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 PadmaVonSamba » Mon Jan 28, 2013 1:51 pm

songhill wrote: 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 ).

Well, depending on the translation you are using.

But tell me:
1. Does this 'self' you speak of have (exist for) any duration of time?
2. Does this 'self' you speak of have (extend to) any expansion of area?
.
.
.
Last edited by PadmaVonSamba on Mon Jan 28, 2013 1:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 » Mon Jan 28, 2013 1:57 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
Son of Buddha wrote:
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.


yes realitive self practices to realise it is not self.

Difine the abosolute and realitive techniques the realitive self would be using...

The ultimate existing self does not realise itself.

The ultimate self/enligtenment is always the same enlightenment/ultimate self.
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 777
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:14 pm

Son of Buddha wrote:"we" are not enlightenened nor can "i" ever be enlightened.
So the enlightened bit gets enlightened. Well that is useful isn't it? Like saying the healthy person gets well.
The false self "i" cannot be enlightened for it itself is the defilement.
Nonsense.
"Take up what dies,
is born and is bound -

take that and perfect
the utmost great bliss.

Saraha utters
dense and deep words

the bestial don't comprehend:
they're bereft."

Saraha in Tantric Treasures
To think "i" "we" can be enlightened is to say that Enlightenment/Buddha can have an individual discriminating personality/ego/false self.
No it is not, it is to realise liberation here and now. You posit a dichotomy between samsara and Nirvana when in fact that are just two sides of the same coin.
"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: 7893
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:21 pm

Son of Buddha wrote:The false self "i" cannot be enlightened for it itself is the defilement.
...
The ultimate existing self does not realise itself.
The relative self does not realise its true nature, the ultimate self cannot realise itself. Well there's only one word that can truly define your situation then:

screwed.jpg
screwed.jpg (59.44 KiB) Viewed 636 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
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7893
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby songhill » Mon Jan 28, 2013 4:26 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
songhill wrote: 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 ).

Well, depending on the translation you are using.

But tell me:
1. Does this 'self' you speak of have (exist for) any duration of time?
2. Does this 'self' you speak of have (extend to) any expansion of area?
.
.
.


Do you regard the five aggregates, that is, the psycho-physical body as belonging to yourself?
User avatar
songhill
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Karma Dondrup Tashi » Mon Jan 28, 2013 5:36 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
Son of Buddha wrote:So there is no Buddha because it cannot be established in any shapes or forms whatsoever.correct?
100% correct.

In addition to being "empty", do the sutras say that the marks and signs of Buddha-nature are "not present"?

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

Is dharmata first defiled, and later becomes pure?
User avatar
Karma Dondrup Tashi
 
Posts: 1011
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:13 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby futerko » Mon Jan 28, 2013 5:47 pm

songhill wrote:However, in academia the above passage is sufficient to prove that the Buddha did not categorically deny the self as people like you believe.
I've noticed that a lot of your references come from academic sources, and here you appeal to "academia". Are any of these writers actually practitioners, or is this view you are promoting simply an interpretation of Buddhism by those who are not themselves practicing Buddhists?

It looks like what we are seeing here is a divergence between the academic view and that of the practitioner, which is the difference between the "truth" of the dead letter versus a living tradition. There is certainly a case to be made for the early interpretations to suggest that there is a seperation between the realms of form and the formless, however with developments in understanding, practice, and in terms of wisdom, such a reading has been shown to be untenable.

