Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?

Forum for discussion of Tibetan Buddhism. Questions specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?

Post by dzogchungpa » Sun Sep 27, 2015 3:24 am

asunthatneversets wrote:It's okay if you like him dzogchungpa, he teaches about souls and God and true selves... stuff that's right up your alley.
Wow, that sounds, like, totally holotropic.

Anyway, since Thanissaro and Maha Boowa have come up I did a litle poking around and found this:
Many of the forest ajaans have emphasized this point in their teachings: that in the attainment of awakening, you put aside both self and not-self. Several years back, there was a controversy in Thailand as to whether nibbāna was self or not-self. The issue was even argued in the newspapers. So one day someone went to ask Ajaan Mahā Boowa, "Is nibbāna self or not-self?" And his answer was, "Nibbāna is nibbāna." That was it. He then went on to explain how self and not-self are tools on the path, how both are put down when the path has done its work, and how neither applies to the experience of nibbāna.
at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... tself.html.

That's not so bad, is it?
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche

User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?

Post by dzogchungpa » Sun Sep 27, 2015 3:48 am

BTW, the next two paragraphs from the same text are kind of amusing as well:
Ajaan Suwat, one of my teachers, also said that when you've experienced deathless happiness, you don't really care if there's something experiencing it or not. The experience is sufficient in and of itself.

What we've been describing here is a special kind of consciousness that lies beyond the aggregates: The texts call it "consciousness without surface." Once it's been attained, then freedom is never lost. The mind no longer tries to define itself, and because it's not defined, it can't be described.
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche

smcj
Posts: 6949
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?

Post by smcj » Sun Sep 27, 2015 4:09 am

The problem with Loy, and I told him so, 25 years ago at BU, is that he does not differentiate between ontological non-dualism [Hinduism], and epistemic non-dualism [Buddhadharma], in fact he conflates them.
So are you suggesting that there should be dueling non-dualisms? :jedi:
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)

User avatar
seeker242
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:50 pm
Location: South Florida, USA

Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?

Post by seeker242 » Sun Sep 27, 2015 4:15 am

Diamond Sutra Chapter 6 has some interesting things to say about this! I like this rendition of it.
"Subhuti, any person who awakens faith upon hearing the words or phrases of this Sutra will accumulate countless blessings and merit."

"How do I know this? Because this person must have discarded all arbitrary notions of the existence of a personal self, of other people, or of a universal self. Otherwise their minds would still grasp after such relative conceptions. Furthermore, these people must have already discarded all arbitrary notions of the non-existence of a personal self, other people, or a universal self. Otherwise, their minds would still be grasping at such notions. Therefore anyone who seeks total Enlightenment should discard not only all conceptions of their own selfhood, of other selves, or of a universal self, but they should also discard all notions of the non-existence of such concepts."
Hmm, quite interesting! True self?? No self??

Seems like they are both wrong! :rolling:
One should not kill any living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should one incite any other to kill. Do never injure any being, whether strong or weak, in this entire universe!

User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?

Post by dzogchungpa » Sun Sep 27, 2015 4:25 am

smcj wrote:So are you suggesting that there should be dueling non-dualisms? :jedi:
Try this one next time:
Image
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche

Son of Buddha
Posts: 1123
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?

Post by Son of Buddha » Sun Sep 27, 2015 4:58 am

dzogchungpa wrote:BTW, the next two paragraphs from the same text are kind of amusing as well:
Ajaan Suwat, one of my teachers, also said that when you've experienced deathless happiness, you don't really care if there's something experiencing it or not. The experience is sufficient in and of itself.

What we've been describing here is a special kind of consciousness that lies beyond the aggregates: The texts call it "consciousness without surface." Once it's been attained, then freedom is never lost. The mind no longer tries to define itself, and because it's not defined, it can't be described.

I personally like this quote. From Maha Bua
As we are practising at this time and have been continually practising, proceeding in the path of avoiding all harms by stages, until the attainment of the great treasure of our hope (i.e., Nirvana). -From that it is possible to call ‘niccam’ because there is nothing involved that will trouble or disturb the mind. -It is not wrong to call it ‘paramam sukham’.
-Calling it atta wouldn’t be wrong because it is the true self that is the self of the natural principle. There is no conventionality, however great or small or even minute, involved in the mind. But it does not mean the atta that is together with anatta that is another stage of conventionality which is still the path to nibbana. Source: Achariya Maha Boowa Nanasampanno, ‘Kwan Tai Pen Thammada’ (‘Death is Normal’), Tham Chud Triam (Dhamma Collection for Preparation), 1976.

