Mind versus Self?

[songhill]

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.

[gregkavarnos]

The self of the Buddha, on the other hand, has nothing to do with the five aggregates which the Nikayas state many times.

The Nikayas do not define the self of the Buddha.

[Johnny Dangerous]

All this sutra quoting and nonsense, and NOT ONE attempt at an explanation to reconcile the absurdity of a true self existing with sunyata, that says something I think!

The quotes don't matter, the views don't matter, the constructed arguments don't matter...if you accept that the nature of "things" is their inherent lack of existence, a true self is simply absurd. No amount of sutra quoting or conceptualizing can make it not absurd in this context, the two ideas cannot function together. The only thing one can say that fits with emptiness is that in this context BN is a claim of potentiality or something..the second you say it has inherent existence it cannot be empty, and is therefore absurd!

[songhill]

For the Buddhist project of the denial of self (anattâ) to be successful and coherent there must be something believed to be the self then later found out not to be the self. In this sense, and correctly so, the denial of self is restricted. In other words, the denial of self is never without qualification. For example, worldlings believe that material shape or rupa is the self, or that feeling is the self up to consciousness is the self. The Buddha says, to the country, material shape is not the self; feeling is not the self up to consciousness is not the self. Whatever worldlings believe the self to be, the Buddha says it is not the self. It is crucial that we keep in mind that what is being rejected is the belief that the five aggregates are the self, not the self.

[Johnny Dangerous]

For the Buddhist project of the denial of self (anattâ) to be successful and coherent there must be something believed to be the self then later found out not to be the self. In this sense, and correctly so, the denial of self is restricted. In other words, the denial of self is never without qualification. For example, worldlings believe that material shape or rupa is the self, or that feeling is the self up to consciousness is the self. The Buddha says, to the country, material shape is not the self; feeling is not the self up to consciousness is not the self. Whatever worldlings believe the self to be, the Buddha says it is not the self. It is crucial that we keep in mind that what is being rejected is the belief that the five aggregates are the self, not the self.

Emptiness and not-self are non-affirming negations, they do not affirm a real, inherent "self" or inherent existence of a thing in place of the inherent existence which is negated. I'm not sure why exactly (other than cherry picking of literature to suit one's aims) someone would ever assume that anatta or sunyata carry with them an implication of a "real self" or "real existence" that exists outside of the aggregates. And again, at least in terms of logic the assertion of such a thing is patently absurd, unless you want to say that Anatta or sunyata are conditional..which again seems absurd.

[Son of Buddha]

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

im sorry i used the wrong word to get my meaning across,what i was trying to say
is how can you disprove the teachings of True Self with the very sutras that (proclaim its very meaning).
this is what i meant to say.

"Wisdom"
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.

No i dont hold this view That the Buddha Nature Exists as a phenomenal worldy possesion(I have already posted this on page 25)(do you agree with what it is stateing?)
Mahaparinirvana sutra chapter 3(end of the chapter)
it is [also] said that there is the Self. This is as in the case of the learned Doctor, who knows well the medicinal and non-medicinal qualities of milk. It is not as with common mortals, who might measure the size of their own self. Common mortals and the ignorant may measure the size of their own self and say, 'It is like the size of a thumb, like a mustard seed, or like the size of a mote.' When the Tathagata speaks of Self, in no case are things thus. That is why he says: 'All things have no Self.'
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!"

"wisdom"
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.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.

BINGO(true,real,self existent,abides by its own power,self arisen(has its own inherent nature)or Empty of everything that is the defilment/obscuration/dependent origination but not empty of itself(True Emancipation)do you agree with this assessment?

[Son of Buddha]

All this sutra quoting and nonsense, and NOT ONE attempt at an explanation to reconcile the absurdity of a true self existing with sunyata, that says something I think!