The sutras themselves can accomodate both interpretations, therefore it's really up to you if you want to promote the view of a dualistic and lower form of wisdom which has subsequently been surpassed by 2500 years of enlightened activity in favour of a single, rather narrow reading which attempts to posit a singular dualistic truth. You seem to be caught in what Lacan called the discourse of the University - "Provision and worship of "objective" knowledge - usually in the unacknowledged service of some external master discourse." but in terms of a living tradition such a stance can only give rise to the sort of obsessive search for a singular truth which is exactly what the practice is intended to remedy.
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 Sherab Dorje » Mon Jan 28, 2013 6:03 pm

Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:In addition to being "empty", do the sutras say that the marks and signs of Buddha-nature are "not present"?
I know of no references to a statement of that nature.
Is dharmata first defiled, and later becomes pure?
Well, this is the whole problem, really, in a nutshell: setting up Nirvana and samsara as opposing existent phenomena when they are not. If you start from this mistaken premise then you have to set up a existent phenomenon in opposing relationship to the conventional self, ie a True Self. Then you have to come up with some clumsy footwork to explain how something pure can exist at the same time as something defiled, yet not be connected to the defiled, yet somehow be connected to the defiled and how the defiled stops being defiled yet in stopping becomes something other than defiled, ad nauseum...

Quite simply: it does not work.

It becomes a living example of the statement: "Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive."

And saying that the Buddha taught atman is 100%, a practice in deception.
"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: 7893
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Karma Dondrup Tashi » Mon Jan 28, 2013 6:43 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:And saying that the Buddha taught atman is 100%, a practice in deception.


Incidentally, just how many references to "true self" or "self paramita" are made in the Tathagatagharbha sutras or other sutras? I honestly am not well-read enough to know. I presume Mahaparinirvana Sutra is the most embarassing guilty culprit?

Interesting discussion here:

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha191.htm

The reason why the 'Tathagatas' who are Arhats and fully enlightened Ones teach the doctrine pointing to the tathagatagarbha which is a state of non-discrimination and imageless, is to make the ignorant cast aside their fear when they listen to teaching of egolessness. 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 ... that the 'Tathagatas' preach the egolessness of things which removes all the traces of discrimination by various skillful means issuing from their trancendental wisdom, that is, sometimes by the doctrine of the 'tathagatagarbha' , sometimes by that of egolessness ... Thus, 'Mahamati', the doctrine of the 'tathagatagarbha' is disclosed in order to awaken the philosophers from their clinging to the idea of the ego. Accordingly, 'Mahamati', the 'Tathagatas' disclose the doctrine of the 'tathagatagarbha' 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 depend on the 'anatman-tathagatagarbha'.

Daisetz T. Suzuki, tr. The 'Lankavatara Sutra', Parajna Press, Boulder, 1978, p.69
User avatar
Karma Dondrup Tashi
 
Posts: 1011
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:13 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby songhill » Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:35 pm

futerko wrote:
songhill wrote:However, in academia the above passage is sufficient to prove that the Buddha did not categorically deny the self as people like you believe.
I've noticed that a lot of your references come from academic sources, and here you appeal to "academia". Are any of these writers actually practitioners, or is this view you are promoting simply an interpretation of Buddhism by those who are not themselves practicing Buddhists?

It looks like what we are seeing here is a divergence between the academic view and that of the practitioner, which is the difference between the "truth" of the dead letter versus a living tradition. There is certainly a case to be made for the early interpretations to suggest that there is a seperation between the realms of form and the formless, however with developments in understanding, practice, and in terms of wisdom, such a reading has been shown to be untenable.

The sutras themselves can accomodate both interpretations, therefore it's really up to you if you want to promote the view of a dualistic and lower form of wisdom which has subsequently been surpassed by 2500 years of enlightened activity in favour of a single, rather narrow reading which attempts to posit a singular dualistic truth. You seem to be caught in what Lacan called the discourse of the University - "Provision and worship of "objective" knowledge - usually in the unacknowledged service of some external master discourse." but in terms of a living tradition such a stance can only give rise to the sort of obsessive search for a singular truth which is exactly what the practice is intended to remedy.


I wouldn't read too much into such supposed differences when it comes to being a non-Buddhist translator and a practitioner/sectarian translator. This might explain why I use more than one translator and look up the Pali, in addition—but only for the reason translating a religious language into English is a bytch for anyone. Facing that, I use as my loadstone, the Four Slogans of Zen:

A special transmission transcending the canon;
Without dependence upon words and letters;
Pointing directly to the mind of man;
Seeing into one's nature, realizing Buddhahood.

