Both positions are wrong.Padmist wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 12:10 amYou meant the 2nd part right?
We can't say this -> "that goats karma/characteristics/habits got transferred to the newly born guy (Padmist)"
But can I say this? -> When you die, you just die, it's over. No reincarnation or resurrection or anything. If "you" are reborn, it isn't you at all. It's a totally different new guy.
On Rebirth - Is it the same guy?
Re: On Rebirth - Is it the same guy?
-
- Posts: 7885
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Re: On Rebirth - Is it the same guy?
There is a continuum. It just isn't unchanging. Everything about it is subject to change. There has to be a continuum otherwise the karma of one person is being experienced by another, which is contrary to everything the Buddha taught.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Re: On Rebirth - Is it the same guy?
i have hard time distinguishing between the meaning of terms like consciousness, mind, awareness and intelligence.. so if i use a loose term "primordial awareness", then when and where it fits into this scheme?
stay open, spread love
-
- Posts: 2124
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:32 am
Re: On Rebirth - Is it the same guy?
Malcolm is a Teacher and specifically he Teaches and Trasnmits Dzogchen.He explains all of these questions in detail to his students.
He is very generous with his knowledge on this board and even more so if you are a student of his.
Re: On Rebirth - Is it the same guy?
"primordial awareness" is beyond time and place and it don't move or transfer at all. It has no position or limit.
/magnus
"We are all here to help each other go through this thing, whatever it is."
~Kurt Vonnegut
"The principal practice is Guruyoga. But we need to understand that any secondary practice combined with Guruyoga becomes a principal practice." ChNNR (Teachings on Thun and Ganapuja)
~Kurt Vonnegut
"The principal practice is Guruyoga. But we need to understand that any secondary practice combined with Guruyoga becomes a principal practice." ChNNR (Teachings on Thun and Ganapuja)
- Supramundane
- Posts: 621
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:38 am
- Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Re: On Rebirth - Is it the same guy?
I think this is one of the most difficult concepts to grasp because it is actually dificult to understand, isolated on its own. Rebirth is inextricably linked to various other concepts, and that is why whatever answer you are given here will be at best fragmentary.
"Mind made bodies are based on ignorance", as set out in Queen Srimālā of the Lion's Roar Sutra. There is a rising of senses, and then a destruction of senses. This is all.
'Self is just a name, and that name is empty. Realizing the emptiness of a name is Bodhi. One should seek Bodhi without using names' (paraphrasing a bit)
Perhaps it would be easier to grasp rebirth and self if you tried instead to grasp the opposite, the True Self, as delineated in the Sutra of the Perfection of Wisdom.
"True suchness, neither real nor unreal, neither coming nor going, with neither a self or no self, is called reality."
Rebirth will become clearer the longer you contemplate this question. I think one of the misconceptions that you are struggling under is that the mind is somehow yours or that it is inside your body.
As a thought experiment, tell me how your conception of rebirth and self would change if you were to suddenly realize that this was not the case...
Re: On Rebirth - Is it the same guy?
Well, this is an English word. So it is hard to know what it is supposed to mean unless you give more context.
Re: On Rebirth - Is it the same guy?
There is no such thing in Buddhadharma. Suchness is not a self, as the very passage you cite states.Supramundane wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 10:10 am Perhaps it would be easier to grasp rebirth and self if you tried instead to grasp the opposite, the True Self,
- Supramundane
- Posts: 621
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:38 am
- Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Re: On Rebirth - Is it the same guy?
I am only quoting the sutra, which uses the term. However, it is not to be interpreted as a soul or atman. We know this because in the same sutra it states explicitly that 'self is just a name'.
It goes on to say that Buddha is just a name too and realizing the emptiness of a name is Bodhi.
I think there is a series of Tathagata sutras that speak in positive terms. Used correctly, it is acceptable.
It goes on to say that Buddha is just a name too and realizing the emptiness of a name is Bodhi.
I think there is a series of Tathagata sutras that speak in positive terms. Used correctly, it is acceptable.
- PadmaVonSamba
- Posts: 9446
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Re: On Rebirth - Is it the same guy?
“True self” is sort of a contradiction,Malcolm wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 12:17 pmThere is no such thing in Buddhadharma. Suchness is not a self, as the very passage you cite states.Supramundane wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 10:10 am Perhaps it would be easier to grasp rebirth and self if you tried instead to grasp the opposite, the True Self,
a logical impossibility.