The quotes don't matter, the views don't matter, the constructed arguments don't matter...if you accept that the nature of "things" is their inherent lack of existence, a true self is simply absurd. No amount of sutra quoting or conceptualizing can make it not absurd in this context, the two ideas cannot function together. The only thing one can say that fits with emptiness is that in this context BN is a claim of potentiality or something..the second you say it has inherent existence it cannot be empty, and is therefore absurd!

yes Obviously what the Buddha Nature sutras say do not matter,(any view anyone has other than yours even if they provide extensive evidence from the sutras do not mattter,sorry we hold the other-emptiness view which is taught in Chapter 7 of the Nirvana Sutra

im sorry i dont hold the view that Enlightenement is empty of itself just as Dependent orgination is Empty of itself you simply place Enlightenement on the same level as Dependent orgination.throwing the baby out with the bath water

[songhill]

Emptiness and not-self are non-affirming negations, they do not affirm a real, inherent "self" or inherent existence of a thing in place of the inherent existence which is negated. I'm not sure why exactly (other than cherry picking of literature to suit one's aims) someone would ever assume that anatta or sunyata carry with them an implication of a "real self" or "real existence" that exists outside of the aggregates. And again, at least in terms of logic the assertion of such a thing is patently absurd, unless you want to say that Anatta or sunyata are conditional..which again seems absurd.

This might be helpful. This is from the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra.

"Also, next, O good man! As an example: a woman has a child who, while yet very young, is seized by illness. Worried by this, the woman seeks out a good doctor. The good doctor comes and compounds three medicines, which are butter, milk, and rock candy. This he gives her, to have it taken by the child. Then he says to the woman: "When the child has taken the medicine, do not give any milk to the child for some time. When the medicine has worked its way out, you may then give milk." Then the woman applies a bitter substance to her nipple and says to the child: "Do not touch it [i.e. her nipple]. My nipple is poisonous." The child is dying for the milk and wants to have it. [But] on hearing of the poison, it runs away. After the medicine has done its work, the mother washes her nipple, calls in her child and gives it [her nipple]. Although hungry, the child, having heard about the poison, will not come to it. The mother then says: "I only put poison on my nipple so as to give you the medicine. As you have already taken the medicine, I have washed the poison off. Come! Take my nipple. It is not bitter any more." On hearing this, the child slowly comes back and takes it. O good man! The case is the same with the Tathagata. In order to save beings, he gives them the teaching of non-Self. Having practised the Way thus, beings do away with the [cast of] mind that clings to self and gain Nirvana. All of this is to do away with people’s wrong concepts, to show them the Way and cause them to stand above, to show them that they adhere to self, that what obtains in the world is all false and not true, and to make them practise non-Self and purify themselves. This is similar to the woman’s applying a bitter substance to her nipple out of love for her child. It is the same with the Tathagata. For practising the Void, I say that all do not have the Self. This is like the woman’s cleaning her nipple and calling for her child to partake of her milk. The case is the same with me, too: I speak of the Tathagatagarbha. For this reason, the bhiksus do not entertain fear. It is analogous to the child who hears its mother, slowly comes back and takes the milk. The situation is the same with the bhiksus. They should know well that the Tathagata hides nothing." [Emphasis is mine.]

[Johnny Dangerous]

All this sutra quoting and nonsense, and NOT ONE attempt at an explanation to reconcile the absurdity of a true self existing with sunyata, that says something I think!

The quotes don't matter, the views don't matter, the constructed arguments don't matter...if you accept that the nature of "things" is their inherent lack of existence, a true self is simply absurd. No amount of sutra quoting or conceptualizing can make it not absurd in this context, the two ideas cannot function together. The only thing one can say that fits with emptiness is that in this context BN is a claim of potentiality or something..the second you say it has inherent existence it cannot be empty, and is therefore absurd!

yes Obviously what the Buddha Nature sutras say do not matter,(any view anyone has other than yours even if they provide extensive evidence from the sutras do not mattter,sorry we hold the other-emptiness view which is taught in Chapter 7 of the Nirvana Sutra

im sorry i dont hold the view that Enlightenement is empty of itself just as Dependent orgination is Empty of itself you simply place Enlightenement on the same level as Dependent orgination.throwing the baby out with the bath water

My point is that you guys keep quoting sutras, but can't logically square of your ideas on their own merits with other concepts central to most Buddhism, not that the sutras aren't important. The idea you guys are presenting here is logically absurd, and no amount of scriptural authority can have an effect on that.

The fact that you guys can quote a Sutra that says some stuff about a true self is much less meaningful than if you could actually fix the apparent absurdity of the "true self" argument. There are, after all, a huge range of contradictory statements in various sutra etc. even within each turning of the wheel. It would be much more meaningful to argue your points on their own merits, but you do not seem to be able to do that - again because they appear to be logically absurd.