The key to Zen is seeing into one's own nature or kensho. This seeing is profound and awesome. The scriptures are only a means. Practice is only a means. When all is said and done friend, you have to make the leap. It is like no other leap.
User avatar
songhill
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby songhill » Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:44 pm

Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:
gregkavarnos wrote:And saying that the Buddha taught atman is 100%, a practice in deception.


Incidentally, just how many references to "true self" or "self paramita" are made in the Tathagatagharbha sutras or other sutras? I honestly am not well-read enough to know. I presume Mahaparinirvana Sutra is the most embarassing guilty culprit?

Interesting discussion here:

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha191.htm

The reason why the 'Tathagatas' who are Arhats and fully enlightened Ones teach the doctrine pointing to the tathagatagarbha which is a state of non-discrimination and imageless, is to make the ignorant cast aside their fear when they listen to teaching of egolessness. 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 ... that the 'Tathagatas' preach the egolessness of things which removes all the traces of discrimination by various skillful means issuing from their trancendental wisdom, that is, sometimes by the doctrine of the 'tathagatagarbha' , sometimes by that of egolessness ... Thus, 'Mahamati', the doctrine of the 'tathagatagarbha' is disclosed in order to awaken the philosophers from their clinging to the idea of the ego. Accordingly, 'Mahamati', the 'Tathagatas' disclose the doctrine of the 'tathagatagarbha' 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 depend on the 'anatman-tathagatagarbha'.

Daisetz T. Suzuki, tr. The 'Lankavatara Sutra', Parajna Press, Boulder, 1978, p.69


Next, try to reading it in Sanskrit (I tried it last night) which if you don't have the required attainments (and believe me dude they are critical), it is like reading one of my old time favorite Hindu philosophers, K.C. Bhattacharyya. His stuff is a real head scratcher. Here is an example of what I mean.

"Thought is still presented as meaning, as the unobjective something about the object, being characterizable only in reference to the object as what the object is not. The introspective awareness of meaning as distinct from the image is awareness of the explicitly unobjective."


By the way, Bhattacharyya's two main languages since birth were Sanskrit and English.
User avatar
songhill
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby futerko » Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:05 pm

songhill wrote:
futerko wrote:
songhill wrote:However, in academia the above passage is sufficient to prove that the Buddha did not categorically deny the self as people like you believe.
I've noticed that a lot of your references come from academic sources, and here you appeal to "academia". Are any of these writers actually practitioners, or is this view you are promoting simply an interpretation of Buddhism by those who are not themselves practicing Buddhists?

It looks like what we are seeing here is a divergence between the academic view and that of the practitioner, which is the difference between the "truth" of the dead letter versus a living tradition. There is certainly a case to be made for the early interpretations to suggest that there is a seperation between the realms of form and the formless, however with developments in understanding, practice, and in terms of wisdom, such a reading has been shown to be untenable.

The sutras themselves can accomodate both interpretations, therefore it's really up to you if you want to promote the view of a dualistic and lower form of wisdom which has subsequently been surpassed by 2500 years of enlightened activity in favour of a single, rather narrow reading which attempts to posit a singular dualistic truth. You seem to be caught in what Lacan called the discourse of the University - "Provision and worship of "objective" knowledge - usually in the unacknowledged service of some external master discourse." but in terms of a living tradition such a stance can only give rise to the sort of obsessive search for a singular truth which is exactly what the practice is intended to remedy.


I wouldn't read too much into such supposed differences when it comes to being a non-Buddhist translator and a practitioner/sectarian translator. This might explain why I use more than one translator and look up the Pali, in addition—but only for the reason translating a religious language into English is a bytch for anyone. Facing that, I use as my loadstone, the Four Slogans of Zen:

A special transmission transcending the canon;
Without dependence upon words and letters;
Pointing directly to the mind of man;
Seeing into one's nature, realizing Buddhahood.

