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 Sherab Dorje » Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:42 pm

You can't close that eye my friend, no matter how hard you try!
Attachments
ekajati.jpg
ekajati.jpg (7.86 KiB) Viewed 380 times
"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
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 7944
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby deepbluehum » Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:48 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:You can't close that eye my friend, no matter how hard you try!


This does not depict you or I. This image represents one whose eyes are forever closed to duality. And whose inner eye is forever turned to the dharmakaya. No amount of self congratulations can make us into her.
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:50 pm

deepbluehum wrote:All clearly stated in Gampopa.
Gampopa teaches Sutra Mahamudra, the gradual path. As you well know, not all Mahamudra paths are gradual. As for pointing out, it depends a lot on the karma of the student and teacher (as you well know, again).
This does not depict you or I. This image represents one whose eyes are forever closed to duality. And whose inner eye is forever turned to the dharmakaya.
Oh, of course, how silly of me, my enlightened nature is different to their enlightened nature, right??? :shrug:
"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
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 7944
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby deepbluehum » Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:57 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:All clearly stated in Gampopa.
Gampopa teaches Sutra Mahamudra, the gradual path. As you well know, not all Mahamudra paths are gradual. As for pointing out, it depends a lot on the karma of the student and teacher (as you well know, again).


Not just. Jewel ornament is the foundation. There are cig car bas based on past life karma but all great masters have admitted they've met none.

The non gradual paths must be understood within their contexts, which have rituals, preliminaries and stages of development, i.e., four yogas or four visions.

This does not depict you or I. This image represents one whose eyes are forever closed to duality. And whose inner eye is forever turned to the dharmakaya.
Oh, of course, how silly of me, my enlightened nature is different to their enlightened nature, right??? :shrug:


Where did you get this term "enlightened nature"? The notion that we are already enlightened and alls we have to do is realize it is the work of Mara. If you can't admit to your own faults you are overcome by the demon of pride.
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Azidonis » Sun Jan 13, 2013 7:10 pm

catmoon wrote: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?


It fears the destruction of the illusion of it's continuity. It fears its death.
Azidonis
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 1:04 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby muni » Sun Jan 13, 2013 7:13 pm

Last edited by Sherab Dorje on Mon Aug 12, 2013 8:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: Fixed broken link
muni
 
Posts: 2736
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Azidonis » Sun Jan 13, 2013 7:24 pm

deepbluehum wrote:Where did you get this term "enlightened nature"? The notion that we are already enlightened and alls we have to do is realize it is the work of Mara. If you can't admit to your own faults you are overcome by the demon of pride.


What notion do you propose that people have in place of this one that you call 'the work of Mara'?
Azidonis
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 1:04 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Son of Buddha » Sun Jan 13, 2013 7:25 pm

Azidonis wrote:
catmoon wrote: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?


It fears the destruction of the illusion of it's continuity. It fears its death.



um yea you two do realise you are talking about the False self correct?

your comments actually have nothing to do with the True Self(Buddha Nature)
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Son of Buddha » Sun Jan 13, 2013 7:27 pm

muni wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7otAJa3jui8



AHAHAHAHAHH
:jumping: :rolling: :D
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby futerko » Sun Jan 13, 2013 7:32 pm

Son of Buddha wrote: ...your reading is based on opinion,the actual sutra passages clearly speak a different story than the one you are trying to paint.
I'm basing what I write on this simple idea - is it easy to understand conceptually, or not? Maybe that's just my opinion and to be found nowhere in any text, but my understanding is that it should be ungraspable.

So, is the interpretation you are putting forward graspable or ungraspable? Because to me it looks incredibly simple and easy to grasp.

