Buddha nature vs Soul

If you're new to the forum or new to Buddhism, this is the best place for your questions. Responses require moderator approval before they are visible.
User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 24449
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddha nature vs Soul

Post by Malcolm » Mon Sep 11, 2017 1:48 pm

The PP in 100,000 Lines, it is said:
  • If it asked what is the samadhi known as the lamp of pristine consciousness, abiding in that samadhi is clearly explained as the absence of self in phenomena and persons.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


Free of hope and fear, relax.
Human life spent in
a state of great spaciousness is enjoyable.


— Kunzang Dechen Lingpa

pael
Posts: 394
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 12:49 pm

Re: Buddha nature vs Soul

Post by pael » Mon Sep 11, 2017 3:31 pm

Malcolm wrote:The PP in 100,000 Lines, it is said:
  • If it asked what is the samadhi known as the lamp of pristine consciousness, abiding in that samadhi is clearly explained as the absence of self in phenomena and persons.
When PP in 100,000 Lines will be translated?
May all beings be free from suffering and causes of suffering

krodha
Posts: 2132
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Buddha nature vs Soul

Post by krodha » Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:21 pm

Wayfarer wrote:Behoves us all to remember that when the Buddha was asked 'does the self exist, or not' that he didn't answer.
This is a strange narrative some Theravadins founded that has now seeped into many corners of the internet. Has led to much indeterminate confusion.

Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu Is at the root of it as far as I can tell.

Aryjna
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 12:45 pm

Re: Buddha nature vs Soul

Post by Aryjna » Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:45 pm

krodha wrote:
Wayfarer wrote:Behoves us all to remember that when the Buddha was asked 'does the self exist, or not' that he didn't answer.
This is a strange narrative some Theravadins founded that has now seeped into many corners of the internet. Has led to much indeterminate confusion.

Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu Is at the root of it as far as I can tell.
Isn't that contradictory to the basics of buddhism, how can anyone say that the buddha did not answer whether there is a self or not.

krodha
Posts: 2132
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Buddha nature vs Soul

Post by krodha » Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:41 pm

Aryjna wrote:
krodha wrote:
Wayfarer wrote:Behoves us all to remember that when the Buddha was asked 'does the self exist, or not' that he didn't answer.
This is a strange narrative some Theravadins founded that has now seeped into many corners of the internet. Has led to much indeterminate confusion.

Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu Is at the root of it as far as I can tell.
Isn't that contradictory to the basics of buddhism, how can anyone say that the buddha did not answer whether there is a self or not.
There is one instance in a sutta where the Buddha is asked directly whether there is a self or not and he remains silent because he knows the particular disciple he is addressing would only be further confused by an answer.

There is another instance where the view "I have no self" is deemed wrong view, however this is obviously addressing the possibility of leaving selflessness as a mere intellectual position.

These individuals also state that the term "anātman" translates to "not self" rather than "selflessness", "lack of self", "no self", etc., and they use this view of "not self" to promote the possibility that the Buddha underhandedly endorsed some sort of self via omission. Like apophatic theology where something ineffable is described through negating what it is not, rather than affirming what it indeed is. They say the skandhas, āyatanas and dhātus are "not self", ergo the possibility that there is a self elsewhere is very legitimate.

Somehow these examples have been misinterpreted as "the Buddha never teaching a lack of self", and as a result we see many practitioners lost in this indeterminate no-mans-land where they even sometimes actively reject the idea of selflessness.

User avatar
Losal Samten
Posts: 1135
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:05 pm

Re: Buddha nature vs Soul

Post by Losal Samten » Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:04 pm

krodha wrote:There is one instance in a sutta where the Buddha is asked directly whether there is a self or not and he remains silent because he knows the particular disciple he is addressing would only be further confused by an answer.

Somehow these examples have been misinterpreted as "the Buddha never teaching a lack of self", and as a result we see many practitioners lost in this indeterminate no-mans-land where they even sometimes actively reject the idea of selflessness.
Do you know if these "Unanswered Questions" as they're put are the textual basis for the historical Pudgalavadins, or just the basis for this modern pudgalavada as it were?
Lacking mindfulness, we commit every wrong. - Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔
ཨཱོཾ་མ་ཏྲི་མུ་ཡེ་སལེ་འདུ།།

Aryjna
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 12:45 pm

Re: Buddha nature vs Soul

Post by Aryjna » Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:02 pm

krodha wrote:
Aryjna wrote:
krodha wrote: This is a strange narrative some Theravadins founded that has now seeped into many corners of the internet. Has led to much indeterminate confusion.

Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu Is at the root of it as far as I can tell.
Isn't that contradictory to the basics of buddhism, how can anyone say that the buddha did not answer whether there is a self or not.
There is one instance in a sutta where the Buddha is asked directly whether there is a self or not and he remains silent because he knows the particular disciple he is addressing would only be further confused by an answer.

