Which Skandha is Tathagatagarbha?

General forum on Mahayana.

Re: Which Skandha is Tathagatagarbha?

Postby Astus » Thu Jul 04, 2013 6:46 pm

Son of Buddha wrote:so does the Dharmakaya of the Buddha have Skandha's?


It doesn't have skandhas, it is the skandhas.
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

"Neither cultivation nor seated meditation — this is the pure Chan of Tathagata."
(Mazu Daoyi, X1321p3b23; tr. Jinhua Jia)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T2076p461b24-26)
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4161
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Which Skandha is Tathagatagarbha?

Postby Son of Buddha » Thu Jul 04, 2013 9:39 pm

Astus wrote:
Son of Buddha wrote:so does the Dharmakaya of the Buddha have Skandha's?


It doesn't have skandhas, it is the skandhas.


Pure and Perfect
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Which Skandha is Tathagatagarbha?

Postby Jinzang » Fri Jul 05, 2013 2:23 am

Buddha nature is the innate capability of the mind to recognize its own nature. So it is a capability of mind, and not mind itself. When this capability is not exercised, it manifests as ignorance. When it is exercised, it manifests as wisdom.
Lamrim, lojong, and mahamudra are the unmistaken path.
Jinzang
 
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 3:11 am

Re: Which Skandha is Tathagatagarbha?

Postby Koji » Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:10 am

The tathagatagarbha can't be a skandha. No way José! Here is why.

According to the Mahavastu, “There is no safety in the skandhas, but torment and great fear. There is no freedom in them: they are worthless."
User avatar
Koji
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 1:26 am

Re: Which Skandha is Tathagatagarbha?

Postby Wayfarer » Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:02 am

smcj wrote:
jeeprs wrote:The question that occurs to me is, is Tathagatagarbha a valid object of cognition? (I hope that is not an improper question.)


No, and very specifically so. If it could be taken as an object of cognition it would be compounded, impermanent, and the source of dukha. Not even a buddha can take it as an object of cognition.


That being so, it is not even properly the subject of propositions. In other words, it is not something that can really be spoken of, which is why in the early tradition there was no such word or concept at all. It is not because it doesn't exist: it is because it is beyond existence. And what is beyond existence cannot properly be spoken of at all. 'That of which we cannot speak, of that we should remain silent'.
Learn to do good, refrain from evil, purify the mind ~ this is the teaching of the Buddhas
User avatar
Wayfarer
 
Posts: 1932
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Which Skandha is Tathagatagarbha?

Postby Son of Buddha » Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:59 am

Koji wrote:The tathagatagarbha can't be a skandha. No way José! Here is why.

According to the Mahavastu, “There is no safety in the skandhas, but torment and great fear. There is no freedom in them: they are worthless."


:twothumbsup:

The Buddha is not the Skandhas,but uses them in Samsara.
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Which Skandha is Tathagatagarbha?

Postby Son of Buddha » Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:41 am

Koji wrote:The tathagatagarbha can't be a skandha. No way José! Here is why.

According to the Mahavastu, “There is no safety in the skandhas, but torment and great fear. There is no freedom in them: they are worthless."


Quotes from the Nirvana sutra.
"Also Emancipation is giving up the actions of ones childhood days.It is the same with Emancipation. It does away with the 5 skanghas. abandoning the 5 skandhas is true emancipation, true emancipation is the Tathagata." "he subdues the mara of illusion, the mara of the 5 skandhas" "he is no skandha, sphere or realm and yet he is the skandha sphere and realm" "The Buddha nature is strong and vigorous. It is hard to destroy. Therefore there is nothing that can kill it. If there were something that could indeed kill it, Buddha nature would die. But nothing can ever destroy such Buddha nature. Nothing of this nature can ever be cut" "The Buddha nature of beings rests withing the 5 skandhas." If the 5 skandhas are destroyed this is killing of those Skanghas" "If a person sees the expedient body of the Tathagata and says that it belongs to the 5 skandhas, the 18 realms and the 12 spheres, and that it arises from feeding, such is not to be depended upon. This means that even consciousness is not to be depended upon If a sutra says thus it cannot be depended upon "
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Which Skandha is Tathagatagarbha?