To answer your question,
Son of Buddha wrote: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
They are; the Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra, Srimaladevisimhanada Sutra, Anunatva-Apurnatva-Nirdeśa Sūtra, Angulimaliya Sutra, Ratnagotravibhāga, Mahaparinirvana Sutra, Avatamsaka Sutra, and the Lankāvatāra Sūtra, which says,

    The Blessed One replied: No, Mahamati, my Tathagata-garbha is not the same as the ego taught by the philosophers; for what the Tathagatas teach is the Tathagata-garbha in the sense, Mahamati, that it is emptiness, reality-limit, Nirvana, being unborn, unqualified, and devoid of will-effort; the reason why the Tathagatas who are Arhats and Fully-Enlightened Ones, teach the doctrine pointing to the Tathagata-garbha is to make the ignorant cast aside their fear when they listen to the teaching of egolessness and to have them realise the state of non-discrimination and imagelessness. I also wish, Mahamati, that the Bodhisattva-Mahasattvas of the present and future would not attach themselves to the idea of an ego [imagining it to be a soul]. Mahamati, it is like a potter who manufactures various vessels out of a mass of clay of one sort by his own manual skill and labour combined with a rod, water, and thread, Mahamati, that the Tathagatas preach the egolessness of things which removes all the traces of discrimination by various skilful means issuing from their transcendental wisdom, that is, sometimes by the doctrine of the Tathagata-garbha, sometimes by that of egolessness, and, like a potter, by means of various terms, expressions, and synonyms. For this reason, Mahamati, the philosophers' doctrine of an ego-substance is not the same as the teaching of the Tathagata-garbha. Thus, Mahamati, the doctrine of the Tathagata-garbha is disclosed in order to awaken the philosophers from their clinging to the idea of the ego, so that those minds that have fallen into the views imagining the non-existent ego as real, and also into the notion that the triple emancipation is final, may rapidly be awakened to the state of supreme enlightenment. Accordingly, Mahamati, the Tathagatas who are Arhats and Fully-Enlightened Ones disclose the doctrine of the Tathagata-garbha which is thus not to be known as identical with the philosopher's notion of an ego-substance. Therefore. Mahamati, in order to abandon the misconception cherished by the philosophers, you must strive after the teaching of egolessness and the Tathagata-garbha.

So the answer is no, the idea of a true self is very clearly refuted here and the explanation of Tathagatagarbha is very clearly the same as the teaching of no-self.
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 » Sun Jan 13, 2013 7:33 pm

Azidonis wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:Where did you get this term "enlightened nature"? The notion that we are already enlightened and alls we have to do is realize it is the work of Mara. If you can't admit to your own faults you are overcome by the demon of pride.


What notion do you propose that people have in place of this one that you call 'the work of Mara'?


All good teachers teach foundational material, give rituals, methods etc.
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sun Jan 13, 2013 7:38 pm

deepbluehum wrote:Where did you get this term "enlightened nature"? The notion that we are already enlightened and alls we have to do is realize it is the work of Mara. If you can't admit to your own faults you are overcome by the demon of pride.
And I quote:
Fool! You must know
your innermost nature -

then you'll cut the net
of ignorance, every strand.
Tilopa Tantric Treasures

Or maybe this one does it better for you?
The single seed of everyhing
is mind, where
existence and nirvana both arise;

bow down to it -
like a magical jewel,
it grants the things you wish.
Saraha Tantric Treasures

Anyway, who said we are all already enlightened? I certainly am! :tongue:
"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
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 7944
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Son of Buddha » Sun Jan 13, 2013 8:22 pm

"futerko"]
Son of Buddha wrote: ...your reading is based on opinion,the actual sutra passages clearly speak a different story than the one you are trying to paint.
I'm basing what I write on this simple idea - is it easy to understand conceptually, or not? Maybe that's just my opinion and to be found nowhere in any text, but my understanding is that it should be ungraspable.