User avatar
Wayfarer
Former staff member
Posts: 5112
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: AU

Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?

Post by Wayfarer » Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:57 am

Vimalakirti432 wrote:Syncretism indeed is a problem since each tradition uses terms and concepts in its own integrated way, and to mix traditions can muddle understanding and lead to confusion. At a certain point one has to choose (not wobble) if one is to seriously begin a practice.

Now there is of course the opposite extreme, for which I don't know that there's a word. "Fundamentalism" is way too harsh. One might say something like "incommensuralism" if didn't sound so weird and wasn't so hard to spell!

This is when practitioners become so enamored of the methods, practices, philosophical underpinnings and so on of their tradition that they really think they are in possession of some truth that is completely inaccessible by any other means. That is to say not just that they have the best method, or that their tradition is the most effective, but they literally know something that no other tradition can even approach.

To me this is magic thinking. Whatever other worlds there may be, we all live on this one, and as human beings we share a fundamental similarity. For thousands of years we have been wrestling with these questions. There are only so many options!

I recall a jibe of Chrisopher Hitchens against Christians, especially of the Calvinist type, that on the one hand they call themselves lowly worms, and on the other God's special creation!
I like David Loy.

I think the issue is 'attachment to views'. It's quite a well-known principle in Buddhism, that 'views' of any kind are ultimately problematical. There is the vivid passage in the Aggi-Vachagotta Sutta about holding to views:
the position that 'the cosmos is eternal' is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, & fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding.
So here in this thread, the subject of debate is the perennial subject, whether there is a 'true self'. In fact this same Vachagotta, who was recipient of the above advice, had previously approached the Buddha, and asked the question 'is there a self, or is there not'? It has been pointed out that this is one of the only passages in the Pali suttas, where the word 'self' is used as a noun, 'atta', as distinct from its usage in the term anatta, which is adjectival, i.e. 'non-self'.

And in response to the direct question, 'is there a self', the Buddha did not respond, or rather, met the question with a noble silence.

When asked later as to why, he said that to say either 'yes' or 'no' the question was bound to mislead; 'yes' would be to side with 'the eternalists', who say there is an unchanging self that migrates from life to life'; 'no' would be to endorse nihilism.

T R V Murti, in his book The Central Philosophy of Buddhism, says that this verse is the origination of Madhyamika. So I think the Madhyamika view is the same: asserting a true self or real self-existent substance of any type, is 'eternalism', but denying the self exists is the opposite problem, nihilism. Hence the subtle nature of the middle path.

Of course that very subtlety gives rise to endless debates. At at certain point, I think it is better to simply contemplate the question rather than to debate it (Although it seems some Buddhists never grow tired of such debates. :smile:
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi

Simon E.
Posts: 7447
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?

Post by Simon E. » Sun Sep 27, 2015 8:37 am

Which is an accurate summation...but sidesteps the fact that Buddhadharma is unique in maintaining that Noble Silence.

That's the point.
“You don’t know it. You just know about it. That is not the same thing.”

Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche to me.

User avatar
Ayu
Global Moderator
Posts: 8040
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:25 am
Location: Europe

Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?

Post by Ayu » Sun Sep 27, 2015 8:47 am

Son of Buddha wrote:
dzogchungpa wrote:BTW, the next two paragraphs from the same text are kind of amusing as well:
Ajaan Suwat, one of my teachers, also said that when you've experienced deathless happiness, you don't really care if there's something experiencing it or not. The experience is sufficient in and of itself.

What we've been describing here is a special kind of consciousness that lies beyond the aggregates: The texts call it "consciousness without surface." Once it's been attained, then freedom is never lost. The mind no longer tries to define itself, and because it's not defined, it can't be described.

