, also. But their case is too weak to stand up against the evidence that the metric they embrace is inadequate because it is impermanent, suffering and fundamentally evil (Mara). This leaves them in an awkward position for what they are implicitly proposing is there is nothing beyond impermanence, suffering, a lack of self, and evil—it's samsara all the way down.
User avatar
songhill
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby futerko » Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:37 pm

songhill wrote:Much of this discussion suffers from the fact that most of the discussants are unfamiliar with the via negativa. Without a careful background study of the via negativa in religious literature I think it is fair to say that what the Buddha really taught has been misrepresented to a large degree. Certainly, I can make a solid case that the often repeated phrase in the Nikayas form is not the self [anatta] (ditto with feeling, perception, volitional formations, consciousness), perfectly expresses the via negativa. Others, I am sure, who hold that the five aggregates are the metric for determining self can make a case, also. But their case is too weak to stand up against the evidence that the metric they embrace is inadequate because it is impermanent, suffering and fundamentally evil (Mara). This leaves them in an awkward position for what they are implicitly proposing is there is nothing beyond impermanence, suffering, a lack of self, and evil—it's samsara all the way down.
This is simply an effect of seperating the two truths into impermanence on the one hand and emptiness as via negativa on the other. It results in dualism and fails to explain how the two levels interact with each 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

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Karma Dorje » Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:40 pm

Nothing seems to trigger discursive thought like discussions of what can't be captured in words. Twenty-eight pages and counting. Wow.
Karma Dorje
 
Posts: 731
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:35 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Son of Buddha » Sun Jan 13, 2013 5:13 pm

"futerko"
Son of Buddha wrote: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?

I showed this in the quote from the Mahaparinirvana sutra, the bottom line is, if it leads to grasping and clinging then it is mistaken…


No you didnt you are simply dodgeing the questions I am asking you.Bottom line is the Nirvana sutra never says that,you are simply making stuff up and intentionally misrepresenting what the Nirvana sutra actually says.it does however state:
(Nirvana sutra Chapter 3)
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!"

(Nirvana Sutra chapter 12)
“Kasyapa said to the Buddha: "O World-Honoured One! Is there Self in the 25 existences or not?" 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.

(your definitely not going to like this one.)Nirvana sutra chapter 11)
"The thought of Self regarding non-Self, and the thought of non-Self regarding Self, are inversions. The people of the world say that there is Self, and within Buddhism, too, we say that there is Self. The people of the world say that there is Self, but there is no Buddha-Nature. This is having the idea of Self in [what is] non-Self. This is an inversion. “The Self spoken of in Buddhism is the Buddha-Nature.” The people of the world say that there is no Self in Buddhism. This is the idea of the non-Self in the Self. "It is definite that there is no Self in the Buddhist teaching. That is why the Tathagata tells his disciples to practise selflessness." If such is said, this is an inversion. This is the third inversion. "

did you get that??the Ture self that is spoken of is the Buddha Nature if a person says "there is no (true)self in the Buddhist teachings" if such is said this person is speaking an inversion(or a better word is perversion(good meaning right)

so my friend do you intend to continue to misrepresent what is taught in this Sutra or do i need to post a hundred more verses just like these to expose your misinformation?

NOW are you going to sit here and still deny the True Self is taught in the Sutras?

"futerko"
Son of Buddha wrote: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)
You referred me to the Śrīmālādevī Sūtra, where this passage stood out to me - Chapter Three: Clarifying the Final Meaning, verse 13. Intrinsic Purity of the Mind,


1st of all I didnt refer you to the Srimaladevi Sutra you simply pretended that I did so you could dodge and not answer my question I asked you
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?

I have SHOWN that the sutra itself states the Buddha Nature is the True Self I NOW am asking you is the Buddha Nature the true Self?(pretty easy answer right?)

NOW to get to your misrepresention of the Srimaladevi Sutra Chapter Three: Clarifying the Final Meaning, verse 13. Intrinsic Purity of the Mind
"futerko"
"Lord, the Tathagatagarbha is neither self nor sentient being, nor soul, nor personality. The Tathagatagarbha is not the domain of beings who fall into the belief in a real personality, who adhere to wayward views, whose thoughts are distracted by voidness. Lord, this Tathagatagarbha is the embryo of the Illustrious Dharmadhatu, the embryo of the Dharmakaya, the embryo of the supramundane dharma, the embryo of the intrinsically pure dharma."
The argument here is not about the true, actual nature of Tathāgata. The point being made is that the words "true self", and "eternal" can only represent a false identity and a false infinity respectively, due to the fact that they are relative words used by a relative being from a relative perspective.
If a relative being can realise that they are nothing but a false and finite self then what is produced is by definition neither false nor finite.
If a relative being tries to grasp a true and eternal self then what is produced is simply relative and false.