When one tries to find a true (ultimate) “self”,
nothing can be found to be truly there.
If it isn’t truly there, how can it be true?
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
- Supramundane
- Posts: 621
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:38 am
- Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Re: On Rebirth - Is it the same guy?
It's mentioned in the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra, Maha Prajna Paramita. I share your misgivings. But there it is.
One interpretation could be that there is a trend in Mahayana to speak in positives, even though it is controversial since it could mislead some people.
Remember that, although the Buddha rejected an eternal self, he never advocated no self. The middle way is in between, and I think that's what is meant by the True Self in this sutra: the correct conception of self, which is in between the eternal and the nihilistic.
But usually Buddhism expresses itself in terms of negations --- not negatives--- but negations. And thus true self is controversial, but we do see it in certain sutras where Buddhahood is spoken as a 'womb' or an 'embryo'.
If we speak of it as a womb, it is pure potential, but if we speak of it as an embryo, that means that there is something there. It is a positive.
I think that if we are careful in judicious, it's okay to speak in positives, such as true self and true mind as opposed to false self and false mind.
In the Surangama sutra --- one which you quote frequently and one which I believe you are currently reading, my friend --- I hate to tell you, but there are 149 references to true mind, true eternity, true bliss, true purity, and yes, true self. Do not mistake true with eternal, however. As I stated above, I believe 'true' refers more to a true conception of self, i.e. a non-self.
The other sutras which refer to Buddhanature in the positive are the Platform Sutra, the Queen Srimālā of the Lion's Roar Sutra, the Sutra of Complete Enlightenment, Mahaparanirvana Sutra, among others.
One interpretation could be that there is a trend in Mahayana to speak in positives, even though it is controversial since it could mislead some people.
Remember that, although the Buddha rejected an eternal self, he never advocated no self. The middle way is in between, and I think that's what is meant by the True Self in this sutra: the correct conception of self, which is in between the eternal and the nihilistic.
But usually Buddhism expresses itself in terms of negations --- not negatives--- but negations. And thus true self is controversial, but we do see it in certain sutras where Buddhahood is spoken as a 'womb' or an 'embryo'.
If we speak of it as a womb, it is pure potential, but if we speak of it as an embryo, that means that there is something there. It is a positive.
I think that if we are careful in judicious, it's okay to speak in positives, such as true self and true mind as opposed to false self and false mind.
In the Surangama sutra --- one which you quote frequently and one which I believe you are currently reading, my friend --- I hate to tell you, but there are 149 references to true mind, true eternity, true bliss, true purity, and yes, true self. Do not mistake true with eternal, however. As I stated above, I believe 'true' refers more to a true conception of self, i.e. a non-self.
The other sutras which refer to Buddhanature in the positive are the Platform Sutra, the Queen Srimālā of the Lion's Roar Sutra, the Sutra of Complete Enlightenment, Mahaparanirvana Sutra, among others.
Re: On Rebirth - Is it the same guy?
It's all just the ripples in the river.
Re: On Rebirth - Is it the same guy?
No, the term "true self" is not used in any Prajñāpāramita sūtra.Supramundane wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 1:28 pm It's mentioned in the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra, Maha Prajna Paramita. I share your misgivings. But there it is.
One interpretation could be that there is a trend in Mahayana to speak in positives, even though it is controversial since it could mislead some people.
False.Remember that, although the Buddha rejected an eternal self, he never advocated no self.
Not, this is not correct. There is nothing in the middle which can be termed "a self," true or otherwise.The middle way is in between, and I think that's what is meant by the True Self in this sutra: the correct conception of self, which is in between the eternal and the nihilistic.
No, there we just see the term "self" used. How? As in the Uttaratantra commentary by Asanga, the term ātmapāramitā refers to a kind of two fold purity: freedom from the taint of general and specific characteristics, posited as freedom from the eternalist atman of nonbuddhists and the annihilationist anatman of śrāvakayānists.But usually Buddhism expresses itself in terms of negations --- not negatives--- but negations. And thus true self is controversial, but we do see it in certain sutras where Buddhahood is spoken as a 'womb' or an 'embryo'.