Postby Astus » Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:07 am

Koji wrote:The tathagatagarbha can't be a skandha. No way José! Here is why.

According to the Mahavastu, “There is no safety in the skandhas, but torment and great fear. There is no freedom in them: they are worthless."


What that quote refers to is not to identify with or attach to the aggregates. If you say that there is buddha-nature beyond the skandhas and dhatus then it has no relevance and no connection to any sentient being.

As Nagarjuna writes, "If the aggregates were self, it would be possessed of arising and decaying. If it were other than the aggregates, it would not have the characteristics of the aggregates." (MMK 18.1)
Substitute self with buddha-nature and you get the same problem.
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

"Neither cultivation nor seated meditation — this is the pure Chan of Tathagata."
(Mazu Daoyi, X1321p3b23; tr. Jinhua Jia)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T2076p461b24-26)
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4161
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Which Skandha is Tathagatagarbha?

Postby Son of Buddha » Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:46 am

Astus wrote:
Koji wrote:The tathagatagarbha can't be a skandha. No way José! Here is why.

According to the Mahavastu, “There is no safety in the skandhas, but torment and great fear. There is no freedom in them: they are worthless."


What that quote refers to is not to identify with or attach to the aggregates. If you say that there is buddha-nature beyond the skandhas and dhatus then it has no relevance and no connection to any sentient being.

As Nagarjuna writes, "If the aggregates were self, it would be possessed of arising and decaying. If it were other than the aggregates, it would not have the characteristics of the aggregates." (MMK 18.1)
Substitute self with buddha-nature and you get the same problem.


Thats weird the Buddha said the exact opposite
SN 22.59 Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic
(the 5 aggregates are all listed) "Form, O monks, is not-self; if form were self, then form would not lead to suffering , O monks, since form is not-self, therefore form leads to suffering
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Which Skandha is Tathagatagarbha?

Postby Astus » Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:54 am

Son of Buddha wrote:Thats weird the Buddha said the exact opposite
SN 22.59 Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic
(the 5 aggregates are all listed) "Form, O monks, is not-self; if form were self, then form would not lead to suffering , O monks, since form is not-self, therefore form leads to suffering


Nagarjuna argues that assuming a self identical to or different from the skandhas are both wrong. How does that contradict what the Buddha taught?
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

"Neither cultivation nor seated meditation — this is the pure Chan of Tathagata."
(Mazu Daoyi, X1321p3b23; tr. Jinhua Jia)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T2076p461b24-26)
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4161
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Which Skandha is Tathagatagarbha?

Postby Son of Buddha » Mon Jul 08, 2013 11:05 am

Astus wrote:
Son of Buddha wrote:Thats weird the Buddha said the exact opposite
SN 22.59 Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic
(the 5 aggregates are all listed) "Form, O monks, is not-self; if form were self, then form would not lead to suffering , O monks, since form is not-self, therefore form leads to suffering


Nagarjuna argues that assuming a self identical to or different from the skandhas are both wrong. How does that contradict what the Buddha taught?


Is that what the quote I posted says?
The contradiction is actually very obvious line up the quotes and you will see.
One says if the 5 aggregates were self it would lead to decay and ceasing.
The other says if the 5 aggregates were self they would not lead to suffering.
You dont see those 2 quotes being in contradiction?
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Which Skandha is Tathagatagarbha?

Postby Astus » Mon Jul 08, 2013 11:15 am

Son of Buddha wrote:The contradiction is actually very obvious line up the quotes and you will see.
One says if the 5 aggregates were self it would lead to decay and ceasing.
The other says if the 5 aggregates were self they would not lead to suffering.
You dont see those 2 quotes being in contradiction?


