Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?

[Bakmoon]

As I understand it, 'to teach the self exists is eternalism, to teach that the self doesn't exist is nihilism'. So neither the view 'the self exists' nor the view 'the self doesn't exist' are the correct view. That I take as the meaning of the Ananda Sutta.

That's a serious misreading and taking out of context of the Ananda Sutta. The Sutta concludes by saying:

"Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"

"No, lord."

"And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'"

So in this very text the Buddha says that one of the reasons he wouldn't be able to say there was a self is that it would contradict his teaching of Anatta, and one of the reasons he didn't say there was no self is that Vacchagotta would have become very confused. It was the Buddha's great ability to speak with people at there level that the Buddha remained silent.

And of course that's only addressing a single Sutta. There are many, many Suttas about the Buddha's teaching of Anatta that are crystal clear, so to read into a single ambiguous situation when the Buddha was silent when the Buddha gave explicit teachings in other places is a hermeneutical mistake.

Elsewhere he says 'In accordance with the diverse mental capacities and aptitudes of the people they [the Buddhas] teach the (one) dharma in a variety of ways. Sometimes the dharma is taught through existence, sometimes through non-existence, sometimes through permanence, other times through impermance, sometimes through self and other times through "no self". ...

The Buddha taught that the self exists and He also taught that there is no self. He taught that all things exist and he also taught that all things are śūnya, that everything is devoid of existence. The Śāstra teaches that while for a superficial view there seems to be a mutual contradiction in these, there is no contradiction in fact, for these are different ways of expressing one and the same truth. By nature things are such that they are neither existent nor absolutely non-existent; they are conditionally existent and by their nature becoming. In the becoming of things, the aspects of "is" and "is not" are distinguishable though they are not seperable.'

Nāgārjuna's Philosophy, K Venkata Ramanan.

Please explain if this understanding is incorrect.

I don't think that is right. The Buddha didn't simply say there is a self, and also there is no self, and put them on the same level. Rather, the Buddha sometimes spoke in terms of a self not because he asserted one, but because he was speaking in accordance with worldly convention. The Buddha explicitly said so in several Suttas. For example:

[Deva:] He who's an Arahant, his work achieved, Free from taints, in final body clad, That monk still might use such words as "I." Still perchance might say: "They call this mine." ... Would such a monk be prone to vain conceits?

[The Blessed One:] Bonds are gone for him without conceits, All delusion's chains are cast aside: Truly wise, he's gone beyond such thoughts. That monk still might use such words as "I," Still perchance might say: "They call this mine." Well aware of common worldly speech, He would speak conforming to such use.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .wlsh.html

[dzogchungpa]

That's a serious misreading and taking out of context of the Ananda Sutta.

You should really let Thanissaro Bhikkhu know, since that is basically how he reads it.

The Sutta concludes by saying:

"Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"

"No, lord."

"And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'"

So in this very text the Buddha says that one of the reasons he wouldn't be able to say there was a self is that it would contradict his teaching of Anatta

more precisely, his teaching that all dhamma are anatta,

and one of the reasons he didn't say there was no self is that Vacchagotta would have become very confused.

but the other reason mentioned is that he "would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism".

BTW, before anyone gets mad at me, let me remind people that I am not an atmavadin, and anyway, this is in the Tibetan Buddhism forum.

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

... we haven't even made it to the base camp yet ...

Even in the lower tantras, emptiness is just Base Camp.

[Matt J]

Well, no matter how Thanissaro Bikkhu interprets the particular sutta, his stance is unequivocal:

Multiply the four varieties of self by their three modes, and you have twelve types of theories about the self. All of these theories the Buddha rejects. He doesn't agree with any of them, because they all involve clinging, which is something you have to comprehend and let go. This means that his not-self teaching is not just negating specific types of self — such as a cosmic self, a permanent self, or an ordinary individual self. It negates every imaginable way of defining the self.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... tself.html

[Malcolm]

more precisely, his teaching that all dhamma are anatta,

...including nirvana...