And no, tathāgatagarbha is not "buddhahood." For example, the Lanka equates it with the ālayavijñana.
No, there isn't anything "there."If we speak of it as a womb, it is pure potential, but if we speak of it as an embryo, that means that there is something there. It is a positive.
All concepts of self are false imputations.I think that if we are careful in judicious, it's okay to speak in positives, such as true self and true mind as opposed to false self and false mind.
I don't accept that this is a valid sūtra. It is a Chinese pastiche.In the Surangama sutra --- one which you quote frequently and one which I believe you are currently reading, my friend --- I hate to tell you, but there are 149 references to true mind, true eternity, true bliss, true purity, and yes, true self. Do not mistake true with eternal, however. As I stated above, I believe 'true' refers more to a true conception of self, i.e. a non-self.
The Platform Sūtra is not a sūtra.The other sutras which refer to Buddhanature in the positive are the Platform Sutra, the Queen Srimālā of the Lion's Roar Sutra, the Sutra of Complete Enlightenment, Mahaparanirvana Sutra, among others.
Nevetheless, the second turning of the wheel is definitive, not the third. This is easily proven through both scripture and reasoning.
With respect to the tathāgatagarbha doctrine, if understood correctly, it can be understood as definitive, understood as you have presented it above, "If we speak of it as a womb, it is pure potential, but if we speak of it as an embryo, that means that there is something there. It is a positive," this is just eternalism, not better than the Hindu concept of self. So no.
- PadmaVonSamba
- Posts: 9446
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Re: On Rebirth - Is it the same guy?
No disagreement here, if used casually.Supramundane wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 1:28 pm I think that if we are careful in judicious, it's okay to speak in positives, such as true self and true mind as opposed to false self and false mind.
One might say, “your true self is limitless” or something similar. But it’s not an actual “self”.
However, I think “true self” would be better expressed as “one’s true nature”.
Similarly, “the mind’s true nature”.
It’s a tricky bit of word-juggling.
It is “self” only to the degree that it is individually experienced. Myself is different from yourself. Even then, it’s not really a self. It’s an ever-changing stream of arising conditions.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
- Supramundane
- Posts: 621
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:38 am
- Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Re: On Rebirth - Is it the same guy?
Malcolm, I bow to your superior learning, of course, and you are right about the Perfection of Wisdom in 700 lines. It does not say true self, i remembered it incorrectly. The Sutra does make reference to true reality, true suchness, but not true self.
But it does say "the view that one has a self is true reality" but this self is equated with 'true suchness, neither real or unreal, neither coming or going with neither a self nor no-self is called reality'.
I stand by my claim that the Buddha never declared that there is no self; anatman is non-self. If he maintained that there was no self, would this not be nihilism?
He advocated the middle way, which means a non-self. A negation of an eternal self, but not the nihilism of no-self. If there was a total denial of self, then there could be no rebirth. There is the eigth consciousness... there is rebirth...
And it does seem that embryo suggest something is there at least in terms of images. Womb is an empty space of potential, but embryo is something there, and I would refer to your Lanka reference of the alaya-vijnana as that embryo.
The alaya-vijnana could be the non-self that the Tahtagata sutras are pointing to. If described in the positive, the danger is that people would think that we are falling into eternalism, as you fear i am now (i hope i am not:)).
But in fact, insisting upon a true hard diamond part of our nature is simply perhaps skillful means, as the Lanka Sutra itself says:
"For those attached to existence, Tahtagatagharba is emptiness; for those attached to non-existence, Tahtagatagharba is the Dharma nature; for
those attached neither to existence nor non-existence, it is intrinsic Nirvana; and for those attached to existence and non-existence, it is Nirvana."
( sorry I garbled the quote a bit, it is from memory.)
But it does say "the view that one has a self is true reality" but this self is equated with 'true suchness, neither real or unreal, neither coming or going with neither a self nor no-self is called reality'.
I stand by my claim that the Buddha never declared that there is no self; anatman is non-self. If he maintained that there was no self, would this not be nihilism?
He advocated the middle way, which means a non-self. A negation of an eternal self, but not the nihilism of no-self. If there was a total denial of self, then there could be no rebirth. There is the eigth consciousness... there is rebirth...
And it does seem that embryo suggest something is there at least in terms of images. Womb is an empty space of potential, but embryo is something there, and I would refer to your Lanka reference of the alaya-vijnana as that embryo.
