- 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.
Buddha nature vs Soul
Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
The PP in 100,000 Lines, it is said:
Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
When PP in 100,000 Lines will be translated?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.
May all beings be free from suffering and causes of suffering
Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
This is a strange narrative some Theravadins founded that has now seeped into many corners of the internet. Has led to much indeterminate confusion.Wayfarer wrote:Behoves us all to remember that when the Buddha was asked 'does the self exist, or not' that he didn't answer.
Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu Is at the root of it as far as I can tell.
Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
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 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.Wayfarer wrote:Behoves us all to remember that when the Buddha was asked 'does the self exist, or not' that he didn't answer.
Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu Is at the root of it as far as I can tell.
Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
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.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.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.Wayfarer wrote:Behoves us all to remember that when the Buddha was asked 'does the self exist, or not' that he didn't answer.
Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu Is at the root of it as far as I can tell.
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.
- Losal Samten
- Posts: 1591
- Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:05 pm
Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
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?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.
Lacking mindfulness, we commit every wrong. - Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔
ཨོཾ་ཧ་ནུ་པྷ་ཤ་བྷ་ར་ཧེ་ཡེ་སྭཱ་ཧཱ།།
ཨཱོཾ་མ་ཏྲི་མུ་ཡེ་སལེ་འདུ།།
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔
ཨོཾ་ཧ་ནུ་པྷ་ཤ་བྷ་ར་ཧེ་ཡེ་སྭཱ་ཧཱ།།
ཨཱོཾ་མ་ཏྲི་མུ་ཡེ་སལེ་འདུ།།
Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
Thanks, do you know which sutra is the one where he remains silent?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.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.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.
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.
-
- Posts: 799
- Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:34 am
Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
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...
you wore out your welcome with random precision {Pink Floyd}
Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
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.Losal Samten wrote: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?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.
Some of these "modern Pudgalavādins", as you put it, are advocating for Ātmavāda.
Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
The Ananda SuttaAryjna wrote:Thanks, do you know which sutra is the one where he remains silent?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.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 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.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
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.
But alas, some people need to be spoon fed.
Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
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 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.
Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
Not all of them, but this view is gaining strength in online circles.Aryjna wrote:It sounds quite strange, but I suppose not every Theravadin holds that view.
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.Aryjna wrote:Perhaps to some extent it is a view that was developed to contradict Mahayana?
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.
Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
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.
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.
Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
Nonesense, even in Vinaya it clearly states:Sherab wrote: I surmised therefore that was why the Buddha never explicitly answer the question of whether a self exists or not.
- All conditioned entities are impermenant. All phenomena are without self. Nirvana is peace.
Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
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.Malcolm wrote:Nonesense, even in Vinaya it clearly states:Sherab wrote: I surmised therefore that was why the Buddha never explicitly answer the question of whether a self exists or not.
These three statements are repeated by the Buddha in countless sūtras.
- All conditioned entities are impermenant. All phenomena are without self. Nirvana is peace.
Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
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 world is made of stories, not atoms."
--- Muriel Rukeyser
--- Muriel Rukeyser
Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
The Buddha himself never spoke of such a thing.Sherab wrote: I allow for the possibility of the unmanifest.
Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
From the Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra:Malcolm wrote:The Buddha himself never spoke of such a thing.Sherab wrote: I allow for the possibility of the unmanifest.
(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. "
Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
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.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.