[dzogchungpa]

Well, no matter how Thanissaro Bikkhu interprets the particular sutta, his stance is unequivocal:

Multiply the four varieties of self by their three modes, and you have twelve types of theories about the self. All of these theories the Buddha rejects. He doesn't agree with any of them, because they all involve clinging, which is something you have to comprehend and let go. This means that his not-self teaching is not just negating specific types of self — such as a cosmic self, a permanent self, or an ordinary individual self. It negates every imaginable way of defining the self.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... tself.html

Well, as I said, I'm not an atmavadin, but I suggest you read that whole book before you determine how equivocal or unequivocal TB's stance is. Here's a nice quote towards the end:

... the Buddha never said that there is no self, and he never said that there is a self. The question of whether a self does or doesn't exist is a question he put aside.

[Malcolm]

Well, no matter how Thanissaro Bikkhu interprets the particular sutta, his stance is unequivocal:

Multiply the four varieties of self by their three modes, and you have twelve types of theories about the self. All of these theories the Buddha rejects. He doesn't agree with any of them, because they all involve clinging, which is something you have to comprehend and let go. This means that his not-self teaching is not just negating specific types of self — such as a cosmic self, a permanent self, or an ordinary individual self. It negates every imaginable way of defining the self.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... tself.html

Well, as I said, I'm not an atmavadin, but I suggest you read that whole book and see how equivocal or unequivocal TB's stance is. Here's a nice quote towards the end:

... the Buddha never said that there is no self, and he never said that there is a self. The question of whether a self does or doesn't exist is a question he put aside.

Thanissaro is here quite mistaken.

[Son of Buddha]

more precisely, his teaching that all dhamma are anatta,

...including nirvana...

What you are promoting is called the 4 perversions of the dharma, to think full enlightenment is not self is the 3rd perversion.


Nirvana Sutra

The Self’ signifies the Buddha; ‘the Eternal’ signifies the Dharmakaya; ‘Bliss’ signifies Nirvana, and ‘the Pure’ signifies Dharma. Bhiksus, why is it said that one who has the idea of a Self is arrogant and haughty, traversing round Samsara? Bhiksus, although you might say, ‘We also cultivate impermanence, suffering, and non-Self, these three kinds of cultivation have no real value/ meaning. I shall now explain the excellent three ways of cultivating Dharma. To think of suffering as Bliss and to think of Bliss as suffering, is perverse Dharma; to think of the impermanent as the Eternal and to think of the Eternal as impermanent is perverse Dharma; to think of the non-Self [anatman]as the Self [atman] and to think of the Self [atman] as non-Self [anatman] is perverse Dharma; to think of the impure as the Pure and to think of the Pure as impure is perverse Dharma. Whoever has these four kinds of perversion, that person does not know the correct cultivation of dharmas.
V119. These are called perversions/ inversions. Because of these perversions/ inversions, mundane people know the letters but not the meaning [referents]. What is the meaning/referent? Non-Self is Samsara, the Self is the Tathagata; impermanence is the sravakas and pratyekabuddhas, the Eternal is the Tathagata’s Dharmakaya; suffering is all tirthikas, Bliss is Nirvana; the impure is all compounded [samskrta] dharmas , the Pure is the true Dharma that the Buddha and Bodhisattvas have. This is called non-perversion/ non-inversion. By not being inverted [in one’s views], one will know [both] the letter and the meaning. If one desires to be freed from the four perverse/ inverted [views – catur-viparita-drsti], one should know the Eternal, Blissful, the Self and the Pure in this manner.”

[Son of Buddha]

Thanissaro is here quite mistaken.

Or you are mistaken

[Malcolm]

more precisely, his teaching that all dhamma are anatta,

...including nirvana...

What you are promoting is called the 4 perversions of the dharma, to think full enlightenment is not self is the 3rd perversion.