So, is the interpretation you are putting forward graspable or ungraspable? Because to me it looks incredibly simple and easy to grasp.


okay so you admit its your opinion also why dont you add into your views the sutras passages I posted to you about the True Self in the Nirvana and Srimaladevisimhanada sutras ??
Im guessing they dont fit into "your" views so you are going to ignore them and pretend they dont exist.
the views of the sutras I am putting forward the idea itself is very easy to grasp,the ungraspable part comes in when the sutras state that "i" False self identity cannot grasp or be Enlightened.nor observed/seen ect=Ungraspable

"futerko"]To answer your question,
Son of Buddha wrote: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
They are; the Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra, Srimaladevisimhanada Sutra, Anunatva-Apurnatva-Nirdeśa Sūtra, Angulimaliya Sutra, Ratnagotravibhāga, Mahaparinirvana Sutra, Avatamsaka Sutra, and the Lankāvatāra Sūtra, which says,


yes and again you refused to answer my question does a Buddha Nature Sutra indeed say the Buddha Nature is True Self?

"futerko"]
    The Blessed One replied: No, Mahamati, my Tathagata-garbha is not the same as the ego taught by the philosophers; for what the Tathagatas teach is the Tathagata-garbha in the sense, Mahamati, that it is emptiness, reality-limit, Nirvana, being unborn, unqualified, and devoid of will-effort; the reason why the Tathagatas who are Arhats and Fully-Enlightened Ones, teach the doctrine pointing to the Tathagata-garbha is to make the ignorant cast aside their fear when they listen to the teaching of egolessness and to have them realise the state of non-discrimination and imagelessness. I also wish, Mahamati, that the Bodhisattva-Mahasattvas of the present and future would not attach themselves to the idea of an ego [imagining it to be a soul]. Mahamati, it is like a potter who manufactures various vessels out of a mass of clay of one sort by his own manual skill and labour combined with a rod, water, and thread, Mahamati, that the Tathagatas preach the egolessness of things which removes all the traces of discrimination by various skilful means issuing from their transcendental wisdom, that is, sometimes by the doctrine of the Tathagata-garbha, sometimes by that of egolessness, and, like a potter, by means of various terms, expressions, and synonyms. For this reason, Mahamati, the philosophers' doctrine of an ego-substance is not the same as the teaching of the Tathagata-garbha. Thus, Mahamati, the doctrine of the Tathagata-garbha is disclosed in order to awaken the philosophers from their clinging to the idea of the ego, so that those minds that have fallen into the views imagining the non-existent ego as real, and also into the notion that the triple emancipation is final, may rapidly be awakened to the state of supreme enlightenment. Accordingly, Mahamati, the Tathagatas who are Arhats and Fully-Enlightened Ones disclose the doctrine of the Tathagata-garbha which is thus not to be known as identical with the philosopher's notion of an ego-substance. Therefore. Mahamati, in order to abandon the misconception cherished by the philosophers, you must strive after the teaching of egolessness and the Tathagata-garbha.

So the answer is no, the idea of a true self is very clearly refuted here and the explanation of Tathagatagarbha is very clearly the same as the teaching of no-self.


oh really the idea of True Self must clearly be refuted right?
you do know this is talking about the False Self of the (forders/philosphers right?)(hence the worldly tainted ego self"i" that is based on Dependent origination and originated in ignorance.so you have simply shown that the Tathagatagarbha(Suchness/True Self/Dharmakaya) is NOT THE FALSE SELF.also the Tathagatagarbha is NOT very clearly the same as the teaching No-Self, as you can SEE from the qoute"you must strive after the teaching of egolessness and the Tathagata-garbha" No-self (and) Tahtagatagarbha are seperated.
also my friend you are AGAIN pretending that the passages from the Nirvana sutra AND the Srimala sutra that proclaim the True Self do not exist.

(oh I love the lankavatara suta)you also do reaslise that throught the lankavatara Sutra it states that the Suchness is also Permenant,Eternal,everlasting,and unchanging which again I must remind you is the discriptive definition of the Self.

