Mind versus Self?

[songhill]

deludeds are annihilationists who imagine nirvana is mystical death.

That is a misunderstanding you have because the suggestion that buddhists hold such a notion of extinction (mystical death) is typical in so much of the outdated literature on which you rely, composed by western scholars in the first half of the 20th century .
.
.
.

Any Buddhist who believes the Buddha denied the self or âtma is an annihilationist. Period. So where does that leave you PadmaVonSamba? I'd say you're at least a nihilist because attâ is a problem for you and others who claim to be Buddhists.

"But if nihilism is anything, it is first of all a problem of the self. And it becomes such a problem only when the self becomes a problem, when the ground of the existence called "self" becomes a problem for itself. When the problem of nihilism is posed apart from the self, or as a problem of society in general, it loses the special genuineness that distinguishes it from other problems" (Setsuko Aihara, Nishitani Keiji, Graham Parkes, The Self-Overcoming of Nihilism, 1990, 1).

[Johnny Dangerous]

"Deludeds" Huh?

Well, this deluded at least has enough spark in his mushy, deluded brain to know cohesive consistent arguments when he sees them, and all i've seen from the "you must believe in true self" camp is utterly, completely unconvincing.

This whole thread, all this nonsense, still no true self to be found, described, expounded on..hmm. So much time spent arguing for it, but still not one bit of anything to chew on to infer it's existence.

But we are just "claiming to be Buddhists" anyway - classy, btw.

[LastLegend]

When the Buddha said that his self was not any of the five aggregates was his self a concept? Who or what moves your body around all day, puts it to sleep and wakes it up? is that a concept? What are your thoughts composed of? Is this a concept? Do you know what makes your hands and feet move? Is this also a concept? I hope your practice goes much deeper than observing the superficial five aggregates which are not your self; which are illusory.

How can you have a self without having a concept of it?

[songhill]

"Deludeds" Huh?

Well, this deluded at least has enough spark in his mushy, deluded brain to know cohesive consistent arguments when he sees them, and all i've seen from the "you must believe in true self" camp is utterly, completely unconvincing.

This whole thread, all this nonsense, still no true self to be found, described, expounded on..hmm. So much time spent arguing for it, but still not one bit of evidence to infer it's existence.

But we are just "claiming to be Buddhists" anyway - classy, btw.

Well, this guy must be nonsensical, too. His name is Gautama the Buddha. He said: "Not being troubled he attains nibbana as regards the very self (paccattaññeva)" (S. iv. 168).

[Jnana]

Any Buddhist who believes the Buddha denied the self or âtma is an annihilationist.

The use of the term "self" as a conventional designation was never denied. But that's all it is -- a conventional designation. You've previously maintained that the Pāli Nikāyas affirm a true self. However, they don't assert any such thing. DN 15 explicitly demonstrates how a self-view is untenable:

"Ananda, the one who says 'Feeling is not my self; my self is without experience of feeling' he should be asked: 'Friend, where there is nothing at all that is felt, could the idea "I am" occur there?'"

"Certainly not, venerable sir."

"Therefore, Ananda, because of this it is not acceptable to consider: 'Feeling is not my self; my self is without experience of feeling'.

"Ananda, the one who says 'Feeling is not my self, but my self is not without experience of feeling. My self feels; for my self is subject to feeling' he should be asked: 'Friend, if feeling were to cease absolutely and utterly without remainder, then, in the complete absence of feeling, with the cessation of feeling, could (the idea) "I am this" occur there?'"

"Certainly not, venerable sir."

"Therefore, Ananda, because of this it is not acceptable to consider: 'Feeling is not my self, but my self is not without experience of feeling. My self feels; for my self is subject to feeling.'"

He said: "Not being troubled he attains nibbana as regards the very self (paccattaññeva)" (S. iv. 168).

Poor translation. Paccatta in this gramatical context refers to "separately," "individually," "by himself." Hence Ven. Bodhi's translation of this passage as follows: "Being unagitated, he personally attains Nibbāna."

In Pali, self and mind are said to be the same in the Atthakathas. It is stated that Attāti cittaṃ in the Atthakatha to the Brâhmanasamyuttama 9. Sundarikasuttavaṇṇanā (of the Samyutta-Nikaya ).