The key to Zen is seeing into one's own nature or kensho. This seeing is profound and awesome. The scriptures are only a means. Practice is only a means. When all is said and done friend, you have to make the leap. It is like no other leap.
That's one reason I'm wondering why you are promoting an obsessive theory of meaning which supposes that there is only one true meaning to be found solely in the intention of the one making the utterance.
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 Son of Buddha » Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:52 pm

"gregkavarnos"]
Son of Buddha wrote:"we" are not enlightenened nor can "i" ever be enlightened.
So the enlightened but gets enlightened. Well that is useful isn't it? Like saying the healthy person gets well.


it was never sick to begin with :D
there is nothing wrong with the mirror just dust it off.

"gregkavarnos"
="Son of Buddha"]"The false self "i" cannot be enlightened for it itself is the defilement.


Nonsense.
"Take up what dies,
is born and is bound -

take that and perfect
the utmost great bliss.

Saraha utters
dense and deep words

the bestial don't comprehend:
they're bereft."

Saraha in Tantric Treasures


nonsense what you are saying now is that the false self that is born and dies purifies itself of its own defilement and becomes "enlightened"
hence you are saying your "i" "ego" "self" is purified of all defilement....hence the purified personality of "greg" is purified,instead of no-self you have created a super ego greg.

"gregkavarnos"
="Son of Buddha"]"To think "i" "we" can be enlightened is to say that Enlightenment/Buddha can have an individual discriminating personality/ego/false self.
No it is not, it is to realise liberation here and now. You posit a dichotomy between samsara and Nirvana when in fact that are just two sides of the same coin.


yes again your "personality" "i" "self" realises its purification here and now .......sadly people cannot let go of this bag of bones,in fear they cannot see there is no-self that realises Nirvana and they think they can carry "themselves" along with "their" personality with them into Nirvana,greg cannot realise Nirvana let go of greg their is no "i' and "greg" in Nirvana

Nirvana is the pure mirror you are the dirt that is on the mirror,brush yourself off,what is left will not be you but that which was never defiled in the first place.


yes you view Enlightenment and Samsara as the same which makes zero sense,sense in fact Samsara is produced from ignorance and the Buddha doesnt have any ignorance/Samsara hence thats why its called the "other shore"
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 777
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Son of Buddha » Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:00 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
Son of Buddha wrote:The false self "i" cannot be enlightened for it itself is the defilement.
...
The ultimate existing self does not realise itself.
The relative self does not realise its true nature, the ultimate self cannot realise itself. Well there's only one word that can truly define your situation then:



you are the dust that is on the mirror(Enlightenement)
since when does the dust(you) see the pure and clear mirror when you are still laying on it?
if you took yourself(dust) off he mirror then how can you see the pure and clear mirror if you have been wiped off it and you have "no selfed" yourself?
thats cause in the Buddha Nature teachings there is no self to realise the Buddha Nature.
hence it is stated in the Nirvana sutra No self ends the false self leaving only the True Self(taking the dust of the mirror)

also the ultimate self does not relaise itself it doesnt need to it never "lost" its own nature hence knowing.
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 777
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby futerko » Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:11 pm

Son of Buddha wrote:
gregkavarnos wrote:
Son of Buddha wrote:The false self "i" cannot be enlightened for it itself is the defilement.
...
The ultimate existing self does not realise itself.
The relative self does not realise its true nature, the ultimate self cannot realise itself. Well there's only one word that can truly define your situation then:



you are the dust that is on the mirror(Enlightenement)
since when does the dust(you) see the pure and clear mirror when you are still laying on it?
if you took yourself(dust) off he mirror then how can you see the pure and clear mirror if you have been wiped off it and you have "no selfed" yourself?
thats cause in the Buddha Nature teachings there is no self to realise the Buddha Nature.
hence it is stated in the Nirvana sutra No self ends the false self leaving only the True Self(taking the dust of the mirror)

also the ultimate self does not relaise itself it doesnt need to it never "lost" its own nature hence knowing.
The metaphor of the mirror for the nature of mind is seen as being beyond mind itself. This would mean that the "True Self" is also beyond mind. Is that what you are saying?
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 Son of Buddha » Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:55 pm

"Karma Dondrup Tashi"]
gregkavarnos wrote:And saying that the Buddha taught atman is 100%, a practice in deception.


