Mind versus Self?

[PadmaVonSamba]

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.
.
.
.

[Son of Buddha]

"gregkavarnos"]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 the false self is and clings to the 5 Skhandas and it exists dependent on ignorance,End false Self through No Self and unobscure True Self.

no there is no attachment to the true,remember NO SELF,at the end of the path of NO SELF there will be NO SELF to be attached to the true.

and like wise I can say all you are doing is having aversion for the True Self while being attached to the False Self.

yeaaa... and (you) "right now" is that which is born and dies and is dependently originated from ignorance which you also think applies to Nirvana so stay in Samsara its okay its only the other side of the coin

"gregkavarnos"
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?

are we on loop again? again the true Self is not the Worldly self of "i'/personality.

True Self in the Nirvana sutra is the pristen wisdom/the true/real/ulitimate reality/self governing/inherently arisen/unchanging/uncreate/permenant/eternal/not conditioned not dependently arisen and not produced from Ignorance
(I think i have already posted the sutra and the qoute that says this)

"gregkavarnos"
What is ignorance?

one of the 3 poisons and that which is not the Buddha,also ignorance is everything that is dependently arisen

[futerko]

Nrvana?!

[Son of Buddha]

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?

1.Not existent and also not-non existent
and moreover the thought of all the statements in a great many stainless texts of the middle way of being devoid of the extremes of existance and non existance is that:

(*) Since all dependently arisen conventionalities do not really exist,when one realises this,one does not fall to an extreme of existance and is released from the extreme of superimposition.

(*)Since the ultimate noumenon that is beyond dependent-arising is never non-existent,when one realises this,one does not fall to an extreme of non-existance and is released from the extreme of deprecation.

2.in everything and in nothing of course your question could be more specific on what you are asking or trying to get at.

peace and love

gtg be back 2 morror I LOVE YOU ALL MAY YOU ALL BE HAPPY,MAY ALL THOSE I ENGAGE IN DISCUSSION WITH AND HAVE DISAGREEMENTS WITH NOT FEEL ANY HOSTILITIES,MAY WE DISCUSS WHAT WE DISAGREE WITH BASED ON LOVE AND COMPASSION AND MAY WE LEARN FROM EACH OTHER,EVEN IF IT IS ONLY OUR DIFFERENCES.

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

false self false Self True Self True Self False Self true Self True Self

EDIT PS:

[I]mpure vision is regarded as part of our clarity ... no great importance is attached to the distinction between pure and impure vision ...
Dzogchen Teachings, Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, edited by Jim Valby and Adriano Clemente

[gregkavarnos]

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.

I said nothing of the sort. I said that to say that the Buddha taught atman is 100% deception. Buddha Nature/Tathagatagarbha/Sugatagarbha... is not atman.

Stop trying to be deceptive.

[Son of Buddha]

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

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

"gregkavarnos"
I said nothing of the sort. I said that to say that the Buddha taught atman is 100% deception. Buddha Nature/Tathagatagarbha/Sugatagarbha... is not atman.
Stop trying to be deceptive.

no you said and I qoute
"And saying that the Buddha taught atman is 100%, a (((((practice in deception))))))"

also you are incorrect

Nirvana Sutra
Chapter Twelve: On the Tathagata-DHATU
“Kasyapa said to the Buddha: "O World-Honoured One! Is there Self in the 25 existences or not?" The Buddha said: "O good man! "Self" means "Tathagatagarbha" [Buddha-Womb, Buddha-Embryo, Buddha-Nature]. Every being has Buddha-Nature. This is the Self. Such Self has, from the very beginning, been under cover of innumerable defilements. That is why man cannot see it.

As you can plainly see the Buddha Nature is Atman,so you sir are in fact trying to be deceptive.
and you said it yourself that if anyone said the Buddha taught atman/Buddha nature he is 100% practicing in deception
SO if the Atman is the Buddha Nature and if anyone says the Buddha teaches the Atman/Buddha nature he is 100% practicing deception.

you failed to realise the Buddha Nature is the True Self so to speak bad about one is to speak bad about the other.
and if you didnt know what was written in the sutras....well now you know(so dont be deceptive)

[PadmaVonSamba]

Nirvana Sutra
Chapter Twelve: On the Tathagata-DHATU
“Kasyapa said to the Buddha: "O World-Honoured One! Is there Self in the 25 existences or not?" The Buddha said: "O good man! "Self" means "Tathagatagarbha" [Buddha-Womb, Buddha-Embryo, Buddha-Nature]. Every being has Buddha-Nature. This is the Self. Such Self has, from the very beginning, been under cover of innumerable defilements. That is why man cannot see it.

Yeah, well, from that very same chapter:
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 practice non-Self and purify themselves.

It is ridiculous to cite one passage or another and not understand the gist of the teachings.

Here is a link to this sutra
http://www.nirvanasutra.net/convenient/ ... e_2007.pdf

The point is this: Neither the idea of self or of no-self is selflessness (Tathagata) which is beyond the whole dichotomy.
That is why, while The Buddha may say that the 'true self' is Tathagata, this is not the same as saying that Tathagata is any sort of true 'self'.

Any sort of 'self', whether regarded as a true self or a false self, must by nature exclude everything which is not that "self", (and some argue that this exclusion specifically refers to the aggregates). But the very fact of exclusion makes a self conditional, and thus, what would amount to essentially a 'true Tathagata self' would be conditional, hence a contradiction.

.
.
.

[gregkavarnos]

Thread temporarily locked for cleaning purposes.

We will return to our scheduled program as soon as possible.
(Don't hold your breath though, it is 36 pages after all!)