Lankavatara Sutra LXXXXIV
This is what is meant by Suchness.What is Real,true,certian,ultimate,Self Existant,and ungraspable,these are the Charateristics of Suchness.
also you do realise in chapter LXXXII of the Lankavatara sutra it states that it SUPPORTS what is written in the Srimaladevisimhanada Sutra(which i have already shown teaches the True Self.so no matter which way you go the lankavatara sutra doesnt "refute" the other Tathagatagarbha sutras in fact it supports them.(seriously what makes you think you can use the Lankavatara sutra to refute the True Self in the Srimaladevisimhanada Sutra when the Lankavatara sutra says the Srimaladevisimhanada Sutra is CORRECT. :D


do you want to continue trying to disprove True Self with the very sutras that state it exists???
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby wisdom » Sun Jan 13, 2013 8:51 pm

Son of Buddha wrote:Lankavatara Sutra LXXXXIV
This is what is meant by Suchness. What is Real,true, certain,ultimate,Self Existent,and ungraspable,these are the Characteristics of Suchness.
also you do realise in chapter LXXXII of the Lankavatara sutra it states that it SUPPORTS what is written in the Srimaladevisimhanada Sutra(which i have already shown teaches the True Self.so no matter which way you go the lankavatara sutra doesn't "refute" the other Tathagatagarbha sutras in fact it supports them.(seriously what makes you think you can use the Lankavatara sutra to refute the True Self in the Srimaladevisimhanada Sutra when the Lankavatara sutra says the Srimaladevisimhanada Sutra is CORRECT. :D


do you want to continue trying to disprove True Self with the very sutras that state it exists???


If the Buddha Nature exists, where does it exist? What is its shape, size, color, form, smell? What sorts of actions does it perform? It doesn't exist because all existing phenomena are only to be found in the conventional reality of forms, colors, sizes, shapes, smells, experiences, and other things which we can hold onto. Because of its ungraspable nature, it cannot be said to exist. Yet because of the fact that it is present, it cannot be said to be non-existent either. This is where the doctrine of the Middle Way comes in. To say that it exists is one extreme, to say it does not exist is another extreme. The middle way is in between, and the one who follows the middle way has no preference one way or the other because they are devoid of attachment to views, even their own view of the middle way which when clung to, is like clinging to emptiness as an object to be held rather than as that which arises when all grasping has stopped.

So the Buddha never taught that such a thing as a Buddha Nature or True Self exists. He did however try to convey with words the ineffability of the Buddha Nature and so used words which when incorrectly apprehended leads to the view that there is something existent which we can hold onto. "Self existent" in the above quote means that it abides by its own power, that it is unborn, uncreated, and has not arisen within the realm of dependent origination, not that it is a truly abiding self which exists.
User avatar
wisdom
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 4:33 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby deepbluehum » Sun Jan 13, 2013 9:05 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:Where did you get this term "enlightened nature"? The notion that we are already enlightened and alls we have to do is realize it is the work of Mara. If you can't admit to your own faults you are overcome by the demon of pride.
And I quote:
Fool! You must know
your innermost nature -

then you'll cut the net
of ignorance, every strand.
Tilopa Tantric Treasures

Or maybe this one does it better for you?
The single seed of everyhing
is mind, where
existence and nirvana both arise;

bow down to it -
like a magical jewel,
it grants the things you wish.
Saraha Tantric Treasures

Anyway, who said we are all already enlightened? I certainly am! :tongue:


Only one wing of the bird. The other is method.
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby ocean_waves » Sun Jan 13, 2013 9:12 pm

wisdom wrote: This is where the doctrine of the Middle Way comes in. To say that it exists is one extreme, to say it does not exist is another extreme. The middle way is in between, and the one who follows the middle way has no preference one way or the other because they are devoid of attachment to views, even their own view of the middle way which when clung to, is like clinging to emptiness as an object to be held rather than as that which arises when all grasping has stopped.