Incidentally, just how many references to "true self" or "self paramita" are made in the Tathagatagharbha sutras or other sutras? I honestly am not well-read enough to know. I presume Mahaparinirvana Sutra is the most embarassing guilty culprit?


pretty much greg views Buddha Nature as a 100% practice in deception.


"Karma Dondrup Tashi"
The reason why the 'Tathagatas' who are Arhats and fully enlightened Ones teach the doctrine pointing to the tathagatagarbha which is a state of non-discrimination and imageless, is to make the ignorant cast aside their fear when they listen to teaching of egolessness. 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 ... that the 'Tathagatas' preach the egolessness of things which removes all the traces of discrimination by various skillful means issuing from their trancendental wisdom, that is, sometimes by the doctrine of the 'tathagatagarbha' , sometimes by that of egolessness ... Thus, 'Mahamati', the doctrine of the 'tathagatagarbha' is disclosed in order to awaken the philosophers from their clinging to the idea of the ego. Accordingly, 'Mahamati', the 'Tathagatas' disclose the doctrine of the 'tathagatagarbha' 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 depend on the 'anatman-tathagatagarbha'.

Daisetz T. Suzuki, tr. The 'Lankavatara Sutra', Parajna Press, Boulder, 1978, p.69


good stuff allow me to explain:

first of all people try to use this to make the Buddha Nature(Tathagatagarbha) seem like it was ONLY taught to lowly new people.and they make it out like Buddha nature was just a "trick" to get people into Buddhism.

its simply not true in the sutras it is taught only the Highest Bodhisattvas can even catch a "glimmer" of the Buddha Nature,and that that the Buddha nature itself is the Dharmakaya undercover of defilements,the Tathagatagarbha teachings is not a lowly teaching or an expedient teaching it is the Highest teaching that only the Buddhas can understand and only the Highest Bodhisattvas can even catch a "glimmer" of.

now does the Lankavatara Sutras teaching on Tathagatagarbha DIfferent from that of the other Buddha nature sutras( such as the Nirvana sutra and the Queen srimala sutra?)

NO

" is to make the ignorant cast aside their fear when they listen to teaching of egolessness" as the sutra states it teaches to have no fear of the No self teachings(end false self"i" persoanlity" "identity"s self)

"that is, sometimes by the doctrine of the 'tathagatagarbha' , sometimes by that of egolessness ..." as the sutra states this is exactly what is taught and explained in the Nirvana Sutra,it is made clear in chapter 3 of the Nirvana sutra that NO SELF and Tathagatagarbha is taught to end the wordly Self "i"(discriminateing personality self)

"Thus, 'Mahamati', the doctrine of the 'tathagatagarbha' is disclosed in order to awaken the philosophers from their clinging to the idea of the ego. Accordingly, 'Mahamati', the 'Tathagatas' disclose the doctrine of the 'tathagatagarbha' 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 depend on the 'anatman-tathagatagarbha'.[/i]"

BINGO
The tathagatagarbha(Buddha nature) is the teaching to help the philosophers end their view of the ego self(false self)
the Tathagatagarbha(True Self)(Check Chapter 12 of the Nirvana sutra)
is not the same as the philosophers notion of the "I"/discriminateing personality ego self"(I.e> False self)

now VERY IMPORTANT is this part: 'Mahamati', in order to abandon the misconception cherished by the philosophers, you must depend on the 'anatman-tathagatagarbha'.[/i]"

in the True Self(Tathagatagarbha) teachings NO SELF is not refuted or considered a bad thing

here Nirvana sutra chapter 3
The same with the body too. It has no Self or master. For example, O World-Honoured One! [The plant] saptaparna [alstonia scholaris] has no fragrance. It is thus with this carnal body. It has no Self and no master. Thus we meditate on selflessness. You, the Buddha, say: "All things have no Self and nothing belonging to Self. O you Bhiksus! Learn and practise [this]!" Once this is practised, self-conceit goes away. Self-conceit gone, one enters Nirvana. O World-Honoured One! No tracks of birds exist in the sky. Such can never be. One practising selflessness meditation can have no various views of life. Nothing such as this is possible."