No you are simply incorrect when it states "the Tathagatagarbha is neither self nor sentient being, nor soul, nor personality" this is refering to the worldly self("i" personality/identity ego that is based of the 5 aggreagtes of Dependent origination that has its origin in Ignorance.also as i have already SHOWN from the Nirvana sutra the Tathagatagarbha(Buddha Nature is the True Self so EVERY time the Tathagatagarbha is mentioned it is saying True Self,so go ahead and add the words True Self next to Tathagatagarbha in that qoutation,this right here by iteslf refutes what you are saying)(also do i have proof you ask that this passage is refering to the False self?)

(Nirvana sutra Chapter 12)While a Bodhisattva discourses thus about the quality of the Self, ordinary people do not but impute various false concepts to the Self, just as when asked about the attributes of the sword the [ministers] reply that it is like the horn of a ram. These ordinary people generate false views in succession from one on to the other. In order to eliminate such false views, the Tathagata reveals and discourses on the non-existence of a self, just as when the prince tells his various ministers that there is no such sword in his treasury. Noble Son, the True Self that the Tathagata expounds today is called the Buddha-dhatu [Buddha-Nature]. This manner of Buddha-dhatu is shown in the Buddha-Dharma with the example of the real sword. Noble Son, should there be any ordinary person who is able well to expound this, then he [speaks] in accordance with unsurpassed Buddha-Dharma. Should there be anyone who is well able to distinguish this in accordance with what has been expounded regarding it, then you should know that he has the nature of a Bodhisattva.

ALSO NOTE(the person who says the True Self is the Buddha Nature speaks in accordance with the unsurpassed Buddha-Dharma(thats what we call ABSOLUTE)
do you need further PROOF that this passage is talking about the worldy unholy self?

(Nirvana sutra chapter 12)
Not having come into contact with a good teacher of the Way, they do not know the Tathagata's hidden treasure and do not study selflessness. For example, even when a person is told of the unholy self, he cannot know the true quality of the Self. The same is true of my disciples. As they do not befriend a good teacher of the Way, they practise non-Self and do not know where it [Self] is. They do not know the true nature of selflessness. How, then, could they know the true nature of the Self itself?

yes when i say there is a false self and a True Self,this isnt my interpretation,im not making it up,what i am saying is Supported in the Sutras itself.

NOW I will go even further for you my brother what does the Srimaladevi Sutra actually say concerning the True Self(NOT the False self)Chapter 3 The One Refuge and the Wayward Stage.

"Lord, the domain of omniscient knowledge which is the Dharmakaya of the Tathagata
has never been seen before, even by the pure knowledge of the Disciples and the Self-
Enlightened. When sentient beings have faith in the Tathagata and those sentient beings
conceive [him] with permanence, pleasure, self, and purity, they do not go astray. Those
sentient beings have the right view. Why so? Because the Dharmakaya of the Tathagata
has the perfection of permanence, the perfection of pleasure, the perfection of self, the
perfection of purity. Whatever sentient beings see the Dharmakaya of the Tathagata that
way, see correctly. Whoever see correctly are called the sons of the Lord born from his
heart, born from his mouth, born from the Dharma, who behave as manifestation of
Dharma and as heirs of Dharma."

(is this absolute enough for you?)

(as far as the rest of what you wrote I have already posted a large enough message already,and i didnt disagree with what you posted other than to note the Lotus sutra places it as Provisional teachings)
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 5:15 pm

futerko wrote:This is simply an effect of seperating the two truths into impermanence on the one hand and emptiness as via negativa on the other. It results in dualism and fails to explain how the two levels interact with each other.


Anyone who has awakened knows exactly how the two satyas, samvrti and paramârtha, connect. Anyone who hasn't awakened cannnot understand the deep significance of the Buddha's teaching.
User avatar
songhill
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby futerko » Sun Jan 13, 2013 5:22 pm

songhill wrote:
futerko wrote:This is simply an effect of seperating the two truths into impermanence on the one hand and emptiness as via negativa on the other. It results in dualism and fails to explain how the two levels interact with each other.


Anyone who has awakened knows exactly how the two satyas, samvrti and paramârtha, connect. Anyone who hasn't awakened cannnot understand the deep significance of the Buddha's teaching.

That's great if you want to practice Judaism and you think the Buddha taught that, but it is neither an accepted classical nor a contemporary view of Buddhism.
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 songhill » Sun Jan 13, 2013 5:35 pm

futerko wrote:That's great if you want to practice Judaism and you think the Buddha taught that, but it is neither an accepted classical nor a contemporary view of Buddhism.