So the Buddha never taught that such a thing as a Buddha Nature or True Self exists. He did however try to convey with words the ineffability of the Buddha Nature and so used words which when incorrectly apprehended leads to the view that there is something existent which we can hold onto. "Self existent" in the above quote means that it abides by its own power, that it is unborn, uncreated, and has not arisen within the realm of dependent origination, not that it is a truly abiding self which exists.


well said!!!
"True seeing is called transcendence;
False seeing is worldliness:
Set aside both right and wrong,
And the nature of enlightenment is clear."
User avatar
ocean_waves
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 10:35 pm
Location: Hartford, CT [USA]

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Azidonis » Sun Jan 13, 2013 9:49 pm

Son of Buddha wrote:
Azidonis wrote:
catmoon wrote: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?


It fears the destruction of the illusion of it's continuity. It fears its death.



um yea you two do realise you are talking about the False self correct?

your comments actually have nothing to do with the True Self(Buddha Nature)


Here you go again. You do understand that the very definition of the term "self" implies individuality, right? So you want to say "True Self", in capital letters, so as to make it mean a self without individuality, which is simply illogical.

The fact of the matter is that you are clinging to a set of ideas, and working diligently in this thread to propound them, simply because, as catmoon mentioned, you are afraid to admit that the ideas you have been clinging to are illusory.

deepbluehum wrote:
Azidonis wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:Where did you get this term "enlightened nature"? The notion that we are already enlightened and alls we have to do is realize it is the work of Mara. If you can't admit to your own faults you are overcome by the demon of pride.


What notion do you propose that people have in place of this one that you call 'the work of Mara'?


All good teachers teach foundational material, give rituals, methods etc.


What you are implying, in a nutshell, is that by turning inward, we are able to acquire something that we did not have before. That something is gained that could not be gained otherwise. And you are suggesting that anyone who mentions that one cannot gain something that cannot be acquired, for it is already there, is fooled by an illusion (Mara) that it is already there to begin with.

This also is illogical. If it is not already there, then turning inward wouldn't do a thing to realize it. If it is not to be found "inside", then it must be found "outside", and searching outside is a search in vain. Turning inward, however, it may be revealed. One may receive the impression that it was never there before, but now it is, but that is from the outside looking in. From the inside looking out, it was there the entire time.

As for "what's there", this is very good...

wisdom wrote:If the Buddha Nature exists, where does it exist? What is its shape, size, color, form, smell? What sorts of actions does it perform? It doesn't exist because all existing phenomena are only to be found in the conventional reality of forms, colors, sizes, shapes, smells, experiences, and other things which we can hold onto. Because of its ungraspable nature, it cannot be said to exist. Yet because of the fact that it is present, it cannot be said to be non-existent either. This is where the doctrine of the Middle Way comes in. To say that it exists is one extreme, to say it does not exist is another extreme. The middle way is in between, and the one who follows the middle way has no preference one way or the other because they are devoid of attachment to views, even their own view of the middle way which when clung to, is like clinging to emptiness as an object to be held rather than as that which arises when all grasping has stopped.

So the Buddha never taught that such a thing as a Buddha Nature or True Self exists. He did however try to convey with words the ineffability of the Buddha Nature and so used words which when incorrectly apprehended leads to the view that there is something existent which we can hold onto. "Self existent" in the above quote means that it abides by its own power, that it is unborn, uncreated, and has not arisen within the realm of dependent origination, not that it is a truly abiding self which exists.


Beautifully said.

Buddha Nature is not a "thing". It is not directly comprehensible by the mind, or by any sort of thoughts. Any attempt to even talk about it can only reveal what it is not, hence via negativa.

It's easy to understand. Place your hand on a piece of paper, and trace the outline of your hand with a pencil. Then remove your hand. Everything that is "inside" of the line is the same paper as everything that is "outside" of the line. It is all one piece of paper. But the line (self, sense of individuality, ego, hologram created by the skandhas, etc.) allows for a distortion, a separation between "inside" and "outside" of the line. The shape of the penciled form on the paper is different for everyone, as no two hands are exactly alike. The specific form of the individual is the "self".