The alaya-vijnana could be the non-self that the Tahtagata sutras are pointing to. If described in the positive, the danger is that people would think that we are falling into eternalism, as you fear i am now (i hope i am not:)).
But in fact, insisting upon a true hard diamond part of our nature is simply perhaps skillful means, as the Lanka Sutra itself says:
"For those attached to existence, Tahtagatagharba is emptiness; for those attached to non-existence, Tahtagatagharba is the Dharma nature; for
those attached neither to existence nor non-existence, it is intrinsic Nirvana; and for those attached to existence and non-existence, it is Nirvana."
( sorry I garbled the quote a bit, it is from memory.)
- Supramundane
- Posts: 621
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:38 am
- Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Re: On Rebirth - Is it the same guy?
Also, the platform Sutra is not a Sutra, why not?
Sort of like the way Pluto is not a planet? LOL
Sort of like the way Pluto is not a planet? LOL
- Supramundane
- Posts: 621
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:38 am
- Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Re: On Rebirth - Is it the same guy?
I agree with your points. I think the Tathagata sutras came about perhaps because Buddhism was seen as totally negative and misunderstood as nihilism. As a result, there was a movement to insist upon a type of potential, something positive.PadmaVonSamba wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 2:02 pmNo disagreement here, if used casually.Supramundane wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 1:28 pm I think that if we are careful in judicious, it's okay to speak in positives, such as true self and true mind as opposed to false self and false mind.
One might say, “your true self is limitless” or something similar. But it’s not an actual “self”.
However, I think “true self” would be better expressed as “one’s true nature”.
Similarly, “the mind’s true nature”.
It’s a tricky bit of word-juggling.
It is “self” only to the degree that it is individually experienced. Myself is different from yourself. Even then, it’s not really a self. It’s an ever-changing stream of arising conditions.
In the Lankavatara Sutra, in fact, the reference is to gold, which is covered in impurities or to a window which is covered by dirt. But underneath, there is pure gold there --- and that gold was always there... it is the true nature which needs no smelting or refining.
The Buddha himself, remember, hesitated upon Enlightenment, wondering whether it was possible to teach his doctrine because it was so complex. The teacup must be carefully composed if it is to hold tea; constructing the cup is not enough to reach enlightenment, you must taste the tea --- But if the cup is not properly composed, the whole process will fall apart. To borrow a famous analogy...
To return to the Island of Lanka: "Liberation is becoming aware that the world and our mind are neither one nor different."
Technically, it is wrong to speak of a true self, but look at the confusion of the OP. How can one conceive of rebirth and concepts, such as Nirvana, buddhahood, karma, etc, if there is absolutely no self? It boggles the beginner's mind. I think the notion of true self is hinted at broadly, but never strongly for fear of falling into eternalism. It can be a didactic crutch in some instances.
Re: On Rebirth - Is it the same guy?
No, it’s a biography of Huineng.Supramundane wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 2:51 pm Also, the platform Sutra is not a Sutra, why not?
Sort of like the way Pluto is not a planet? LOL
- PadmaVonSamba
- Posts: 9446
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Re: On Rebirth - Is it the same guy?
The experience of self certainly occurs, and perhaps one might say propels “itself” through one lifetime after another. The Buddha certainly recognized that this is what people experience. Every other sutra it seems relates one way or another to that experience.Supramundane wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 2:50 pm He advocated the middle way, which means a non-self. A negation of an eternal self, but not the nihilism of no-self. If there was a total denial of self, then there could be no rebirth. There is the eigth consciousness... there is rebirth...
However, if one takes the position that there is some kind of “illusion-self” on the one hand, that wallows in samsara, and on the other hand a “true self” that’s enlightened or has that potential (tathagatagharba), this is a mistaken understanding of the teachings.
If one asserts there is a ‘true self’ then what is its opposite? “Illusion self” or something like that?
Last edited by PadmaVonSamba on Sat Sep 25, 2021 3:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Re: On Rebirth - Is it the same guy?
No, it’s a biography of Huineng. It and other Chinese texts spurious and otherwise are irrelevant in this forum.Supramundane wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 2:51 pm Also, the platform Sutra is not a Sutra, why not?
Sort of like the way Pluto is not a planet? LOL