There is another instance where the view "I have no self" is deemed wrong view, however this is obviously addressing the possibility of leaving selflessness as a mere intellectual position.

These individuals also state that the term "anātman" translates to "not self" rather than "selflessness", "lack of self", "no self", etc., and they use this view of "not self" to promote the possibility that the Buddha underhandedly endorsed some sort of self via omission. Like apophatic theology where something ineffable is described through negating what it is not, rather than affirming what it indeed is. They say the skandhas, āyatanas and dhātus are "not self", ergo the possibility that there is a self elsewhere is very legitimate.

Somehow these examples have been misinterpreted as "the Buddha never teaching a lack of self", and as a result we see many practitioners lost in this indeterminate no-mans-land where they even sometimes actively reject the idea of selflessness.
Thanks, do you know which sutra is the one where he remains silent?

undefineable
Posts: 736
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:34 am

Re: Buddha nature vs Soul

Post by undefineable » Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:40 pm

My understanding was that self exists conventionally but not ultimately - as in the 'two truths'. Self exists in as much as a locus of peculiar patterning can be directly evidenced, but nothing that is merely inferred [from insufficient evidence] can be designated in this way, because a closer look reveals the inference to be illusory. Trouble is, at some level it can be shown and/or experienced that everything is inference - apart from the power and process (natural presence and display of tathagatagarbha??) of inferring itself...

krodha
Posts: 2132
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Buddha nature vs Soul

Post by krodha » Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:43 pm

Losal Samten wrote:
krodha wrote:There is one instance in a sutta where the Buddha is asked directly whether there is a self or not and he remains silent because he knows the particular disciple he is addressing would only be further confused by an answer.

Somehow these examples have been misinterpreted as "the Buddha never teaching a lack of self", and as a result we see many practitioners lost in this indeterminate no-mans-land where they even sometimes actively reject the idea of selflessness.
Do you know if these "Unanswered Questions" as they're put are the textual basis for the historical Pudgalavadins, or just the basis for this modern pudgalavada as it were?
I'm actually not sure but I assume there must be some research out there which identifies the source(s) of the Pudgalavādin's view.

Some of these "modern Pudgalavādins", as you put it, are advocating for Ātmavāda.

krodha
Posts: 2132
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Buddha nature vs Soul

Post by krodha » Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:44 pm

Aryjna wrote:
krodha wrote:
Aryjna wrote:
Isn't that contradictory to the basics of buddhism, how can anyone say that the buddha did not answer whether there is a self or not.
There is one instance in a sutta where the Buddha is asked directly whether there is a self or not and he remains silent because he knows the particular disciple he is addressing would only be further confused by an answer.

There is another instance where the view "I have no self" is deemed wrong view, however this is obviously addressing the possibility of leaving selflessness as a mere intellectual position.

These individuals also state that the term "anātman" translates to "not self" rather than "selflessness", "lack of self", "no self", etc., and they use this view of "not self" to promote the possibility that the Buddha underhandedly endorsed some sort of self via omission. Like apophatic theology where something ineffable is described through negating what it is not, rather than affirming what it indeed is. They say the skandhas, āyatanas and dhātus are "not self", ergo the possibility that there is a self elsewhere is very legitimate.

Somehow these examples have been misinterpreted as "the Buddha never teaching a lack of self", and as a result we see many practitioners lost in this indeterminate no-mans-land where they even sometimes actively reject the idea of selflessness.
Thanks, do you know which sutra is the one where he remains silent?
The Ananda Sutta

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

krodha
Posts: 2132
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Buddha nature vs Soul

Post by krodha » Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:51 pm

The aforementioned trend of indeterminacy in regards to selflessness [anātman] is strange given that the entire purpose of the skandhas, dhātus and āyatanas is to provide a model that demonstrates a lack of an enduring, core essence [svabhāva], which would be required for a self.

But alas, some people need to be spoon fed.

Aryjna
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 12:45 pm

Re: Buddha nature vs Soul

Post by Aryjna » Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:59 pm

krodha wrote:The aforementioned trend of indeterminacy in regards to selflessness [anātman] is strange given that the entire purpose of the skandhas, dhātus and āyatanas is to provide a model that demonstrates a lack of an enduring, core essence [svabhāva], which would be required for a self.

But alas, some people need to be spoon fed.
It sounds quite strange, but I suppose not every Theravadin holds that view. Perhaps to some extent it is a view that was developed to contradict Mahayana?

krodha
Posts: 2132
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Buddha nature vs Soul

Post by krodha » Mon Sep 11, 2017 10:39 pm

Aryjna wrote:It sounds quite strange, but I suppose not every Theravadin holds that view.
Not all of them, but this view is gaining strength in online circles.
Aryjna wrote:Perhaps to some extent it is a view that was developed to contradict Mahayana?
Perhaps, but I think it's more likely that some Theravadins simply place great importance on following the recorded teachings of the historical Buddha very strictly and literally.