Well, yes it is. The awakening of Siddthartha meant something, obviously. I think we can say that Siddhartha's awakening comprehended through various categories of thought and thought-forms is samvrti while the emptying out of samvrti where it has been transcended, is paramârtha.
User avatar
songhill
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sun Jan 13, 2013 5:52 pm

songhill wrote:Much of this discussion suffers from the fact that most of the discussants are unfamiliar with the via negativa.
Is this the new trick you that you taught your pony? C'mon Songhill, this discussion suffers from the fact that most of the discussants here have no realisation of emptiness.

Let's take it from the top: firstly there is an overestimation of the value of mind and form. Knowing, intellectually, that the skhandha are not self, but not having realised anatman, you reify mind and form (by not directly perceiving their emptiness) and then launch a mistaken assault on what you believe is the enemy.

Unfortunately this overestimation is based on (intentional) mistranslations of Pali canon texts, on texts written by essentialists who flimsily disguised them as canonical by tacking on the phrase "Thus have I heard..." at the beginning and on decades of combing through books just to pull out the one sentence that supports your position (whilst ignoring the rest of the text).

But why all this effort, time, energy and money? The answer is: FEAR! Incapable of clinging to the skhanda as self you turn to clinging to skhanda as non-self. This, though, forces you to seek somewhere else to hang your identity. Why? Because since you define yourself as a Buddhist you cannot hang it on the skhanda. So you hang it on the tathagatagarbha. Ahhhh... the relief. Little old me is saved from annihilation yet again.

Klesa Mara sighs with relief and looks to their next avenue of action: "Let's convince everybody else that there is actually an anatman and an Atman!" Excellent! More reification! Hurray! So then start the lies, misrepresention, confusion, scheming, collusion... All this in aid of what? Little old me again.

I have said it before and I will say it again: even the tiniest little peek directly into the true nature of mind (oh, and here, the excuse given in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra that only the Buddhas can see it is pathetic, to say the least, and seeks to undermine 1000's of years of the experiences of realised practitioners) will verify for you 100% that there is NOTHING there to hang your sense of identity (whether true, false or demi) onto. Not "nothing there" per se, but definitely nothing there to support a sense of self.

So what now?

Recommendation: 1. Take all of your hard earned cash and spend it on the strongest glue you can find. 2. Find a real teacher. 3. Apply the glue. 4. Attach yourself firmly to them until you finally get it.

If you do this you will see that all your fear will vanish and, as a consequence of this, your motivation to engage in activities which will cause you nothing but suffering for countless lifetimes will disappear too. You will finally find peace.

And this thread will finally come to an end! :smile:
Where senses subside,
and self-nature
cannot stand -

that, you hick, is the finest innate:
ask for it clearly -
its got from the guru.
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

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sun Jan 13, 2013 5:57 pm

If I see one more rose colured quote from the Mahaparinirvana Sutra I swear I am going to barf! Image I am seriously suffering from a mahaparioverdose.
"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 futerko » Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:00 pm

Son of Buddha wrote:...

Am I getting deja-vu here or are you simply reposting the same sections of the same sutra? This is not what the "sutras" say, it is all from one single sutra which you are reading in isolation... I proposed a reading which showed how it did not contradict all the other teachings, yet you insist on your reading.
Son of Buddha wrote:(P.S. check out the 10 Bodhisattva vows of Queen Srimala I think you will love them)
This is from page 23 of this thread, and when I searched I found them in the Śrīmālādevī Sūtra, hence it would appear that you referred me to this sutra, apologies if I misunderstood.


We just had a thread on the Mahaparinirvana sutra where other posters, notably Astus, explained very clearly why your interpretation of it was skewed. Jnana also made the point that the
Paṭisambhidāmagga Aṭṭhakathā expressed the view of the Pāli tradition here,
    The dhamma called 'Nibbāna' is empty of self only on account of the non-existence of self [i.e., not on account of impermanence, etc.]. Secondly, conditioned dhammas, both mundane and supramundane, are all empty of a living being on account of the non-existence of a living being of any sort whatever. The unconditioned, the dhamma called 'Nibbāna', is empty of formations on account of the absence [there] of formations. Lastly, all dhammas, conditioned and unconditioned, are empty of self on account of the non-existence of any person who could be classed as 'a self'.