Asserting a permanent and unchanging mind is said to be a wrong view of partial eternalism (ekaccasassatavāda) in DN 1. Quoting two words of a commentary out of context doesn't support your claims. This is the kind of thing that Ken Wheeler does, along with the tactic of turning regular pronouns into assertions of a true self. However, the Pāli commentaries don't assert a true self. The Paṭisambhidāmagga Aṭṭhakathā:

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'.

You've also appealed to the tathāgatagarbha sūtras in support for your self-view. However, the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra makes it very clear that the tathāgatagarbha is taught with the intention of bringing onto the path followers of ātmavāda philosophies who hold views of a self:

O Mahāmati, the tathāgatas thus teach the garbha in so far as they teach the tathāgatagarbha in order to attract those who are attached to the heterodox ātmavāda. How can people whose minds fall into the conceptual theory bearing on an unreal self (abhūtātmavikalpa) attain quickly the complete awakening in the supreme and exact sambodhi, possessing a mind comprised in the domain of the three gateways of emancipation? O Mahāmati, it is because of this that the tathāgatas teach the tathāgatagarbha.

And here's the kicker:

O Mahāmati, with a view to casting aside the heterodox theory, you must treat the tathāgatagarbha as not self (anātman).

The Buddhadharma is not an ātmavāda. Self theories are irrelevant for the realization of knowledge. A complete waste of time. There's no need for a "Self" in the dharma. It's just one more thing to let go of.

[songhill]

When the Buddha said that his self was not any of the five aggregates was his self a concept? Who or what moves your body around all day, puts it to sleep and wakes it up? is that a concept? What are your thoughts composed of? Is this a concept? Do you know what makes your hands and feet move? Is this also a concept? I hope your practice goes much deeper than observing the superficial five aggregates which are not your self; which are illusory.

How can you have a self without having a concept of it?

The self is not dependent on concepts or certain mental images.

If you want to be free, get to know your real self. It has no form, no appearance, no root, no basis, no abode, but is lively and buoyant. It responds with versatile facility, but its function cannot be located. Therefore when you look for it you become further from it, when you seek it you turn away from it all the more. — Zen master Linji

[LastLegend]

I have a feeling we are playing with words here.

How do you know your self without thinking or conceptualizing it? If you are water, you would not think that you are water.

[gregkavarnos]

This raises the question, why the obsession with naming what lies beyond this?

Fear is the driving force behind his obsession. Fear that all this talking, reading, arguing and jiving which he has invested in over the course of this lifetime (and who knows how many others) will have been for nothing. Fear that when Yama comes calling and his worm infested body dissolves back into the dirt, that there will not be some eternal songhill left behind to carry on the crusade against the nasty (wannabe) Buddhist (actually) annihilationists. His obsession is based on the one thing that all essentialists live in dread of: the annihilation of this particular mind and form combination.

Imagine that, a lifetime of intentionally misreading and misinterpreting the Buddhas teachings in order to defend this pathetic walking carcass from the inevitable. Sad really.

Yama.jpg (23.02 KiB) Viewed 254 times

[Son of Buddha]

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.

Buddhism does teach the inherent arising/existance of enlightenment/Buddha.

Its actually very easy to prove.

You see in your view BOTH Samsara and Enlightenment are dependently arising and neither have inherently arisen.

Where your view falls apart is IF Enlightenment is dependently arising, that means it is conditionaly based on the 12 links of dependent origination(dependently arising existance)which it has as it origin,born and produced in IGNORANCE.
so by your view Enlightenment since it is dependently arising with no inherent existance,has as its origin,and is born and produced from ingnorance.

This view is further refuted by the fact the Buddha does not have the 3 poisons(anger,greed,IGNORANCE)

Since the Buddha does NOT have the poison of ignorance,the Buddha doesnt have the origin of dependent origination,without the ORIGIN the Buddha cannot be dependently originated(since dependent origination is produced from the Ignorance the Buddha doesnt have in the first place)

Now this view can further be refuted when the suttas/sutras state the Buddha is unconditioned.uncreated.

Well as you know everything that is conditioned is dependently originated,also everything that is dependently originated is the "create" which is born,produced and has as its origin ignorance...
So Enlightenment is not dependently arisen,it is unconditioned and inherently arisen

But by all means you can keep your view that the Buddha is dependently arisen and like everything else that is dependently arising the Buddha has as his origin,and is born and produced in ignorance.