If the skandhas were self they would not lead to suffering, therefore they are not self, this is what the Buddha says. Nagarjuna says that because the skandhas are impermanent they are not self. The three characteristics (trilaksana/tilakkhana) are impermanence, suffering, no-self. The SN quote mentions suffering, Nagarjuna mentions impermanence, and both prove that the skandhas are no-self. Where is the contradiction?
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

"Neither cultivation nor seated meditation — this is the pure Chan of Tathagata."
(Mazu Daoyi, X1321p3b23; tr. Jinhua Jia)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T2076p461b24-26)
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4161
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Which Skandha is Tathagatagarbha?

Postby Son of Buddha » Mon Jul 08, 2013 11:41 am

Astus wrote:
Son of Buddha wrote:The contradiction is actually very obvious line up the quotes and you will see.
One says if the 5 aggregates were self it would lead to decay and ceasing.
The other says if the 5 aggregates were self they would not lead to suffering.
You dont see those 2 quotes being in contradiction?


If the skandhas were self they would not lead to suffering, therefore they are not self, this is what the Buddha says. Nagarjuna says that because the skandhas are impermanent they are not self. The three characteristics (trilaksana/tilakkhana) are impermanence, suffering, no-self. The SN quote mentions suffering, Nagarjuna mentions impermanence, and both prove that the skandhas are no-self. Where is the contradiction?


But your quote doesnt say that.
As Nagarjuna writes, "If the aggregates were self, it would be possessed of arising and decaying. (MMK 18.1)

Shouldnt it read if the 5 aggregates were NOT SELF,it would be possessed of arising and decaying.?
the material in Your statement up above doesnt match the quote you provided.
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Which Skandha is Tathagatagarbha?

Postby Son of Buddha » Mon Jul 08, 2013 11:49 am

Astus in your statement you are saying he said that non self is impermenant and suffering.

But the quote you provided from him says the self is impermenant and leads to suffering.

Your statement and your quote doesnt match up.
The quote you provided also gives the exact opposite message as the quote from SN 22.59
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Which Skandha is Tathagatagarbha?

Postby cdpatton » Mon Jul 08, 2013 11:55 am

Son of Buddha wrote:
Astus wrote:
Son of Buddha wrote:Thats weird the Buddha said the exact opposite
SN 22.59 Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic
(the 5 aggregates are all listed) "Form, O monks, is not-self; if form were self, then form would not lead to suffering , O monks, since form is not-self, therefore form leads to suffering


Nagarjuna argues that assuming a self identical to or different from the skandhas are both wrong. How does that contradict what the Buddha taught?


Is that what the quote I posted says?
The contradiction is actually very obvious line up the quotes and you will see.
One says if the 5 aggregates were self it would lead to decay and ceasing.
The other says if the 5 aggregates were self they would not lead to suffering.
You dont see those 2 quotes being in contradiction?


It's not a contradiction, just different ways of equating the skandhas and self. The assumption is that "self" (atma) is permanent and phenomena like skandhas is impermanent. So, if the two are identical then either the self would become like ordinary phenomena or phenomena would become like self.

Anyway, you will always run into logical problems, fallacies, and so forth as long as you are trying to understand reality with categories and distinct entities in your head. All of that is artificial. That is why trying to understand something like the Tathagata-garbha as a dharma (a distinct entity) doesn't make any sense when compared to the skandhas. Logical apples and oranges. And its all conceptual processing of non-conceptual reality - which leads to internal logic errors. That is basic theme of Nagarjuna's MMK & the Prajnaparamita.
User avatar
cdpatton
 
Posts: 114
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 5:01 am
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: Which Skandha is Tathagatagarbha?

Postby Astus » Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:00 pm

"If the aggregates were self, it would be possessed of arising and decaying."

