Is the "Self" a "Rabbit's Horn"?

General forum on the teachings of all schools of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism. Topics specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 5709
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Is the "Self" a "Rabbit's Horn"?

Post by conebeckham »

Anonymous X wrote:
conebeckham wrote:Abiding in emptiness is what we do, whether we know it or not.
Is it expedient to say something like this? Again, what abides? What knows or doesn't know? Perhaps philosophically, there is a kind of order to each model, but what I'm questioning is the model itself. It's a fabrication itself along with the one who is grasping it.
Yes, all words are expedient. Emptiness is an objective statement of the real. What abides is something that we can't really define or even find.
conebeckham wrote:Abiding in our knowledge of emptiness, or in that wisdom, however, is another story.

Ordinary people can distinguish between the conventionally imaginary, the rabbit's horn, and the conventionally appearing, the bull's horn.
Those on the path can understand that the bull's horn is equivalent to the rabbit's horn in any ultimate ontological mode, and yet also comprehend that which appears (bull's horn, "Self") as well as that which is utterly nonappearing except to imagination (rabbit's horn, "Atman.").

However, only the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas on the Bhumis can truly directly experience the lack of existence of the bull's horn, or of the self, or any conditioned phenomenon. And only Buddhas, with the twofold knowledge they possess, can truly experience this lack of existence, and yet understand the myriad ways of phenomena's appearing, at the same time.


Yes, and this is what we are chasing, trying to apprehend, trying to grasp it. This is what is called being between a rock and a hard place.
In my opinion, there is no grasping. Better to relax in the lack of finding.
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།


"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")
Anonymous X
Posts: 813
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
Location: Bangkok

Re: Is the "Self" a "Rabbit's Horn"?

Post by Anonymous X »

Ayu wrote:Maybe the self is not as non-existent as a rabbit's horn, but still it is not as conventionally real as a bull's horn, I think. The self is only a feeling or imagination that consists of many aspects, but it is nothing solid. You can't knock on it and trying to determine it is often only halfway true.
It is an activity of identification. Thought thinking. It has made all experience its own. Everything you experience is its own web. This is what most people don't see.
muni
Posts: 5559
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Is the "Self" a "Rabbit's Horn"?

Post by muni »

The confusion is by so grounded experience of being a conventional truth, which splits 'us' from nature; ultimate by which conventional cannot be rejected but is not "conventionality".
These two labels conventional and ultimate are only tools, to be able to help us to be nature and not to be the apprehended idea we have of 'us'.
A self on itself compares itself with other selves on themselves. When enlightened nature 'talks to us', as the way to reach us in our variety of dreams, there is no any experience of being a self on itself talking to another self on itself. By this compassionate blessing, we are invited to wake up, out of our-self- on- itself- dream. At least if we want.

Wake me up before you go, go…...Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche :heart: said it is like being in love with all and everything (selflesness)
Punya
Posts: 1437
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:50 pm

Re: Is the "Self" a "Rabbit's Horn"?

Post by Punya »

conebeckham wrote:Another way to say this is that ordinary beings can understand on the mundane level that the rabbit's horn is illusory without any analysis, while they take the bull's horn to be real, and not illusory.

Candrakirti compares the "self" to a chariot. It's a designation based on a collection, and has no reality in any absolute sense. But a chariot is not the rabbit's horns, right?
Agreed. Thanks Cone and sorry for being so late in replying.
We abide nowhere. We possess nothing.
~Chatral Rinpoche
Anonymous X
Posts: 813
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
Location: Bangkok

Re: Is the "Self" a "Rabbit's Horn"?

Post by Anonymous X »

conebeckham wrote: In my opinion, there is no grasping. Better to relax in the lack of finding.
Whatever you decide to do, there is only grasping. You can neither stop it or control it. It is created by this activity of separation. All movements of thought are part of it.

Manjusrimitra: "Through not understanding what the grasping of experience through thought ultimately is, one is deceived by this grasping. The stream of thought continues, and so there is no opportunity to turn away from deluded thought later on."
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14456
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Is the "Self" a "Rabbit's Horn"?

Post by Queequeg »

Well, I'm kind of simple... all I got is that the Self is a Rabbit Hole.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 5709
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Is the "Self" a "Rabbit's Horn"?