[gregkavarnos]

Buddhism does teach the inherent arising/existance of enlightenment/Buddha.

If enlightenment/realisation does not rely upon practice to arise then how does realisation occur?

Where your view falls apart is IF Enlightenment is dependently arising, that means it is conditionaly based on the 12 links of dependent origination(dependently arising existance)which it has as it origin,born and produced in IGNORANCE.

This was already answered earlier in the thread by reference to the Upanisa Sutta.

Not quite accurate. If you want to believe that, fine. But the Buddha never taught that self is a concept. The no-self doctrine of the Buddha teaches that the five grasping aggregates of form, feeling, perception. volitions, and consciousness are not the self. The Buddha even calls the self the "noble witness" (A. i. 149). The unwarranted dogma that the Buddha denied the self cannot be supported by scripture. Strictly speaking, a denial of self is annihilationism which is heresy. The Atthakathas even say the Tathagata is the self. They also say the self is the island, the refuge, the rock, the support, the strength, and so on. Buddhism minus self is absurd.

This has already been answered in this thread.

Actually, if this thread keeps looping, I am going to lock it. It's no use rehashing the same old arguments and same old quotes from the same sources over and over.

It is boring, frustrating and of no real value.

[songhill]

The use of the term "self" as a conventional designation was never denied. But that's all it is -- a conventional designation. You've previously maintained that the Pāli Nikāyas affirm a true self. However, they don't assert any such thing. DN 15 explicitly demonstrates how a self-view is untenable:

"Ananda, the one who says 'Feeling is not my self; my self is without experience of feeling' he should be asked: 'Friend, where there is nothing at all that is felt, could the idea "I am" occur there?'"

"Certainly not, venerable sir."

"Therefore, Ananda, because of this it is not acceptable to consider: 'Feeling is not my self; my self is without experience of feeling'.

"Ananda, the one who says 'Feeling is not my self, but my self is not without experience of feeling. My self feels; for my self is subject to feeling' he should be asked: 'Friend, if feeling were to cease absolutely and utterly without remainder, then, in the complete absence of feeling, with the cessation of feeling, could (the idea) "I am this" occur there?'"

"Certainly not, venerable sir."

"Therefore, Ananda, because of this it is not acceptable to consider: 'Feeling is not my self, but my self is not without experience of feeling. My self feels; for my self is subject to feeling.'"

This Sutta citation, DN 15 (Mahanidana Sutta) is several pages long—you've given no specific citation except the whole sutta which would never be done in academia. The sutta doesn't refute what I said about self, that we are not to regard the five aggregates as the self for various reasons. Please don't misrepresent my position by suggesting that I propose a view of self. A view of self understands the aggregates to be self. I have cited enough from the canon to prove that the proper no-self doctrine is not to regard the five aggregates as self. In addition, we should also abandon desire for whaterver does not belong to self. Where people like you come up with this anatta rubbish, that out of the clear blue the Buddha declared, categorically, there is no self, is frankly nutty. What is so astonishing is that when you see a passage like this you can only see it as a categorical denial of self!

"But monks, an instructed disciple [ariya-savako] of the pure ones...taking count of the true men...well trained in the dhamma of the true men, regards material shape as: ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self;’ he regards feeling as: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self;’ he regards perception as: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self;’ he regards the habitual tendencies as: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self;’ he regards consciousness as: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ And also he regards whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognised, reached, looked for, pondered by the mind as: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self’ (M. i. 136).

However, in academia the above passage is sufficient to prove that the Buddha did not categorically deny the self as people like you believe.

[songhill]

Buddhism does teach the inherent arising/existance of enlightenment/Buddha.

If enlightenment/realisation does not rely upon practice to arise then how does realisation occur?

Practice is only a means, not an end.

The Buddha: I do not say one attains ‘purification by view, tradition, knowledge, virtue or ritual, nor is it attained without view, tradition, knowledge, virtue or ritual. It is only taking these factors as the means and not grasping them as ends in themsleves that one so attains and consequently does not crave for rebecoming. ~ Sutta-Nipata

[gregkavarnos]

However, in academia the above passage is sufficient to prove that the Buddha did not categorically deny the self as people like you believe.

Nor did he support the notion of a transcendental self, except in a couple of Sutras that were put together for the express purpose of supporting this (mistaken) notion.

[gregkavarnos]

Practice is only a means, not an end.