Then, the World-Honoured One praised all the bhiksus and said: "It is good, it is good, that you practise the selflessness meditation." Then all bhiksus said to the Buddhha: "We not only practise the selflessness meditation, but even other meditations, to wit, all those on Suffering, the non-Eternal, and Selflessness.

KEEP READING though the Buddha corrects them when they take the NO SELF teachings to far.the monks likewise say no false self exists,they were also confuseing the teachings and saying that enlightenement has no self hence saying Enlightenment(unlitmate reality) also does not exist hence taking the teaching to the extreme of nhilism and equateing nirvana to that of the conditioned and created.

read Chapter 11 and chapter 12 of the Nirvana Sutra for this teaching and understanding.
http://www.nirvanasutra.net/nirvanasutrae.htm

this teaching is based on ending the false self and uncovering the True Self.
Peace and Love
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 777
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:06 pm

Son of Buddha wrote:nonsense what you are saying now is that the false self that is born and dies purifies itself of its own defilement and becomes "enlightened"
hence you are saying your "i" "ego" "self" is purified of all defilement....hence the purified personality of "greg" is purified,instead of no-self you have created a super ego greg.
You are reifying the clinging to the five skhanda as an existent false self and then you are reifying the absence of clinging to the five skhanda as an existent True Self. All you are doing is bouncing between aversion to the false and attachment to the true. Saraha (not me) is saying: just use what you have right now, where you are right now, because right now is samsara and Nirvana.
yes again your "personality" "i" "self" realises its purification here and now .......sadly people cannot let go of this bag of bones,in fear they cannot see there is no-self that realises Nirvana and they think they can carry "themselves" along with "their" personality with them into Nirvana,greg cannot realise Nirvana let go of greg their is no "i' and "greg" in Nirvana
If there is no "i" in Nirvana (which is what everybod has been saying all along) then how can it be defined as a self?
yes you view Enlightenment and Samsara as the same which makes zero sense,sense in fact Samsara is produced from ignorance and the Buddha doesnt have any ignorance/Samsara hence thats why its called the "other shore"
What is ignorance?
"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: 7893
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Son of Buddha » Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:08 pm

futerko wrote:The metaphor of the mirror for the nature of mind is seen as being beyond mind itself. This would mean that the "True Self" is also beyond mind. Is that what you are saying?


thats hard to say,the Lankavatara teaches Mind only(as highest understanding)
also you hear of pristine wisdom or pristine knowing.

to me it seems like a word game to discribe in words something that cant truely be discribed in words

generally Enlightenement is beyond everything other than itself(Enlightenment)
but it interacts with with what is in Samsara(kinda like a white shirt that is thrown in mud,except the shirt is not stained by the mud,when the rain comes the mud drips off the shirt but the shirt is still pure white(its a stain and mud resistant shirt :D )

Peace and Love
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 777
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Karma Dorje » Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:17 pm

Nrvana?!
Karma Dorje
 
Posts: 731
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:35 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:31 pm

songhill wrote:
PadmaVonSamba wrote:But tell me:
1. Does this 'self' you speak of have (exist for) any duration of time?
2. Does this 'self' you speak of have (extend to) any expansion of area?

Do you regard the five aggregates, that is, the psycho-physical body as belonging to yourself?


I asked you first, because you are the one asserting a self.
So please answer.

But since you asked, I will be polite and answer your question:
Your question is incorrect.
It presumes a "yourself" to which the aggregates either do or do not belong.
It's like asking whether your shadow is happy or sad.
.
.
.
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

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Anders, Dan74, MSNbot Media, odysseus, palchi and 18 guests

>