Johnny Dangerous wrote:Buddhism with some kind of inherent, non-conventional self is absurd, as has been pointed out numerous times, with no good rebuttals since the beginning of the thread.
What a bizarre reading of middle path to think that finding the unreality of a thing is implying existence of something else in it's place, misses the entire point.
Seems like your worldly pickup is stuck in worldly mud, dude. You need AAA scholar services to pull your truck out of the mud of wrong view.
Echoing our tathagatagarbha sources, the Samgharâja argues that while the Buddha says that the conditioned is worldly (i.e. laukika), evil, impermanent and leads to death, the unconditioned is supramundane (lokottara), good, permanent and undying. The former must be rejected; the latter accepted. If there were no Self to be accepted, there could be no not-Self to be rejected. Again, in common with tathagatagarbha texts (and perhaps significant culturally), the Samgharâja makes a great deal of the purity of nirvana. Since nirvana is pure, there must be something that is actually to be pure (we might say, something in which purity inheres). That is the attâ, the Self. It is also the mind, but a mind purified of all conditioned dharmas. It is hence an unconditioned mind or consciousness, i.e., 'Mind'. The Samgharâja states that he agrees with other Buddhists that 'Self' is conventional and a concept. But it is not the conventional concept that he is speaking of here, but its referent, i.e.., the actual Self that really exists and is nirvana. To abandon the designation is not to abandon its referent" (Paul Williams, Mahayana Buddhism, p. 126).