[Son of Buddha]

"Azidonis"]
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.

No sir you keep saying the Buddha Nature(True Self) is a "thing"
but sir this is wrong the Buddha Nature(True Self) is not a "thing" you can possess

here I qoute this passage to again since you have already forgotten since page 25

Mahaparinirvana sutra chapter 3(end of the chapter)
it is [also] said that there is the Self. This is as in the case of the learned Doctor, who knows well the medicinal and non-medicinal qualities of milk. It is not as with common mortals, who might measure the size of their own self. Common mortals and the ignorant may measure the size of their own self and say, 'It is like the size of a thumb, like a mustard seed, or like the size of a mote.' When the Tathagata speaks of Self, in no case are things thus. That is why he says: 'All things have no Self.'
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!"

As you can see your Idea that the Buddha Nature is a "thing" is incorrect.

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.

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.

you see Azidonis 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: (I agree 110% the false Self is incorrect)

But umm...Thats not the True Self so go back to page 28 and read what i wrote

[Son of Buddha]

My point is that you guys keep quoting sutras, but can't logically square of your ideas on their own merits with other concepts central to most Buddhism, not that the sutras aren't important. The idea you guys are presenting here is logically absurd, and no amount of scriptural authority can have an effect on that.

The fact that you guys can quote a Sutra that says some stuff about a true self is much less meaningful than if you could actually fix the apparent absurdity of the "true self" argument. There are, after all, a huge range of contradictory statements in various sutra etc. even within each turning of the wheel. It would be much more meaningful to argue your points on their own merits, but you do not seem to be able to do that - again because they appear to be logically absurd.

really absurd as the Idea that Dependent origination is empty of its inherint existnace and ALSO that Enlightenment is Empty of its Inherient existance,hence you equate Enlightenement to be exactly the same as that of dependent orgination.

tell me you have an empty cup do you say this cup IS water?No the cup is a cup,you may pour water into a cup but the cup will still be a cup,and your water will still be water.

when you take water out of the cup do you not say the cup is empty of the water?YES(Dependent origination)
do you also say the Cup is empty of the Cup,NO cause its still the Cup(true emancipation)
I think your views are logically absurd and make zero sense as you seem to think the cup is empty of itself(get what Im sayin)

[PadmaVonSamba]

It would be much more meaningful to argue your points on their own merits, but you do not seem to be able to do that - again because they appear to be logically absurd.

Well, I've been trying.

Good point, Mr. Dangerous,
Yes, sutras are important,
and the bulk of them suggest that there is nothing that can be referred to as a personal self.
Some sutras might suggest otherwise.
Sutras are important
But we can't prove that they are the words of the Buddha.
It is quite possible that many of the Mahayana sutras were composed during the time of King Ashoka.
Quoting them reminds me of trying to have logical discussions with people who just go back to:
"well, the bible says...".
Finding a few passages that refer to "self' and 'atman' is fine, but you have to back that up with reason
otherwise it's just blind faith.

I am of the opinion that there is logic to these teachings
and that this logic can be understood.
But people have to agree on the meanings of terms used
otherwise we end up running in circles around each other.
.
.
.

[Son of Buddha]

"PadmaVonSamba"
and the bulk of them suggest that there is nothing that can be referred to as a personal self.

yes and nobody is saying it is a personal self(yet some people keep this idea that this what were actually talking about even though they have zero shread of evidence and constantly ignore the Sutras own definitions of the true Self(which isnt a personal self,the personal self is the False self based on the 5 Aggregates)
which we repeatedly post showing it is not the personal self.

(I think they just dont like the "word" True Self,mabey they have aversion to words hmmm.

[Johnny Dangerous]

really absurd as the Idea that Dependent origination is empty of its inherint existnace and ALSO that Enlightenment is Empty of its Inherient existance,hence you equate Enlightenement to be exactly the same as that of dependent orgination.

tell me you have an empty cup do you say this cup IS water?No the cup is a cup,you may pour water into a cup but the cup will still be a cup,and your water will still be water.

Emptiness says (not only says - this can be logically seen) that within a cup there is no such thing as a "cup", only a set of causes, conditions, and pieces that we call a "cup", when examined, no such thing as a cup is found - that is what emptiness means to my knowledge. The minute you try to start defining enlightenment as "true" "false", whatever, you dichotomize it. A huge number of sutras point towards the idea that the truth is simply beyond assertion and negation at all. This is why (IMO of course) in general Buddhism is suspicious of ontological arguments in the first place.

In general it seems like the language used is more about finding the truth by examining whether or not things make sense when taken to their logical conclusions. This isn't said to be reality itself, it's just the best you can do by reasoning a thing, and with words. Viewed from this angle it makes sense to me that any assertion of a self is absurd in the context of emptiness. It is one thing to not say something doesn't exist..but it is another thing to actively say that it does, those things lead to different places

If emptiness is the lak of inherent existence of everything, the fact that when anything is examined it does not contain inherent existence or self, this is absurd when put side by side with an inherent self - period. You can argue that it just that we cannot understand the paradox etc., maybe that's true - but that does not make the argument itself any less absurd.

[songhill]

My point is that you guys keep quoting sutras, but can't logically square of your ideas on their own merits with other concepts central to most Buddhism, not that the sutras aren't important. The idea you guys are presenting here is logically absurd, and no amount of scriptural authority can have an effect on that.

The fact that you guys can quote a Sutra that says some stuff about a true self is much less meaningful than if you could actually fix the apparent absurdity of the "true self" argument. There are, after all, a huge range of contradictory statements in various sutra etc. even within each turning of the wheel. It would be much more meaningful to argue your points on their own merits, but you do not seem to be able to do that - again because they appear to be logically absurd.

I think what you are trying to say is that some passages from the Sutras and Pali Nikaya Suttas don't tally with your interpretation of Buddhism which, the way I read your response, is contradictory (you say "There are, after all, a huge range of contradictory statements in various sutra etc."). You certainly have the liberty to add your own passages from accepted canonical sources. I don't understand why you don't.

To be frank with you, you seem to worry more about what your adversaries say than saying anything on your own behalf. The topic is Mind verses Self? which is a good topic. There are pro-self passages in the Lankavatara Sutra, the Angulimaliya Sutra, the Mahaparinirvana, and even in the Nikayas (e.g., the self is an island). You could make a valuable contribution by posting no-self passages from various sources which I am guessing, you have in abundance.

[Johnny Dangerous]

My point is that you guys keep quoting sutras, but can't logically square of your ideas on their own merits with other concepts central to most Buddhism, not that the sutras aren't important. The idea you guys are presenting here is logically absurd, and no amount of scriptural authority can have an effect on that.

The fact that you guys can quote a Sutra that says some stuff about a true self is much less meaningful than if you could actually fix the apparent absurdity of the "true self" argument. There are, after all, a huge range of contradictory statements in various sutra etc. even within each turning of the wheel. It would be much more meaningful to argue your points on their own merits, but you do not seem to be able to do that - again because they appear to be logically absurd.

I think what you are trying to say is that some passages from the Sutras and Pali Nikaya Suttas don't tally with your interpretation of Buddhism which, the way I read your response, is contradictory (you say "There are, after all, a huge range of contradictory statements in various sutra etc."). You certainly have the liberty to add your own passages from accepted canonical sources. I don't understand why you don't.

To be frank with you, you seem to worry more about what your adversaries say than saying anything on your own behalf. The topic is Mind verses Self? which is a good topic. There are pro-self passages in the Lankavatara Sutra, the Angulimaliya Sutra, the Mahaparinirvana, and even in the Nikayas (e.g., the self is an island). You could make a valuable contribution by posting no-self passages from various sources which I am guessing, you have in abundance.

No, that would be just the kind of waste of time you guys have been involved in, basically a quoting contest. Posting a bunch of stuff that asserts of refutes views from sutras is a waste of time if your actual premise is logically absurd. I could just as easily find sutra quotes about not eating onions and garlic, or a million other things for which there are contradictory statements in sutras. Rather than posting what you consider to be scriptural evidence, how about just explaining the logical inconsistency in the viewpoint?

You certainly have the liberty to add your own passages from accepted canonical sources. I don't understand why you don't.

1) I haven't read as much sutra as you, and i'm not interest in comparing who can quote more or has read more

2)I try to rely (as much as is possible) on logic and examination of what I have read above simply trying to find more stuff that agrees with other stuff - that is a dead end and really kind of a pointless exercise.