The Self’ signifies the Buddha; ‘the Eternal’ signifies the Dharmakaya; ‘Bliss’ signifies Nirvana, and ‘the Pure’ signifies Dharma. Bhiksus, why is it said that one who has the idea of a Self is arrogant and haughty, traversing round Samsara? Bhiksus, although you might say, ‘We also cultivate impermanence, suffering, and non-Self, these three kinds of cultivation have no real value/ meaning. I shall now explain the excellent three ways of cultivating Dharma. To think of suffering as Bliss and to think of Bliss as suffering, is perverse Dharma; to think of the impermanent as the Eternal and to think of the Eternal as impermanent is perverse Dharma; to think of the non-Self [anatman]as the Self [atman] and to think of the Self [atman] as non-Self [anatman] is perverse Dharma; to think of the impure as the Pure and to think of the Pure as impure is perverse Dharma. Whoever has these four kinds of perversion, that person does not know the correct cultivation of dharmas.
V119. These are called perversions/ inversions. Because of these perversions/ inversions, mundane people know the letters but not the meaning [referents]. What is the meaning/referent? Non-Self is Samsara, the Self is the Tathagata; impermanence is the sravakas and pratyekabuddhas, the Eternal is the Tathagata’s Dharmakaya; suffering is all tirthikas, Bliss is Nirvana; the impure is all compounded [samskrta] dharmas , the Pure is the true Dharma that the Buddha and Bodhisattvas have. This is called non-perversion/ non-inversion. By not being inverted [in one’s views], one will know [both] the letter and the meaning. If one desires to be freed from the four perverse/ inverted [views – catur-viparita-drsti], one should know the Eternal, Blissful, the Self and the Pure in this manner.”

As I said, you do not understand the meaning of what you read. And obsessively repeating the same quotation over and over again does not mean anything. The meaning of this sūtra is not explicit, it is indirect.

[Vimalakirti432]

Syncretism indeed is a problem since each tradition uses terms and concepts in its own integrated way, and to mix traditions can muddle understanding and lead to confusion. At a certain point one has to choose (not wobble) if one is to seriously begin a practice.

Now there is of course the opposite extreme, for which I don't know that there's a word. "Fundamentalism" is way too harsh. One might say something like "incommensuralism" if didn't sound so weird and wasn't so hard to spell!

This is when practitioners become so enamored of the methods, practices, philosophical underpinnings and so on of their tradition that they really think they are in possession of some truth that is completely inaccessible by any other means. That is to say not just that they have the best method, or that their tradition is the most effective, but they literally know something that no other tradition can even approach.

To me this is magic thinking. Whatever other worlds there may be, we all live on this one, and as human beings we share a fundamental similarity. For thousands of years we have been wrestling with these questions. There are only so many options!

I recall a jibe of Chrisopher Hitchens against Christians, especially of the Calvinist type, that on the one hand they call themselves lowly worms, and on the other God's special creation!

I like David Loy.

I think the issue is 'attachment to views'. It's quite a well-known principle in Buddhism, that 'views' of any kind are ultimately problematical. There is the vivid passage in the Aggi-Vachagotta Sutta about holding to views:

the position that 'the cosmos is eternal' is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, & fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding.

So here in this thread, the subject of debate is the perennial subject, whether there is a 'true self'. In fact this same Vachagotta, who was recipient of the above advice, had previously approached the Buddha, and asked the question 'is there a self, or is there not'? It has been pointed out that this is one of the only passages in the Pali suttas, where the word 'self' is used as a noun, 'atta', as distinct from its usage in the term anatta, which is adjectival, i.e. 'non-self'.

And in response to the direct question, 'is there a self', the Buddha did not respond, or rather, met the question with a noble silence.

When asked later as to why, he said that to say either 'yes' or 'no' the question was bound to mislead; 'yes' would be to side with 'the eternalists', who say there is an unchanging self that migrates from life to life'; 'no' would be to endorse nihilism.