In their eyes "buddhavacana" is the words of a historical figure. For us Mahāyānis, buddhavacana takes on a more liberal meaning, due to the fact it is ultimately considered wrong view to identify the tathāgata as name and form.

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1040
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Buddha nature vs Soul

Post by Sherab » Mon Sep 11, 2017 11:17 pm

The Buddha taught the avoidance of the two extremes: eternalism where it is not possible for any change to occur and annihilation where it is not possible for any stable form of dependency to take root. These are what I termed as dead zones where sustained existence is not possible. The middle between these two dead zones is a dynamic zone where sustained existence is possible and the driver of that is some kind of natural law of dependent arising.

But we all know that the Buddha also taught that the state of liberation and enlightenment is individually arrived at. No one, not even the Buddha can give the state of liberation or enlightenment to any being.

The above two facets of reality make it very difficult for anyone to talk about self and selflessness without the tendency to fall into the two extremes. I surmised therefore that was why the Buddha never explicitly answer the question of whether a self exists or not. It also indicates why the actual state of liberation and enlightenment is not something that can be referenced with any word or language of the realm of phenomena i.e., the realm of the relative, and is something that can only be known through direct knowing.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 24449
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddha nature vs Soul

Post by Malcolm » Mon Sep 11, 2017 11:54 pm

Sherab wrote: I surmised therefore that was why the Buddha never explicitly answer the question of whether a self exists or not.
Nonesense, even in Vinaya it clearly states:
  • All conditioned entities are impermenant. All phenomena are without self. Nirvana is peace.
These three statements are repeated by the Buddha in countless sūtras.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


Free of hope and fear, relax.
Human life spent in
a state of great spaciousness is enjoyable.


— Kunzang Dechen Lingpa

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1040
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Buddha nature vs Soul

Post by Sherab » Tue Sep 12, 2017 10:13 am

Malcolm wrote:
Sherab wrote: I surmised therefore that was why the Buddha never explicitly answer the question of whether a self exists or not.
Nonesense, even in Vinaya it clearly states:
  • All conditioned entities are impermenant. All phenomena are without self. Nirvana is peace.
These three statements are repeated by the Buddha in countless sūtras.
Of course all phenomena are without a self. Phenomena are manifestations or manifest things. I allow for the possibility of the unmanifest. You don't. So we will never agree.

User avatar
Matt J
Posts: 634
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:29 am

Re: Buddha nature vs Soul

Post by Matt J » Wed Sep 13, 2017 2:13 pm

I think if you follow the meaning of emptiness to its root, there is no way any kind of self can be posited. The whole point of basic emptiness teachings are that there is no solid, enduring, ongoing, bounded entities of any kind, whether these body parts, sentient beings, objects, or anything else.
The Great Way is not difficult
If only there is no picking or choosing
--- Xin Xin Ming

http://nondualism.org/

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 24449
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddha nature vs Soul

Post by Malcolm » Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:42 pm

Sherab wrote: I allow for the possibility of the unmanifest.
The Buddha himself never spoke of such a thing.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


Free of hope and fear, relax.
Human life spent in
a state of great spaciousness is enjoyable.


— Kunzang Dechen Lingpa

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1040
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Buddha nature vs Soul

Post by Sherab » Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:24 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Sherab wrote: I allow for the possibility of the unmanifest.
The Buddha himself never spoke of such a thing.
From the Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra:

(1) "Then the crown prince Manjusri said to the Licchavi Vimalakirti, "We have all given our own teachings, noble sir. Now, may you elucidate the teaching of the entrance into the principle of nonduality!"

Thereupon, the Licchavi Vimalakirti kept his silence, saying nothing at all.

The crown prince Manjusri applauded the Licchavi Vimalakirti: "Excellent! Excellent, noble sir! This is indeed the entrance into the nonduality of the bodhisattvas. Here there is no use for syllables, sounds, and ideas." "



(2) "Also, Ananda, there are utterly pure buddha-fields that accomplish the buddha-work for living beings without speech, by silence, inexpressibility, and unteachability. "

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1040
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Buddha nature vs Soul

Post by Sherab » Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:32 pm

Matt J wrote:I think if you follow the meaning of emptiness to its root, there is no way any kind of self can be posited. The whole point of basic emptiness teachings are that there is no solid, enduring, ongoing, bounded entities of any kind, whether these body parts, sentient beings, objects, or anything else.
The whole point of the teachings on emptiness is to teach us that there is no point in clinging to any phenomena, be that a person and relationship with that person, an object considered valuable in a particular society, a powerful position in society, etc. In short, the experience of any or all phenomena is not to be relied upon. Phenomena are what is experienced via the senses, including the mental sense. What one should strive for and rely upon is direct knowledge, a knowledge not mediated via any of the senses, a non-dual knowledge.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests