Mind versus Self?

No holds barred discussion on the Buddhadharma. Argue about rebirth, karma, commentarial interpretations etc. Be nice to each other.

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Son of Buddha » Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:34 pm

"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. :D

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

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 :D


"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 :D
(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 :D
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby futerko » Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:38 pm

Karma Dorje wrote:Nrvana?!

:rolling:
we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche
User avatar
futerko
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:58 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Son of Buddha » Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:59 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
songhill wrote:
PadmaVonSamba wrote: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.
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Karma Dondrup Tashi » Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:01 pm

Son of Buddha wrote:false self false Self True Self True Self False Self true Self True Self


Image

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
Last edited by Karma Dondrup Tashi on Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Karma Dondrup Tashi
 
Posts: 1011
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:13 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:29 pm

Son of Buddha wrote:
Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:
gregkavarnos wrote: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.
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 7948
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Son of Buddha » Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:51 pm

gregkavarnos wrote: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.
:namaste:


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) :D
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Tue Jan 29, 2013 2:33 am

Son of Buddha wrote: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.

.
.
.
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: 2800
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Tue Aug 13, 2013 8:17 pm

Some have tried to paint the deabte over the past 36 pages as one of the Shentong (that the nature of mind, the substratum of the mindstream, is empty of all qualities other than an inherent, ineffable nature) view vs the Rangtong (that all phenomena are unequivocally empty of self-nature) view. But it seems that, in reality, the debate is actually atmavada (propositions in support of atman) vs anatmavada (propositions in support of anatman).

Why this differentiation? In effect both Shentong and Rangtong views are based on the principle of antaman, Shengtonpas do not equate the "luminous clarity," "luminous awareness," or "the clear light nature of mind," as evidence of a self of any type whatsoever.

When it comes to the defintion of atman, though, we find:
1. Atman %{A} m. (variously derived fr. %{an} , to breathe ; %{at} , to move ; %{vA} , to blow ; cf. %{tma4n}) the breath RV. ; the soul , principle of life and sensation RV. AV. &c. ; the individual soul , self , abstract individual [e.g. %{Atma4n}] (Ved. loc.) %{dhatte} , or %{karoti} , `" he places in himself "' , makes his own TS. v S3Br. ; %{AtmanA@akarot} , `" he did it himself "' Ka1d. ; %{AtmanA@vi-yuj} , `" to lose one's life "' Mn. vii , 46 ; %{Atman} in the sg. is used as reflexive pronoun for all three persons and all three genders e.g. %{AtmAnaM@sA@hanti} , `" she strikes herself "' ; %{putram@AtmanaH@spRSTvA@nipetatuH} , `" they two having touched their son fell down "' R. ii , 64 , 28 ; [see also below s.v. %{AtmanA}] ; essence , nature , character , peculiarity (often ifc. e.g. %{karmA7tman} , &c.) RV. x , 97 , 11 , &c. ; the person or whole body considered as one and opposed to the separate members of the body VS. S3Br. ; the body Ragh. i , 14 Ra1matUp. ; (ifc.) `" the understanding , intellect , mind "' see %{naSTA7tman} , %{mandA7-} ; the highest personal principle of life , Brahma (cf. %{paramA7tman}) AV. x , 8 , 44 VS. xxxii , 11 S3Br. xiv , &c. ; effort L. ; (= %{dhRti}) firmness L. ; the sun L. ; fire L. ; a son L. ; [Old Germ. {a1tum} ; Angl. Sax. {oedhm} ; Mod. Germ. {Athem} , {Odem} ; Gk. $ , $ (?).] &42279[135 ,1]
http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.d ... /recherche With the term karmatman being used to describe an essence or nature.

Thus it seems that all the proponents of the "True Self" view, in this debate, basically fall into the category of defenders of the existence of an atman. Each to their own, one might say, and be completely justified in saying so. The problems begin when the proponents of a "True Self" claim that their view is a Buddhist view, when in fact it is not. Not only do the quoted passages from the Pali Canon clearly show that the Buddha did not teach the existence of an atman, even the Mahayana Tathagatagarbha Sutras quoted quite clearly state that the teachings on "True Self" are expedient means in order to bring believers in an atman, onto the Buddhist path.

The major problem is the deception utilised in order to prove a point: quotes taken out of context, intentional mistranslations and misinterpretations of canonical sources, ignoring key questions in order to focus on meaningless details, etc... It seems that the attempt to grasp and cling to a sense of self (both a metaphysical and a physical) is so great that some go to any length in order to achieve it.

I have gone to great effort to present the sources for all the Pali Canon Sutta quoted in this thread. All the passages quoted are from the Nikaya translations by Bhikkhu Bodhi and from the Access to Insight website. I went to this effort so that readers have access to the full texts that are referenced to in an "off-hand" manner in the thread. I went to this effort because one of the contributors to the thread actually engaged in intentional deception.

This thread will remain locked and pinned for reference sake. Any further debate on the issue (in the form of new threads for discussion) will be locked and participants will be linked to this thread in order to avoid the continuous, repetitive and essentially useless discussion of the issue. There is more than enough information in this thread, from both sides of the argument, for a reader to reach their own conclusions (or to act as a basis for continued personal research on the matter).
:namaste:
Greg
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 7948
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Previous

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dan74, Google [Bot], mikenz66, udawa and 13 guests

>