I personally like this quote. From Maha Bua
As we are practising at this time and have been continually practising, proceeding in the path of avoiding all harms by stages, until the attainment of the great treasure of our hope (i.e., Nirvana). -From that it is possible to call ‘niccam’ because there is nothing involved that will trouble or disturb the mind. -It is not wrong to call it ‘paramam sukham’.
-Calling it atta wouldn’t be wrong because it is the true self that is the self of the natural principle. There is no conventionality, however great or small or even minute, involved in the mind. But it does not mean the atta that is together with anatta that is another stage of conventionality which is still the path to nibbana. Source: Achariya Maha Boowa Nanasampanno, ‘Kwan Tai Pen Thammada’ (‘Death is Normal’), Tham Chud Triam (Dhamma Collection for Preparation), 1976.
But you are aware that Ajahn Maha Bua represents the philosophy of the Thai forest tradition, which is Theravada and therefore a littlebit ridiculous to use it as a source in a controversial discussion in a Mahayana forum?
It's right, we should show respect to any buddhist tradition - but if we mix all the theses as absolute truths in such a discussion it might lead to a mess.
For the benefit and ease of all sentient beings. :heart:

Simon E.
Posts: 7447
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?

Post by Simon E. » Sun Sep 27, 2015 8:54 am

Well said.
“You don’t know it. You just know about it. That is not the same thing.”

Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche to me.

smcj
Posts: 6949
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?

Post by smcj » Sun Sep 27, 2015 12:57 pm

dzogchungpa wrote: Try this one next time:
Image
Touche'! :bow:
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)

Malcolm
Posts: 31175
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?

Post by Malcolm » Sun Sep 27, 2015 1:51 pm

Wayfarer wrote: And in response to the direct question, 'is there a self', the Buddha did not respond, or rather, met the question with a noble silence.
No, the Buddha taught quite clearly there is no self in the aggregates or separate from the aggregates. He did not maintain "noble silence" on the issue. There are 14 points about which he remained silent, but the true existence of a self that was either part of the aggregates or separate from them was not a question upon which he remained silent.

Malcolm
Posts: 31175
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?

Post by Malcolm » Sun Sep 27, 2015 2:23 pm

frankc wrote:
Malcolm wrote: The distinction between citta and vijñāna is a false one. Citta, vijñāna and manas are all synonyms for one thing. This point of view described above has very little difference with the point of view expounded in the Yoga Sutras — the only difference in fact is that these monks are using the scheme of the skandhas, dhātus and āyatanas, whereas the Yoga Sutras use the Samkhya scheme of purusha/prakriti. What they are describing is exactly purusha.
The dinstinction isn't a false one.
Of course the distinction is a false one. The word citta is not at all hard to translate into English.
Here is a teaching from Ajahn Dune Atulo

All Buddhas and all creatures are nothing but one citta. Besides this citta. nothing exsist. The citta which has no beginning does not appear and can not be destroyed. It is not something green or yellow. It has no shape nor appearances. It is not included in the existence or the none existence. It cannot be considered new or old, long or short, big or small because it is beyond all limitation measurement, nomination trace and comparison.
This point of view is even worse — it is basically no different than Advaita Vedanta, it is not even at the level of Yogacara. It is basically a non-Buddhist point of view.

If you have never properly studied Madhyamaka, it is easy to see why you would think this was profound.

frankc
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2014 5:37 pm

Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?

Post by frankc » Sun Sep 27, 2015 3:41 pm

Malcolm wrote:
frankc wrote:
Malcolm wrote: The distinction between citta and vijñāna is a false one. Citta, vijñāna and manas are all synonyms for one thing. This point of view described above has very little difference with the point of view expounded in the Yoga Sutras — the only difference in fact is that these monks are using the scheme of the skandhas, dhātus and āyatanas, whereas the Yoga Sutras use the Samkhya scheme of purusha/prakriti. What they are describing is exactly purusha.
The dinstinction isn't a false one.
Of course the distinction is a false one. The word citta is not at all hard to translate into English.
Here is a teaching from Ajahn Dune Atulo

All Buddhas and all creatures are nothing but one citta. Besides this citta. nothing exsist. The citta which has no beginning does not appear and can not be destroyed. It is not something green or yellow. It has no shape nor appearances. It is not included in the existence or the none existence. It cannot be considered new or old, long or short, big or small because it is beyond all limitation measurement, nomination trace and comparison.
This point of view is even worse — it is basically no different than Advaita Vedanta, it is not even at the level of Yogacara. It is basically a non-Buddhist point of view.

If you have never properly studied Madhyamaka, it is easy to see why you would think this was profound.
Well it's Buddhism to the Thai forest masters. Ajahn Maha Bua was a student of Ajahn Mun, the Ajahn who developed the Thai Vipassana method partly due to visions he had like in the biographies of the ancient Tibetan Tertons. These are people that LIVED like the enlightened beings we read about in the texts. Ajahn Maha Bua was like a Thai Milarepa. And you are sitting here talking about the correct use of the word Citta when these dudes were meditating in tiger, bear, and cobra infested jungles putting their life on the line to attain the absolute. Ajahn Maha Bua would meditate from 6pm to 6am without changing his posture, this is how he described the pain. Also some other select quotes from his biography.

"....as if my whole buttock was swollen up, my bones felt like they were broken into pieces, also every joint and even my wrist felt like it was broken apart. Feeling of dukkha and very painful feelings, when they occured, were everywhere, in each bit and piece within the body" His dilliegence in meditation through the night for nine or ten nights like this caused his buttock to swell up resulting in the skin being bruised, and finally bursting and staining his robe. But because of this sitting through the night, and sitting through painful feelings, he did experience the wonder of the citta.

"This time I will practice earnestly so as to obtain good result, no matter if I will remain alive or die. I don't hope for any other thing except to be free from dukkha. In this very life I will make sure to transcend dukkha! I only say that somebody will help me to understand that magga, phala, and nibanna really exist and are attainable. Then I will give my whole life to that person and will devote my body and mind to the essence of Dhamma. I will not ask for anything else than to put everything into my practice, no matter if I am going to die. If I die I want to die practicing Dhamma, I don't want to die while retreating from my practice, or die with a deteriorated mind or a broken spirit."

" If the kilesas do not die, I will die. We cannot stay in the same place, the kilesas and I! This is unacceptable."

An inspiration to us all in our fight against the kilesas.

About the view being no different than Advaita Vedanta. Here is an excerpt from this article about Dolpopa https://yogainternational.com/article/v ... -teachings

One of the reasons yoga is often referred to as the Himalayan tradition is that in remote mountain areas like Mount Kailas, where religious bigotry could not be enforced, advanced spiritual practice and yogic experimentation were free to flourish.
Throughout history some of the world’s most advanced spiritual masters have congregated here from all over the Eastern world: India, Afghanistan, Nepal, Ladakh, China, Mongolia, and central Asia. The monks and nuns affiliated with religious institutions back home were often constrained in what they could teach or practice by the particular sect to which they belonged. But the sadhus or wandering yogis who camped near Kailas were under no such compulsion. There they could freely exchange ideas about their beliefs and compare notes about the results of their practices. Buddhist practitioners could sit down with Jain tantrics or Shaivite and Shakta ascetics to candidly discuss their spiritual experiences. One of the reasons yoga is often referred to as the Himalayan tradition is that in remote mountain areas like Mount Kailas, where religious bigotry could not be enforced, advanced spiritual practice and yogic experimentation were free to flourish.

It was in this region that Yumowa Migyo Dorje, the great 11th-century Jonangpa adept, mastered the demanding techniques of Kalachakra tantra. He passed on this sacred tradition to his students at Jonang, emphasizing the importance of genuine yogic attainment over mere intellectual knowledge. Having been nurtured in the free-thinking atmosphere of Mount Kailas, he emphasized the truths he directly experienced in meditation rather than subtle doctrines like Madhyamaka. Yumowa cautioned against accepting any doctrine that had been arrived at through logical analysis alone and that ignores what yogis actually experience in samadhi.

Two centuries later, when Dolpopa first arrived at Jonang, he found an enclave of monks and nuns diligently following the practices outlined by Yumowa. They went about their business quietly, careful not to antagonize the powerful Tibetan academic community. But Dolpopa was not the quiet type.

One of the important parts is the cautioning against accepting any doctrine that is arrived at that ignores what yogis actually experience in samadhi.

And about the Thai forest tradition on dharmawheel. Our eternal Citta is not a Mahayana eternal Citta, or a Tibetan eternal Citta, or a Theravada eternal Citta. Talking about this eternal citta from the Thai forest tradition may be able to help us understand more about Dolpopa and other Mahayana or Vajrayana teachers or schools that teach this type of thing.

Simon E.
Posts: 7447
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?

Post by Simon E. » Sun Sep 27, 2015 3:42 pm

I wonder whether to some degree the debates are secondary. Whether having been drawn emotionally and by temperament towards a Universalist position it becomes necessary for those so inclined to cast around for corroboration.
“You don’t know it. You just know about it. That is not the same thing.”

Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche to me.

User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?

Post by dzogchungpa » Sun Sep 27, 2015 3:46 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Wayfarer wrote: And in response to the direct question, 'is there a self', the Buddha did not respond, or rather, met the question with a noble silence.
No, the Buddha taught quite clearly there is no self in the aggregates or separate from the aggregates. He did not maintain "noble silence" on the issue. There are 14 points about which he remained silent, but the true existence of a self that was either part of the aggregates or separate from them was not a question upon which he remained silent.
I believe Wayfarer is referring to this.
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche

User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?

Post by dzogchungpa » Sun Sep 27, 2015 3:49 pm

Simon E. wrote:I wonder whether to some degree the debates are secondary. Whether having been drawn emotionally and by temperament towards a Universalist position it becomes necessary for those so inclined to cast around for corroboration.
Up to your old tricks again? Some never learn. :shrug:
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche

User avatar
kirtu
Former staff member
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:29 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?

Post by kirtu » Sun Sep 27, 2015 3:54 pm

frankc wrote:Whereas in places like Thailand the Thai forest masters speak of the eternal Citta (not the mind). Here is a teaching from Ajahn Dune Atulo

All Buddhas and all creatures are nothing but one citta. Besides this citta. nothing exsist. The citta which has no beginning does not appear and can not be destroyed. It is not something green or yellow. It has no shape nor appearances. It is not included in the existence or the none existence. It cannot be considered new or old, long or short, big or small because it is beyond all limitation measurement, nomination trace and comparison.

http://www.theravada-dhamma.org/blog/?p=5660
And what kept you from the very next line?
This single citta is before our very eyes but when we use reason to conceive of it as a “thing” or “self”, try it! We will immediately be mistaken. It is like emptiness that is without limitation and cannot be conceived or measured.
The Thai Forest Masters are profound and sometimes controversial. But most of the time I think they are being misunderstood (which is the case here). Ajahn is not talking of some kind of eternal citta at all - the next line after this reads this very citta is the Buddha - quite Zen. He is talking about the immediate citta that people experience, their present impermanent state of mind. However I do not wish to put words in Ajahn's mouth, especially dirty Zen words.

Kirt
Last edited by kirtu on Sun Sep 27, 2015 4:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Kirt's Tibetan Translation Notes

"Even if you practice only for an hour a day with faith and inspiration, good qualities will steadily increase. Regular practice makes it easy to transform your mind. From seeing only relative truth, you will eventually reach a profound certainty in the meaning of absolute truth."
Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche.

"Only you can make your mind beautiful."
HH Chetsang Rinpoche

frankc
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2014 5:37 pm

Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?

Post by frankc » Sun Sep 27, 2015 3:57 pm

Simon E. wrote:I wonder whether to some degree the debates are secondary. Whether having been drawn emotionally and by temperament towards a Universalist position it becomes necessary for those so inclined to cast around for corroboration.
How much talk on the internet is there of Non eternalist Buddhists talking about what they believe. How much talk is there on the internet from eternalist Buddhists? Now you tell me who is casting around for corroboration.
Last edited by frankc on Sun Sep 27, 2015 3:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

frankc
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2014 5:37 pm

Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?

Post by frankc » Sun Sep 27, 2015 3:58 pm

kirtu wrote:
frankc wrote:Whereas in places like Thailand the Thai forest masters speak of the eternal Citta (not the mind). Here is a teaching from Ajahn Dune Atulo

All Buddhas and all creatures are nothing but one citta. Besides this citta. nothing exsist. The citta which has no beginning does not appear and can not be destroyed. It is not something green or yellow. It has no shape nor appearances. It is not included in the existence or the none existence. It cannot be considered new or old, long or short, big or small because it is beyond all limitation measurement, nomination trace and comparison.

http://www.theravada-dhamma.org/blog/?p=5660
And what kept you from the very next line?
This single citta is before our very eyes but when we use reason to conceive of it as a “thing” or “self”, try it! We will immediately be mistaken. It is like emptiness that is without limitation and cannot be conceived or measured.
Kirt
Hey Kirt. The Citta is beyond concepts. I've already sent stuff on this forum that says that. But to explain it to other people you have to use concepts. I also didn't say the Thai Forest Tradition calls it a "self" It's not really the point. The teaching is that it is independent of the five khandas, cannot be destroyed, beyond the three characteristics of dukkha, anicca, and anatta, and when you become enlightened it merges with nirvana and returns home.
Last edited by frankc on Sun Sep 27, 2015 4:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Post Reply

Return to “Tibetan Buddhism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Donny, Majestic-12 [Bot], yagmort and 60 guests