But when you erase the line from the paper, there is no inside, no outside, no line, no self, and no form to be held by any concept whatsoever. Therefore, to continually cling to any words, phrases, images, or any idea at all, is to only give continuity to the pencil markings on the paper, to the sense of separation and individuality that has been fostered by culture and by society since the birth of the human being. That is the "I" structure, the ego, the illusion, and that is what goes. Since it is an illusion, saying, "the illusion goes away" is actually an absurdity, as since it is an illusion, it was never 'there' to begin with.
Azidonis
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 1:04 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby ocean_waves » Sun Jan 13, 2013 10:32 pm

It's easy to understand. Place your hand on a piece of paper, and trace the outline of your hand with a pencil. Then remove your hand. Everything that is "inside" of the line is the same paper as everything that is "outside" of the line. It is all one piece of paper. But the line (self, sense of individuality, ego, hologram created by the skandhas, etc.) allows for a distortion, a separation between "inside" and "outside" of the line. The shape of the penciled form on the paper is different for everyone, as no two hands are exactly alike. The specific form of the individual is the "self".

But when you erase the line from the paper, there is no inside, no outside, no line, no self, and no form to be held by any concept whatsoever. Therefore, to continually cling to any words, phrases, images, or any idea at all, is to only give continuity to the pencil markings on the paper, to the sense of separation and individuality that has been fostered by culture and by society since the birth of the human being. That is the "I" structure, the ego, the illusion, and that is what goes.


this analogy rocks!!!!!
"True seeing is called transcendence;
False seeing is worldliness:
Set aside both right and wrong,
And the nature of enlightenment is clear."
User avatar
ocean_waves
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 10:35 pm
Location: Hartford, CT [USA]

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby oushi » Sun Jan 13, 2013 10:37 pm

ocean_waves wrote:
It's easy to understand. Place your hand on a piece of paper, and trace the outline of your hand with a pencil. Then remove your hand. Everything that is "inside" of the line is the same paper as everything that is "outside" of the line. It is all one piece of paper. But the line (self, sense of individuality, ego, hologram created by the skandhas, etc.) allows for a distortion, a separation between "inside" and "outside" of the line. The shape of the penciled form on the paper is different for everyone, as no two hands are exactly alike. The specific form of the individual is the "self".

But when you erase the line from the paper, there is no inside, no outside, no line, no self, and no form to be held by any concept whatsoever. Therefore, to continually cling to any words, phrases, images, or any idea at all, is to only give continuity to the pencil markings on the paper, to the sense of separation and individuality that has been fostered by culture and by society since the birth of the human being. That is the "I" structure, the ego, the illusion, and that is what goes.


this analogy rocks!!!!!

Second that.
Ps. but not the edited version.
Since it is an illusion, saying, "the illusion goes away" is actually an absurdity, as since it is an illusion, it was never 'there' to begin with.
User avatar
oushi
 
Posts: 1377
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am
Location: Chrząszczyrzewoszyce

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby songhill » Sun Jan 13, 2013 10:54 pm

Azidonis wrote:
Here you go again. You do understand that the very definition of the term "self" implies individuality, right? So you want to say "True Self", in capital letters, so as to make it mean a self without individuality, which is simply illogical.

The fact of the matter is that you are clinging to a set of ideas, and working diligently in this thread to propound them, simply because, as catmoon mentioned, you are afraid to admit that the ideas you have been clinging to are illusory.



Are you familiar with "personality view" (sakkāyadiṭṭhi)? It is when a puthujjana (a worldling) regards material form as the self (ditto with the rest of the aggregates). Personality or sakkaya, we should read as not true self in the sense self is used in the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra. The self of the Buddha, on the other hand, has nothing to do with the five aggregates which the Nikayas state many times.
User avatar
songhill
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jeeprs and 6 guests

>