T R V Murti, in his book The Central Philosophy of Buddhism, says that this verse is the origination of Madhyamika. So I think the Madhyamika view is the same: asserting a true self or real self-existent substance of any type, is 'eternalism', but denying the self exists is the opposite problem, nihilism. Hence the subtle nature of the middle path.

Of course that very subtlety gives rise to endless debates. At at certain point, I think it is better to simply contemplate the question rather than to debate it (Although it seems some Buddhists never grow tired of such debates.

Gee thanks for not recommending a book but only a short article!

I didn't read through all the scripture Nyanaponika Thera appended since I am familiar with them from past reading.

For my part I've never had a belief in a personal God. It has just never come up. My disposition as I've disclosed elsewhere is pantheistic in feeling, so I would be closest to those speaking of the ground of being, etc. But here again this article is typical in that it oversimplifies what the experience of something called a ground of being might be. Such experience doesn't necessarily entail the idea of some totality "out there" or entail that it is not dependently arisen. Here we're dealing with non-duality, which is not so easily pigeon holed or referenced to one particular conceptual scheme or another. As I've said before, from the Brahmajala sutta on Buddhism I feel has habitually given too short a shrift to ideas that may be uncomfortably close to its own.

On the other hand, in his defence against the suggestion of annihilationism he again is typical in offering no argument, or even plausible analogy but only the simple assertion that nibbana is great, since it's the extinction of greed, hatred and delusion, but entails no continuity in any sense, nor any trace of aggregates, which covering the mind/body are the only things we can know about or through. I've yet to find any explanation in the context of orthodox Theravadin Buddhism that shows how this really is the middle way and not perilously close to the annihilationist end. So there's no mystery as to why people will always be inventing new ways of reifying self. The early tradition gives them no other option.

Now just a little more disclosure. For a long time I've been torn between the poetry of the Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita on the one hand and Buddhist method on the other. The Upanishads because they simply state in their mahavakyas what I've always felt. A good place to start, no? Buddhism because I believed its method and framework might be most effective and that God-talk could be an obstacle to direct experience.

I can't say that I'll ever sort this out. Both sides can be so frustrating! But in truth I'll always be a poor fit for orthodoxy, though I understand this hardly makes me unique.

But here's the thing. Philosophers, theologians, dharma warriors through the ages mistrust or don't understand poetry, and so trash all non-officially sanctioned poetic expression. And so we have the stilted or hamstrung poetry of most orthodox religion and philosophy. The most famous and popular scriptures and portions of scriptures being so precisely because they are the exceptions. The Bhagavad Gita being as one of the prime examples.

The traditions constantly reiterate that the truth is non-conceptual and beyond words, and yet because they are wedded to doctrine, authorities, sanctioned interpretation etc., repeatedly fail to understand how figurative language, poetry, art is a privileged way out of the box. In short, they would condemn the imagination. So we have Plato banning the poets from his Republic, and the Yoga sutras setting aside the imagination essentially as a trick with words, as just two of innumerable examples. And so we have people unable to grasp what a 10 year child can grasp: that fiction can be truer than fact, as long as we understand it's fiction.

So obviously I agree with you about the futility of this endless self/no-self debate. Also, I believe my understanding on this issue is pretty much in alignment with yours, but I've already blabbed out my views elsewhere, at terrible length, so I'll spare you more of that!
But I would emphasize again that the real scandal in Buddhism is not the metaphysical but the conventional self. It's the conventional self that most confuses people, I think; in fact it so confuses them that they think they understand!

Otherwise, the uber hard-nose types - wherever they fall in the traditions - who would insist on taking no-self beyond what to me is indicated in the early texts, do so not so much based on the texts, but rather on their ultimate goal, what they think liberation really entails.

Is it a question of inconceivable spaces or realms, or is something more gentle, and natural? Or something in between? I think once we understand what a person is really after, we'll much better understand their views of "self", metaphysical, conventional or whatever. Unfortunately, I don't think it's a question we're likely to get clear answers to, at least without starting yet another flame war.