The Kaccayanagotta Sutta: To Kaccayana Gotta (on Right View) - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
    "By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
This is exactly what I have tried to repeatedly explain to you, I am not simply "making it up". The Mahaparinirvana sutra contains a discourse between the relative and ultimate viewpoints, as I explained before, Kaspaya's view is from a relative viewpoint, Buddha's reply is ultimate.
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 futerko » Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:14 pm

songhill wrote:
futerko wrote:That's great if you want to practice Judaism and you think the Buddha taught that, but it is neither an accepted classical nor a contemporary view of Buddhism.


Well, yes it is. The awakening of Siddthartha meant something, obviously. I think we can say that Siddhartha's awakening comprehended through various categories of thought and thought-forms is samvrti while the emptying out of samvrti where it has been transcended, is paramârtha.

That is why in Tibetan Buddhism there is the distinction between the lower Enlightenment of the Dharmakaya and the greater Enlightenment of the Svabhavakaya. The former is seen as subjective Enlightenment (realisation of the Self), while the latter is seen as objective Enlightement (realisation of the Absolute, lumious Mind of All).
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 PadmaVonSamba » Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:27 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
PadmaVonSamba wrote:
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.
And which eye would that be? The normal everyday deluded eye or the all seeing wisdom eye? If we possess the Tathagatagarbha now we also possess the eye of wisdom, I fail to see how that could be blinded by the mote of dust which is ignorance. So, are we ignorant or are we enlightened?


Oh, I think you know,
it's the same eye.
Just as its the same eye that opens and closes.
Attachments
daruma.jpg
damaru
daruma.jpg (25.33 KiB) Viewed 290 times
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 6:34 pm

"futerko"]
Am I getting deja-vu here or are you simply reposting the same sections of the same sutra? This is not what the "sutras" say, it is all from one single sutra which you are reading in isolation... I proposed a reading which showed how it did not contradict all the other teachings, yet you insist on your reading.
Son of Buddha wrote:(P.S. check out the 10 Bodhisattva vows of Queen Srimala I think you will love them)
This is from page 23 of this thread, and when I searched I found them in the Śrīmālādevī Sūtra, hence it would appear that you referred me to this sutra, apologies if I misunderstood.


No I posted only one previous qoute before its the one you consistantly refuse to answer :shrug:

um yes this is what the sutras say.tell me friend WHICH sutras bring you the teachings of Tathagatagarbha(Buddha Nature)??please list off all the sutras that mention/teach/and discribe what the Buddha Nature is and I can assure you they will say exactly the Same thing.(yes i insist on my "reading" its more like you dont like what the sutra actually has to say on the topic.
your reading is based on opinion,the actual sutra passages clearly speak a different story than the one you are trying to paint.

yea um at what point did the question i asked (that you still refuse to answer) refer you to the Srimaladevi Sutra? mabey you should of answered my question and then referenced what you were talking about
again I am still waiting for you to answer the Question does the Sutra state that Buddha Nature is the True Self(this is a yes of no question) does it or does it not make this statement?



"futerko"]We just had a thread on the Mahaparinirvana sutra where other posters, notably Astus, explained very clearly why your interpretation of it was skewed. Jnana also made the point that the
Paṭisambhidāmagga Aṭṭhakathā expressed the view of the Pāli tradition here,


umm no I Showed Astus where his view of emptiness is not supported do you want me to show you?(its listed in Chapter 7)
as far as Jnana is concerned we didnt debate on the Nirvana Sutra on that thread and his evidence comes from the
Paṭisambhidāmagga Aṭṭhakathā,you do realise that this is a commentary dont you?and commentaries do not refute sutras correct?

hmm why havent you responded to the Sutra passages i posted????by all means please explain how when the sutra passage says the Buddha Nature is the True Self
that is actually means it is none self :shrug:

I think you cant make those passages fit into you "view" so you are refusing to even respond to them.

tell me again friend what does the sutras say the Buddha Nature is?? :mrgreen:

(I await your response to my actual questions and statements that you seem to be dodgeing)
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 777
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby deepbluehum » Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:42 pm

The Mahayana teaches that only Buddhas see the dharmakaya. 8th Bhumis on up see the sambhogakaya and the rest of us see the nirmanakaya. Despite having the method of pointing out instructions, the Vajrayana upholds these designations. All clearly stated in Gampopa. Seeing the dharmakaya requires fully purifying all dualistic habits. No one here has done that. Least of all me. Having a glimpse for a short time is nothing compared to what a fully realized being is. Even great psychic power is not it. Even a a great master with volumes of teachings and a huge following is not it. Being habituated to seeing nothing 24/7 is it, with to divide between sleeping and awake.
Last edited by deepbluehum on Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Asbestos Buddha, CrawfordHollow, Lhug-Pa, Norwegian, Thrasymachus, yan kong and 21 guests

>