Chalk up another dead straw man for songhill.

So are you going to answer my question or are you going to put it on the: "too hard, just ignore" list?

[Jnana]

The sutta doesn't refute what I said about self,

Sure it does. Either your self experiences feelings or it doesn't. Either way, there's no basis for establishing a permanent Self.

Where people like you come up with this anatta rubbish....

I'm not sure which is more disjointed and incoherent: the modern-day physicalists who deny rebirth yet still try to appropriate the Buddhadharma, or the modern-day eternalists who assert a Self yet still try to appropriate the Buddhadharma. The former would find that they have much more in common with the Cārvāka materialists and the latter would find much more in common with the various Ātmavāda eternalists. Why either would want to try to appropriate the Buddhist teachings to serve their own views is hard to fathom.

[LastLegend]

There is no self because it cannot be established in any shapes of forms whatsoever. But there is this "know" which is clear and illuminating, at times for deluded beings, for Buddha all the time. You can call it self but you are imagining or conceptualizing it to be self, or something...Therefore self is a concept.

Just know that there is no self, if there is you are conceptualizing or imagining it. That's what we all do.

[Son of Buddha]

There is no self because it cannot be established in any shapes of forms whatsoever. But there is this "know" which is clear and illuminating, at times for deluded beings, for Buddha all the time. You can call it self but you are imagining or conceptualizing it to be self, or something...Therefore self is a concept.

Just know that there is no self, if there is you are conceptualizing or imagining it. That's what we all do.

So there is no Buddha because it cannot be established in any shapes or forms whatsoever.correct?

As far as calling the Buddha Nature True Self,it isnt us that is calling it that,its the Sutras that are calling Buddha Nature True Self.

[gregkavarnos]

So there is no Buddha because it cannot be established in any shapes or forms whatsoever.correct?

100% correct. There is no being called Buddha that can be defined by mind and form. There are (Nirmanakaya) manifestations but as far as Dharmakayas go there is nothing that can be defined as a self either true or conventional (either with a "S" or an "s").
By the way, this question was directed to you:

If enlightenment/realisation does not rely upon practice to arise then how does realisation occur?

Songhill tried (and failed) to answer it, maybe you can?

[Son of Buddha]

Buddhism does teach the inherent arising/existance of enlightenment/Buddha.

If enlightenment/realisation does not rely upon practice to arise then how does realisation occur?

Where your view falls apart is IF Enlightenment is dependently arising, that means it is conditionaly based on the 12 links of dependent origination(dependently arising existance)which it has as it origin,born and produced in IGNORANCE.

This was already answered earlier in the thread by reference ]

Sorry im on my phone so "qouteing" is a nightmare so bear with my "qoutes"

Enlightenment is always Enlightenment you dont "become" enlightened,that would imply this "i" "false self" could change into enlightenment.there is no realisation of enlightenment,due to the "person" that is "realising" enlightenment is actually the defilement that obscures the Buddha Nature.

Buddhist Practice is a means to an end like songhill said,the practice is the raft that discarded when you get to the other shore(the practice itself is a dependently originated practice for a dependent originated man)

In the end practice helps the defilement(false self) realise it is a defilement this is no self.



Now as far as the second comment on Enlightenment is not dependent arising,he can look up the TOS Nirvana- create or uncreate,and I thought you already said Nirvana isnt dependently arisen cause it would mean it would be produced from ignorance?

Peace and love

[gregkavarnos]

Enlightenment is always Enlightenment you dont "become" enlightened,that would imply this "i" "false self" could change into enlightenment.there is no realisation of enlightenment,due to the "person" that is "realising" enlightenment is actually the defilement that obscures the Buddha Nature.

So we are always enlightened and we do not require a means of enlightenment?

In the end practice helps the defilement(false self) realise it is a defilement this is no self.

Sure, but it is the relatively existing self that practices and realises that it is actually ultimately not-self. Is therelatively existing self using absolute techniques or relative techniques? Is the ultimately existing self using relative techniques to realise itself? Is the ultimate self the same as, or something different to, the ultimate self? Both? Neither?

But hey, I asked the same question about ten pages (more!) back and received no answer. So we are looping again.

Don't bother not answering again, the questions are rhetorical, I know they cannot be answered.

...and I thought you already said Nirvana isnt dependently arisen cause it would mean it would be produced from ignorance?

No, you did.