Anyway thanks Warfarer for your posts. It's been of benefit to talk to you.

[Son of Buddha]

As Vasubandhu states in the Kośabhaṣyam:

• Further, if it is asked whether there is liberation apart from this [Dharma] or not, there is not. If it is asked why, because of clinging to the false view of self, [others] do not maintain the definition that the continuum of the aggregates alone is designated as a self, they designate the self on some other substance alone, and therefore the afflictions arise from grasping at a self.
  
  If it is asked, "How are we to understand that the expression, 'self', is an expression used to engage the continuum of aggregates alone and nothing else?," it is because [a self] cannot be directly perceived nor can it be inferred. If those other phenomena that exist do not hinder it, it should be directly perceptible, in the case of the the six objects and the mind, or other wise inferable, as in the case of the sense organs.

Vasubandhu also said:

Vasubandhu on the Sutralamkara 9:23, Thurman translation:
23. In pure voidness buddhas achieve the supreme self of selflessness, and realize the spiritual greatness of the self by discovering the pure self.

As you can see the Buddha and other Buddhist masters distinguished different types of Atman, rejecting most form's but accepting their own interpretation of the term Atman.

Nirvana Sutra
Because of this, the Tathagata teaches and says no-self. This is to adjust beings and because he is aware of the occasion. Such non-self is, as occasion arises, spoken of, and it is [also] said that there is the Self.
V425. The wrestler says that the gem has gone away, even though it is [actually] in his body. The same with beings, too. Not having come into contact with a good teacher of the Way, they do not know the Tathagata’s hidden treasure and do not study selflessness. For example, even when a person is told of the unholy self, he cannot know the true quality of the Self. The same is true of my disciples. As they do not befriend a good teacher of the Way, they practise non-Self and do not know where it [Self] is. They do not know the true nature of selflessness. How, then, could they know the true nature of the Self itself?

Consistent with this remark by Vasubandhu we see the Buddha using the term atman to refer to himself, and so on as a mere designation, etc. He never uses it to refer to a real entity, not even in the much vaunted Nirvana Sūtra.

In the very much vaunted Nirvana Sutra the Buddha does describe the Atman as real, he literally tells you the meaning of the term of Atman and says that it is real.

Even though he has said that all phenomena [dharmas] are devoid of the Self, it is not that they are completely/ truly devoid of the Self. What is this Self? Any phenomenon [dharma] that is true [satya], real [tattva], eternal [nitya], sovereign/ autonomous/ self-governing [aisvarya], and whose ground/ foundation is unchanging [asraya-aviparinama], is termed ‘the Self’ [atman]. This is as in the case of the great Doctor who well understands the milk medicine. The same is the case with the Tathagata. For the sake of beings, he says “there is the Self in all things” O you the four classes! Learn Dharma thus!”

[Son of Buddha]

more precisely, his teaching that all dhamma are anatta.....including nirvana

As I said, you do not understand the meaning of what you read. And obsessively repeating the same quotation over and over again does not mean anything. The meaning of this sūtra is not explicit, it is indirect.

The meaning of the Sutra is explicit....hell the Buddha even tells you this is the correct meaning plain and clear

The correct meaning is Self is the Buddha and What is Not self is Samsara, and to consider that which is Self to be Not Self is one of the 4 perversions of the Dharma.

These are called perversions/ inversions. Because of these perversions/ inversions, mundane people know the letters but not the meaning [referents]. What is the MEANING/referent? Non-Self is Samsara, the Self is the Tathagata


to think of the non-Self [anatman]as the Self [atman] and to think of the Self [atman] as non-Self [anatman] is perverse Dharma; Whoever has these four kinds of perversion, that person does not know the correct cultivation cultivation

[Malcolm]

Vasubandhu also said:

Vasubandhu on the Sutralamkara 9:23, Thurman translation:
23. In pure voidness buddhas achieve the supreme self of selflessness, and realize the spiritual greatness of the self by discovering the pure self.