3) Again it's just skirting around the point that this idea of a true self needs to be reconciled with the standard explanations of Sunyata/Anatta, otherwise it's absurd. OR I suppose you could also lay out some kind of alternative version of Anatta/Sunyata that isn't absurd, but I haven't seen that yet.

[Son of Buddha]

Johnny Dangerous"]
Emptiness says (not only says - this can be logically seen) that within a cup there is no such thing as a "cup", only a set of causes, conditions, and pieces that we call a "cup", when examined, no such thing as a cup is found - that is what emptiness means to my knowledge

yes I know and by your view Enlightenment also is Empty of itself which means there is "only a set of causes,conditions,and pieces that we call "enlightenment":you equate Enlightenment to that of what is dependently arisen making Enlightenement dependently arisen and hence apart or Samsara(sourced in ignorance as is every Depenant arisen thing)

(remeber you put down the idea of inherient arising)therefore proclaiming Enlightenemnt to be that of what is Dependently arisen=HENCE D.O which is originated in ignorance.

"Johnny Dangerous"
Emptiness does not have to do with something containing something else, it has to do with the lack of inherent existence - of everything, the fact that when anything is examined it does not contain inherent existence or self. So, I have no idea what your water and cup analogy is about exactly.

its not about containing something else its actually about NOT BEING something else,Hence Enlightenement is NOT Dependent Orgination which is originated in Ignorance(3 poisions)

and again you state that Enlightenement is empty of inherent arising(existance) which MEANS it is dependently originated(dependently arising) hence you equate Enlightenement with D.O/Ignorance/Samsara

which is the point of the Cup and water the Cup is not the Water and Enlightenment is not D.O of ignorant Samsara

[Johnny Dangerous]

Johnny Dangerous"]
Emptiness says (not only says - this can be logically seen) that within a cup there is no such thing as a "cup", only a set of causes, conditions, and pieces that we call a "cup", when examined, no such thing as a cup is found - that is what emptiness means to my knowledge

yes I know and by your view Enlightenment also is Empty of itself which means there is "only a set of causes,conditions,and pieces that we call "enlightenment":you equate Enlightenment to that of what is dependently arisen making Enlightenement dependently arisen and hence apart or Samsara(sourced in ignorance as is every Depenant arisen thing)

(remeber you put down the idea of inherient arising)therefore proclaiming Enlightenemnt to be that of what is Dependently arisen=HENCE D.O which is originated in ignorance.

"Johnny Dangerous"
Emptiness does not have to do with something containing something else, it has to do with the lack of inherent existence - of everything, the fact that when anything is examined it does not contain inherent existence or self. So, I have no idea what your water and cup analogy is about exactly.

its not about containing something else its actually about NOT BEING something else,Hence Enlightenement is NOT Dependent Orgination which is originated in Ignorance(3 poisions)

and again you state that Enlightenement is empty of inherent arising(existance) which MEANS it is dependently originated(dependently arising) hence you equate Enlightenement with D.O/Ignorance/Samsara

which is the point of the Cup and water the Cup is not the Water and Enlightenment is not D.O of ignorant Samsara

I have no idea what you are trying to say whatsoever, but i'll try.

Of course enlightenment is not dependent origination, "Enlightenment" is a word we use to describe something that is entirely beyond conceptualization, so Nirvana/Enlightment isn't anything at all, being and non being aren't supposed to apply, noe of our dualistic concepts or labeling will or can accurately describe it, it is utterly beyond description or characterization.

Seems like this question really about language, logic, and how, and how not they can be used to logically ferret out things that are true, inasmuch as "truth" is obtainable through them at all.
it seems to be a very small minority of Buddhist thinkers who believe that this language of "true self" from source like Mahayana Mahaparinirvana is appropriate, and far more commentators etc. prefer a use of language that arrives at truth by taking a middle path between assertion and negation of views - that is exactly what we are talking about.

[songhill]

Emptiness says (not only says - this can be logically seen) that within a cup there is no such thing as a "cup", only a set of causes, conditions, and pieces that we call a "cup", when examined, no such thing as a cup is found - that is what emptiness means to my knowledge. The minute you try to start defining enlightenment as "true" "false", whatever, you dichotomize it. A huge number of sutras point towards the idea that the truth is simply beyond assertion and negation at all. This is why (IMO of course) in general Buddhism is suspicious of ontological arguments in the first place.