That is, if self (self is necessarily something permanent) were identical to the skandhas (that are impermanent), then the self would have to be impermanent, and that contradicts the very definition of self. This is what Nagarjuna says.

Here is Kalupahana's translation:

"If the self were to be identical with the aggregates, it will partake of uprising and ceasing. If it were to be different from the aggreagetes, it would have the characteristics of the non-aggregates."
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

"Neither cultivation nor seated meditation — this is the pure Chan of Tathagata."
(Mazu Daoyi, X1321p3b23; tr. Jinhua Jia)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T2076p461b24-26)
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4161
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Which Skandha is Tathagatagarbha?

Postby Son of Buddha » Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:12 pm

Astus wrote:"If the aggregates were self, it would be possessed of arising and decaying."

That is, if self (self is necessarily something permanent) were identical to the skandhas (that are impermanent), then the self would have to be impermanent, and that contradicts the very definition of self. This is what Nagarjuna says.

Here is Kalupahana's translation:

"If the self were to be identical with the aggregates, it will partake of uprising and ceasing. If it were to be different from the aggreagetes, it would have the characteristics of the non-aggregates."


that quote is saying IF the aggregates WERE self,it would lead to arising and decay
My quote says.........IF the aggregates WERE self,it would NOT lead to suffering.

Thats a contradiction.
They are literally saying the exact opposite of one anouther....literally the exact opposite.
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Which Skandha is Tathagatagarbha?

Postby Astus » Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:26 pm

Son of Buddha wrote:that quote is saying IF the aggregates WERE self,it would lead to arising and decay
My quote says.........IF the aggregates WERE self,it would NOT lead to suffering.


Nagarjuna talks about the self, the Buddha talks about the skandhas. Different subjects.

Nagarjuna says that IF self=skandhas THEN self=impermenent (& suffering)
Buddha says that IF self=skandhas THEN skandhas=happiness (& permanent)
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

"Neither cultivation nor seated meditation — this is the pure Chan of Tathagata."
(Mazu Daoyi, X1321p3b23; tr. Jinhua Jia)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T2076p461b24-26)
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4161
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Which Skandha is Tathagatagarbha?

Postby Son of Buddha » Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:55 pm

Astus wrote:"If the aggregates were self, it would be possessed of arising and decaying."

That is, if self (self is necessarily something permanent) were identical to the skandhas (that are impermanent), then the self would have to be impermanent, and that contradicts the very definition of self. This is what Nagarjuna says.

Here is Kalupahana's translation:

"If the self were to be identical with the aggregates, it will partake of uprising and ceasing. If it were to be different from the aggreagetes, it would have the characteristics of the non-aggregates."

As Nagarjuna writes, "If the aggregates were self, it would be possessed of arising and decaying. (MMK 18.1)

These translations are even the opposite of each other
Kalu"s translation says if the self was the aggregates it would to arising and ceasing
Kalus translation is saying the aggregates lead to arising and ceasing

The other translation says if the aggregates were the self it would lead arising and ceasing
This translation is saying the self is what leads to arising and ceasing.

Even the translations are the opposite of each other.

So which one leads to arising and ceasing the aggregates or the self?
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Which Skandha is Tathagatagarbha?

Postby Astus » Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:07 pm

Son of Buddha wrote:So which one leads to arising and ceasing the aggregates or the self?


It is already known and agreed upon that the skandhas are impermanent (arising and ceasing). The self is necessarily permenent, not arising and not ceasing. If the self were the skandhas, the self would have to be impermanent. That is, being impermanent is a contradiction for the self, not for the skandhas. Therefore, the self cannot be the same as the skandhas.
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

"Neither cultivation nor seated meditation — this is the pure Chan of Tathagata."
(Mazu Daoyi, X1321p3b23; tr. Jinhua Jia)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T2076p461b24-26)
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4161
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

PreviousNext

Return to Mahāyāna Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot], Pringle and 6 guests

>