Yes, and here,


As you can see the Buddha and other Buddhist masters distinguished different types of Atman, rejecting most form's but accepting their own interpretation of the term Atman.

Again, this is intentional language and is not to be taken literally. For example, in the comment on this passage {which is by Maitreya and not Vasubandhu], Sthiramati's Sūtrālaṃkāravṛttibhāṣya provides useful clarification here:

• The term "self" in this context means "essence" [svabhāvatā], i.e., since the buddhas are are said to obtain the supreme self because of being the selfless essence. Since that is pure, the buddhas attain the pure supreme selfless self.
  

He continues in this vein:

• The Buddha is the dharmakāya. Since the dharmakāya is emptiness, because there are not only no imputable personal entities in emptiness, there are also no imputable phenomenal entities, there are therefore no entities at all.

Now, someone may wish to counter "Sure, the imputed nature does not exist, but the perfect nature does exist," but Sthiramati responds to this:

• The nature of the perfected does not exist. Since it does not exist in the same way the horn the hare of the imputed phenomena and persons, at that it is not defined as existent. It is also not a nonentity, because at that time suchness, the characteristic of the perfected exists.

This means that the perfected is not a substantial entity. It does exist however as a characteristic, and what is that characteristics, emptiness a.k.a suchness, which is not a self in any sense in which the word is used as an identifier, unless of course one wishes to claim, "The supreme identity is no identity" or "The supreme self is no self." This is precisely the meaning here. What this means is that this "self" is merely a designation and does not indicate anything real, any more than conventionally calling the stream of the aggregates a self does not indicate anything real.


Now, Sthiramati was a direct disciple of Vasubandhu, and I am quite sure he understands this text perfectly.

Consistent with this remark by Vasubandhu we see the Buddha using the term atman to refer to himself, and so on as a mere designation, etc. He never uses it to refer to a real entity, not even in the much vaunted Nirvana Sūtra.

In the very much vaunted Nirvana Sutra the Buddha does describe the Atman as real, he literally tells you the meaning of the term of Atman and says that it is real.

No, in the Nirvana Sutra, the Buddha is using intentional language that cannot be taken literally.

Further earlier in this chapter Maitreya declares at 9.4 "all phenomena are buddhahood," but according to your oft stated point of view, this is impossible since [buddha = self] and [self = not the aggregates] and so on.

So really, I think you need to rethink your literalism on these points.

[Malcolm]

The meaning of the Sutra is explicit...

No, it really isn't.

[dzogchungpa]

The meaning of the Sutra is explicit...

No, it really isn't.

Apparently some fairly reputable teachers think it is: http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.ph ... 97#p213897

[krodha]

The meaning of the Sutra is explicit...

No, it really isn't.

Apparently some fairly reputable teachers think it is: http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.ph ... 97#p213897

Those teachers are not addressing the meaning, or whether said meaning is implicit or explicit [i.e., meant to be taken literally].

The point being made above is that Son of Buddha is far to literal minded to understand that sūtra properly and so he takes the text at face value, which causes him to believe it is describing a real "self". He doesn't get that "self" is a rhetorical device.

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

This means that the perfected is not a substantial entity. It does exist however as a characteristic,

Without having it close at hand I remember in "When Clouds Part" Brunnholzl quotes HHKarmapa #8 as saying something to the effect that the Dharmakaya does not "exist", but that the form kayas are "empty-of-other".

Kind of a hybrid take on things, obviously there are lots of shades of grey. Seems like in terms of "view" you actually can have your cake and eat it too--or at lest you can try!

[dzogchungpa]

.... obviously there are lots of shades of grey.

Apparently, there are at least fifty.

[Rakz]

What is rainbow body? Is it not some kind of eternal entity of some sort?