Post by conebeckham »

Anonymous X wrote:
conebeckham wrote: In my opinion, there is no grasping. Better to relax in the lack of finding.
Whatever you decide to do, there is only grasping. You can neither stop it or control it. It is created by this activity of separation. All movements of thought are part of it.

Manjusrimitra: "Through not understanding what the grasping of experience through thought ultimately is, one is deceived by this grasping. The stream of thought continues, and so there is no opportunity to turn away from deluded thought later on."
If one decides not to decide, is one then grasping?
Agree that all movements of thought are grasping, that is essential. But Manjustrimitra's quote implies an alternative, does it not? There are thought-free moments, and also awarenesses of grasping and thought which may not be deceptive.

But perhaps this is tangential to the original discussion.
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།


"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Is the "Self" a "Rabbit's Horn"?

Post by Malcolm »

conebeckham wrote:
Anonymous X wrote:
conebeckham wrote: In my opinion, there is no grasping. Better to relax in the lack of finding.
Whatever you decide to do, there is only grasping. You can neither stop it or control it. It is created by this activity of separation. All movements of thought are part of it.

Manjusrimitra: "Through not understanding what the grasping of experience through thought ultimately is, one is deceived by this grasping. The stream of thought continues, and so there is no opportunity to turn away from deluded thought later on."
If one decides not to decide, is one then grasping?
Agree that all movements of thought are grasping, that is essential. But Manjustrimitra's quote implies an alternative, does it not? There are thought-free moments, and also awarenesses of grasping and thought which may not be deceptive.

But perhaps this is tangential to the original discussion.
  • For as long as there is movement of the mind, for that long it is the domain of Māra — the path is subtle.
    Do not abide in the convention of movement and stillness; also, do not abide in that abiding.
    That middle way without appearance is the awakened mind proclaimed by the Sugata.
This is further clarified:

  • Even the slightest movement which is not Mañjuśrī is [Mañjuśrī]; there is no abiding there.
Mipham comments:
  • If the movement or existence of the slightest subtle fault of sign or concept which is not that dharmatā is seen, since that is the ultimate pristine consciousness of dharmatā or Mañjuśrī, it is not to be abandoned. If it is asked where there is abiding in that dharmatā or Mañjuśrī, since there is no basis in which to abide because the nature of [dharmatā or Mañjuśrī] is not established at all, there is no abiding there.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Is the "Self" a "Rabbit's Horn"?

Post by Malcolm »

Malcolm wrote:
conebeckham wrote:
Anonymous X wrote: Whatever you decide to do, there is only grasping. You can neither stop it or control it. It is created by this activity of separation. All movements of thought are part of it.

Manjusrimitra: "Through not understanding what the grasping of experience through thought ultimately is, one is deceived by this grasping. The stream of thought continues, and so there is no opportunity to turn away from deluded thought later on."
If one decides not to decide, is one then grasping?
Agree that all movements of thought are grasping, that is essential. But Manjustrimitra's quote implies an alternative, does it not? There are thought-free moments, and also awarenesses of grasping and thought which may not be deceptive.

But perhaps this is tangential to the original discussion.
  • For as long as there is movement of the mind, for that long it is the domain of Māra — the path is subtle.
    Do not abide in the convention of movement and stillness; also, do not abide in that abiding.
    That middle way without appearance is the awakened mind proclaimed by the Sugata.
This is further clarified:

  • Even the slightest movement which is not Mañjuśrī is [Mañjuśrī]; there is no abiding there.
Mipham comments:
  • If the movement or existence of the slightest subtle fault of sign or concept which is not that dharmatā is seen, since that is the ultimate pristine consciousness of dharmatā or Mañjuśrī, it is not to be abandoned. If it is asked where there is abiding in that dharmatā or Mañjuśrī, since there is no basis in which to abide because the nature of [dharmatā or Mañjuśrī] is not established at all, there is no abiding there.
In other words, movement and stillness have the same nature. It does not matter whether one has concepts or not. All that matters is whether one is deceived by them or not.
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14456
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Is the "Self" a "Rabbit's Horn"?

Post by Queequeg »

Malcolm wrote:~
:good: :bow: :anjali:
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 5709
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Is the "Self" a "Rabbit's Horn"?