In general it seems like the language used is more about finding the truth by examining whether or not things make sense when taken to their logical conclusions. This isn't said to be reality itself, it's just the best you can do by reasoning a thing, and with words. Viewed from this angle it makes sense to me that any assertion of a self is absurd in the context of emptiness. It is one thing to not say something doesn't exist..but it is another thing to actively say that it does, those things lead to different places

If emptiness is the lak of inherent existence of everything, the fact that when anything is examined it does not contain inherent existence or self, this is absurd when put side by side with an inherent self - period. You can argue that it just that we cannot understand the paradox etc., maybe that's true - but that does not make the argument itself any less absurd.

I think emptiness is better understood in connection with svabhâva (= own-being/the very nature of a thing). Svabhâva cannot be a produced, cannot be dependent on something else, and cannot be relative to other than itself which means it is unconditioned. Madhyamika only accepts this kind of svabhâva. A svabhâva that is produced, depedendent, relative to something else in a contradiction in terms. When the cup is broken its svabhâva is gone. But it never had a svabhâva in the first place. So we say that the cup is empty of svabhâva. And it is so with the five aggregates. Form is empty of svabhâva. The Buddha even says form is like foam. Truth be told, our psycho-physical organism has zero svabhâva! If you've ever served in the military, then you've seen enough dead, mangled and burned bodies to know there is no svabhâva in them. But this is only the teaching of conditioned reality which is svabhâva-sunya, that is, empty of svabhâva. The highest emptiness reveals the non-conceptual nature of the absolute which is unconditioned. Finally, we dispense with emptiness, itself. We cannot hypostatize emptiness. The teaching of emptiness aims at abolishing all conceptions (samkalpa).

[Son of Buddha]

"Johnny Dangerous"
I have no idea what you are trying to say whatsoever, but i'll try.

Of course enlightenment is not dependent origination, "Enlightenment" is a word we use to describe something that is entirely beyond conceptualization, so Nirvana/Enlightment isn't anything at all, being and non being aren't supposed to apply, noe of our dualistic concepts or labeling will or can accurately describe it, it is utterly beyond description or characterization.

Yea um this is about the View of EMPTINESS based on Empty-Empty(which is what you are propergating)(Rantong)
I post sutras you guys dodge the sutra pasasges I post and pretend they dont exist(cause they go against your own views)
when you dont want to talk sutras and want to talk the "philiosphical" teachings you all of a sudden forget what "your" "views" are concerning what you view of Emptiness is and "your" "Views" that everything has NO INHEIRENT EXISTANCE(ARISING).

okay so Enlightenemnt is NOT depend orgination as you said correct? so then Enlightenement is not dependently arisen correct,it is actually inheriently arisen.

well how does that quite fit into your view of what Emptiness means?

"Johnny Dangerous"
Emptiness does not have to do with something containing something else, it has to do with the lack of inherent existence - of everything, the fact that when anything is examined it does not contain inherent existence or self. So, I have no idea what your water and cup analogy is about exactly.
Johnny Dangerous"]
Emptiness says (not only says - this can be logically seen) that within a cup there is no such thing as a "cup", only a set of causes, conditions, and pieces that we call a "cup", when examined, no such thing as a cup is found - that is what emptiness means to my knowledge

as YOU STATED:"Emptiness has to do with the lack of Inherent existance of EVERYTHING" this means that both Enlightenement and Samsara has zero Inherent existance(arising) this means they are BOTH dependently arising(D.O) you do understand this concept corect?
Now by YOUR VIEW since BOTH Enlightenement AND Samsara are Empty(Rantong) "Emptiness say that within Enlightnement there is no such thing as Enlightenement,only a set of causes,conditions,and peices that we call Enlightenement when Examanined no such enlightenement is found"(my friend if you didnt notice I replaced the word CUP with Enlightenement) since in the Rantong view BOTH Enlightenement AND Samsara are EMPTY of themselves(and you have provided WHAT emptiness means by YOUR VIEW)

this goes to show you that in your VIEW of Emptiness of Enlightenement AND Samsara that you consider BOTH to be equally Empty of inherient arising that in fact they are "only a set of causes and conditions(dependently arising)
Hence now do you understand what i am talking about?(or do you have no clue what Empty-Empty is(Rantong)?
now do you get why i say you equate Enlightenment to that of what is Samsara(D.O)?