Common Anatta Question

Whether you're exploring Buddhism for the first time or you're already on the path, feel free to ask questions of any kind here.

Re: Common Anatta Question

Postby Son of Buddha » Wed Dec 18, 2013 8:08 am

Futerko
So what I'm not getting here is this... You have argued that "True Self" is not to be viewed as form, and with this idea that, "emptiness is viewed as a negation/i.e what is not Nirvana" you are also claiming that "True Self" is not to be viewed as emptiness. It is neither form, nor emptiness, so it seems the Heart Sutra is missing something then. When it says, "form is emptiness, emptiness is form" it should also say... plus there's a bit extra which is neither form, nor emptiness, and which should be identified as the True Self (but which we kinda forgot to mention).


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Form is empty of the self and so is the world and samsara empty of anything that belongs to Self.
Emptiness is simply a negation (hence empty of the self)
Since form is without self therefore it leads to suffering(sn 22.59)
The reason is because whatever is form is impermenant and suffering and whatever is suffering is NOT SELF (SN quoted previously in the thread)
Which is why it is taught in sn 22.69 to abandon seeking for whatever does not belong to self.
The reason is the Self/Nirvana is not samsara or anything in the realm of Samsara....

Hence: Majjhima Nikaya 36. "When a monk's mind is thus freed, O monks, neither the gods with Indra, nor the gods with Brahma, nor the gods with the Lord of Creatures (Pajaapati), when searching will find[36] on what the consciousness of one thus gone (tathaagata) is based. Why is that? One who has thus gone is no longer traceable here and now, so I say.[37]

As the Buddha had be saying the Self/Nirvana is not "this" world or what belongs to it...it is beyond

Also the Self (as it is taught by Maha boowa and Dolpopa) has two different meanings...one is an individual personality.....the other Self is a word that carries a list of attributes i.e (True) Self is permenant,blissfull,unchanging,everlasting not subject to decay, unconditioned.....theses qualities IS the definition of (True)Self.
Last edited by Son of Buddha on Wed Dec 18, 2013 8:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 853
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Common Anatta Question

Postby Son of Buddha » Wed Dec 18, 2013 8:21 am

smcj wrote:
I only claimed that emptiness is viewed as a negation of something else in the 1st and 3rd turning sutras.

The 3rd turning "empty of other" view* is a positive statement. Terminology may differ, but the non-conceptual Wisdom Mind (to use Khenpo Tsultrim's term) is said to have absolute and true existence. It is not self-empty, which is the whole "Anatta Question" of the 1st turning. It is what is to be realized in enlightenment, not somehow negated.

But if you read Dolpopa you should know that already.


Yep thats my point Enlightenment is not empty(negation)
of itself...it is only empty(negation) of all defilement

If your going to call someone an eternalist at least have the respect to show what the Buddha defined eternalism to be,..then show how that persons fits the Buddha"s defined term...........otherwise your just name calling.

The Dhamma Wheel website is oriented towards the Pali Suttas. This one is more oriented towards the later schools, so a definition used by the later schools for "eternalism" is more appropriate. I believe that definition would be to posit something, such as an aspect of mind, as unchanging and truly existent--which I just did a moment ago. So I think that most versions of the Shentong view, and there are a number of versions, probably would be correctly considered eternalistic. But even as a self-avowed Shengtongpa I really don't care. If one is practicing the tantras the whole question is rendered moot, imo.

But that's just me. I've got no authoritative quotation or scriptural citation to back that claim up.


A quote from the 3rd turning sutras on eternalism would define the term and allow one to say wether one is or isnt a eternalist.

I essentially defined the term "eternalism" in the pali canon.....so if the term is the same in the 3rd turning sutras as it is in the pali canon then its safe to say your not an eternalist
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 853
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Common Anatta Question

Postby smcj » Wed Dec 18, 2013 8:28 am

.so if the term is the same in the 3rd turning sutras as it is in the pali canon then its safe to say your not an eternalist

Khenpo Tsultrim's "Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness" had eternalism in its glossary:

Eternalism. (Tib. rtag lta)
The belief that there is a permanent and causeless creator of everything; in particular, that one's identity or consciousness has a concrete essence which is independent, everlasting and singular.(formatting mine)

This of course is from a book by the foremost exponent of Shentong in the Karma Kagyu school.

Yep thats my point Enlightenment is not empty (negation)
of itself...it is only empty (negation) of all defilement.

Yes, that's the Shentong view, and I agree with your point. I just find it perfectly acceptable to subscribe to the Shentong view without having to interpret the Pali Suttas in a way so as to accommodate that view. Why bother?
A human being has his limits. And thus, in every conceivable way, with every possible means, he tries to make the teaching enter into his own limits. ChNN
smcj
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Common Anatta Question

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Wed Dec 18, 2013 2:27 pm

Son of Buddha wrote: You actually misquoted me I stated


Sorry.
I thought you were saying that the 1st and 3rd turning views on Emptiness
assert that emptiness is viewed as a negation (i.e what is not Nirvana).

That isn't what you were saying?


Perhaps i misunderstand your reference.
What exactly are you referring to as 1st and 3rd turning views on Emptiness ?
.
.
.
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: 2845
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Previous

Return to Exploring Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dan74, Google [Bot] and 11 guests

>