Post by conebeckham »

Malcolm wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
conebeckham wrote:
If one decides not to decide, is one then grasping?
Agree that all movements of thought are grasping, that is essential. But Manjustrimitra's quote implies an alternative, does it not? There are thought-free moments, and also awarenesses of grasping and thought which may not be deceptive.

But perhaps this is tangential to the original discussion.
  • For as long as there is movement of the mind, for that long it is the domain of Māra — the path is subtle.
    Do not abide in the convention of movement and stillness; also, do not abide in that abiding.
    That middle way without appearance is the awakened mind proclaimed by the Sugata.
This is further clarified:

  • Even the slightest movement which is not Mañjuśrī is [Mañjuśrī]; there is no abiding there.
Mipham comments:
  • If the movement or existence of the slightest subtle fault of sign or concept which is not that dharmatā is seen, since that is the ultimate pristine consciousness of dharmatā or Mañjuśrī, it is not to be abandoned. If it is asked where there is abiding in that dharmatā or Mañjuśrī, since there is no basis in which to abide because the nature of [dharmatā or Mañjuśrī] is not established at all, there is no abiding there.
In other words, movement and stillness have the same nature. It does not matter whether one has concepts or not. All that matters is whether one is deceived by them or not.
Indeed, I believe that was Manjusrimitra's implicit message. Great post.
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།


"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")
Bakmoon
Posts: 746
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 12:31 am

Re: Is the "Self" a "Rabbit's Horn"?

Post by Bakmoon »

conebeckham wrote:Another way to say this is that ordinary beings can understand on the mundane level that the rabbit's horn is illusory without any analysis, while they take the bull's horn to be real, and not illusory.

Candrakirti compares the "self" to a chariot. It's a designation based on a collection, and has no reality in any absolute sense. But a chariot is not the rabbit's horns, right?
If one is talking about a self that is a mere imputation on the aggregates, then you can accept it conventionally just like a chariot. But an ordinary person's view of a self isn't a view about a merely imputed self but a unitary and substantially real self. That concept of a self is indeed like a rabbit's horn or the son of a barren woman because it is rejected even at the level of convention.
User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 5709
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Is the "Self" a "Rabbit's Horn"?

Post by conebeckham »

Bakmoon wrote:
conebeckham wrote:Another way to say this is that ordinary beings can understand on the mundane level that the rabbit's horn is illusory without any analysis, while they take the bull's horn to be real, and not illusory.

Candrakirti compares the "self" to a chariot. It's a designation based on a collection, and has no reality in any absolute sense. But a chariot is not the rabbit's horns, right?
If one is talking about a self that is a mere imputation on the aggregates, then you can accept it conventionally just like a chariot. But an ordinary person's view of a self isn't a view about a merely imputed self but a unitary and substantially real self. That concept of a self is indeed like a rabbit's horn or the son of a barren woman because it is rejected even at the level of convention.
Yes. I compared "Atman" to the Rabbit's Horn, earlier.
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།


"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")
Anonymous X
Posts: 813
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
Location: Bangkok

Re: Is the "Self" a "Rabbit's Horn"?

Post by Anonymous X »

conebeckham wrote:
Anonymous X wrote:
conebeckham wrote: In my opinion, there is no grasping. Better to relax in the lack of finding.
Whatever you decide to do, there is only grasping. You can neither stop it or control it. It is created by this activity of separation. All movements of thought are part of it.

Manjusrimitra: "Through not understanding what the grasping of experience through thought ultimately is, one is deceived by this grasping. The stream of thought continues, and so there is no opportunity to turn away from deluded thought later on."
If one decides not to decide, is one then grasping?
Agree that all movements of thought are grasping, that is essential. But Manjustrimitra's quote implies an alternative, does it not? There are thought-free moments, and also awarenesses of grasping and thought which may not be deceptive.

But perhaps this is tangential to the original discussion.
I don't think it is tangential as this is the heart of all discussions, imo.

Malcolm's further quotes do point out Manjusrimitra's advice about deception. It happens on the subtlest levels which are not yet conscious to most practitioners. Thought even interferes on a cellular level. I believe this is why the worthies have said that thought can never lead to the cessation of separation. But, I do think we can help ourselves a lot by seeing the deception operate and turning away from it. This is a kind of letting go where no grasping gets a foothold. It's rare for anyone to get to this point, methinks.
Post Reply

Return to “Mahāyāna Buddhism”