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
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 » Mon Sep 28, 2015 11:11 pm

I concur with Ven Thanissaro's view quoted by Dzogchungpa & MattJ above.
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi

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 » Mon Sep 28, 2015 11:29 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Again, this is intentional language and is not to be taken literally. For example, in the comment on this passage {which is by Maitreya and not Vasubandhu], Sthiramati's Sūtrālaṃkāravṛttibhāṣya provides useful clarification here:
Well of course only the quotes you provide should be taken literally, everyone elses quotes that disagree with you are to never be taken literally :applause:


He continues in this vein:
  • The Buddha is the dharmakāya. Since the dharmakāya is emptiness, because there are not only no imputable personal entities in emptiness, there are also no imputable phenomenal entities, there are therefore no entities at all.
Now, someone may wish to counter "Sure, the imputed nature does not exist, but the perfect nature does exist," but Sthiramati responds to this:
  • The nature of the perfected does not exist.Since it does not exist in the same way the horn the hare of the imputed phenomena and persons, at that it is not defined as existent. It is also not a nonentity, because at that time suchness, the characteristic of the perfected exists.
your quote is actually saying that the characteristics of the perfected does in fact exist.

When the quote says the perfected nature does not exist, it clarifies that statement by saying that it does not exists IN THE SAME WAY of the forders understanding which is the existence imputed upon the phenomena and persons(known as the 2 selves of the forders), so all you quote is actally saying is that it doesn't exist in ONE manner, BUT it exists in ANOTHER manner hence: "It is also not a nonentity, because at that time suchness, the characteristic of the perfected exists", of course the very terms Existence and Non Existence are words used to describe an Samsaric understanding and Suchness is beyond samasaric understanding. hence the non duality teachings (freedom from existence and nonexistence)

Here is Ju Mipham’s gloss on 9:23, from the new Dharmachakra version of Sutralamkara:
The pure and natural luminosity of emptiness is completely free from the self-manifestation of the adventitious defilements. In the absence of the twofold self of persons and phenomena, this is the actual nature of things, the supreme nature of the abiding reality, the intrinsic nature or essence itself. In achieving this, the buddhas have achieved a nature that is of complete purity. Thus, [to actualize] the suchness that is the unmistaken way things are is to be “the self of great beings.” This self is not the same as the conceived object that is involved when apprehending the twofold self because such a self has no bearing on things as they are. The buddhas, however, have actualized the unmistaken abiding reality, which is the suchness of the twofold selflessness, free from the extremes of existence and nonexistence. That is the supreme self—“the self of great beings.”


:twothumbsup:

This means that the perfected is not a substantial entity.


Awakening of Faith in Mahayana
Question: If the Dharmakaya of the Buddhas is free from the manifestation of corporeal form, how can it appear in corporeal form? Answer: Since the Dharmakaya is the essence of corporeal form, it is capable of appearing in corporeal form. The reason this is said is that from the beginning corporeal form and Mind have been nondual. Since the essential nature of corporeal form is identical with wisdom, the essence of corporeal form which has yet to be divided into tangible forms is called the "wisdom-body". Since the essential nature of wisdom is identical with corporeal form, the essence of corporeal form which has yet to be divided into tangible forms is called Dharmakaya pervading everywhere. Its manifested corporeal forms have no limitations. It can be freely manifested as an infinite number of Bodhisattvas, Buddhas of Bliss-body, and adornments in the ten quarters of the universe. Each of them has neither limitation nor interference. All of these are incomprehensible to the dualistic thinking of the deluded mind and consciousness, for they result from the free influence of Suchness.

It does exist however as a characteristic, and what is that characteristics, emptiness a.k.a suchness,
Now you are just agreeing with me, I have been saying for years that the term True Self is just a word used to describe the Characteristics of Suchness which is you said "does exist"......... welcome to the club.

which is not a self in any sense in which the word is used as an identifier,
This is not correct, Suchness in the Nirvana Sutra and Queen Srimala Sutra is called True Self. In these Sutras, Suchness,Buddha Nature, Dharmakaya...are all synonymous

even commentaries on the Tathagatagrabha Sutra further support this.

Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana
B. The Greatness of the Attributes of Suchness
From the beginning, Suchness in its nature is fully provided with all excellent qualities; namely, it is endowed with the light of great wisdom, the qualities of illuminating the entire universe, of true cognition and mind pure in its self-nature; of eternity, bliss, Self, and purity; of refreshing coolness, immutability, and freedom. It is endowed with these excellent qualities which outnumber the sands of the Ganges, which are not independent of, disjointed from, or different from the essence of Suchness, and which are suprarational attributes of Buddhahood. Since it is endowed completely with all these, and is not lacking anything, it is called the Tathagata-garbha when latent and also the Dharmakaya of the Tathagata.


unless of course one wishes to claim, "The supreme identity is no identity"
The True Self is not an identity
or "The supreme self is no self." This is precisely the meaning here.

The Supreme Self is not self in that it is not the 2 Selves of the forders(2 selves of phenomena and persons),

(Dolpopa)
From the start
without the entities of the two selves-the ultimate, emptiness, natural clear
light, endowed with all aspects, the natural innate pristine wisdom transcending
the momentary, abides as the self that is thusness, pure self, forever
without interruption.


however to think that the Supreme Self has the Characteristics of Not Self is one of the 4 perversions.

Nirvana Sutra
to think of the non-Self [anatman]as the Self [atman] and to think of the Self [atman] as non-Self [anatman] is perverse Dharma; to think of the impure as the Pure and to think of the Pure as impure is perverse Dharma. Whoever has these four kinds of perversion, that person does not know the correct cultivation of dharmas.
What this means is that this "self" is merely a designation and does not indicate anything real, any more than conventionally calling the stream of the aggregates a self does not indicate anything real.
nobody is calling the stream of aggregates the self in fact, that very idea is apart of the 2 selves of the forders(self of persons self of phenomena)

also your information is incorrect the very definition of (Atman)Self indicates something is real. you said it yourself up above when Matt J wrote:
How does this differ from a self?

and you responded "It is not established as something real."

hence you acknowledged that the Self means something that is real.

of course the Buddha is clear that the Buddha Nature is the Self then the Buddha proceeds to tell you what the Self is:

Nirvana Sutra
V135. Even though he has said that all phenomena [dharmas] are devoid of the Self, it is not that they are completely/ truly devoid of the Self. What is this Self? Any phenomenon [dharma] that is true [satya], real [tattva], eternal [nitya], sovereign/ autonomous/ self-governing [aisvarya], and whose ground/ foundation is unchanging [asraya-aviparinama], is termed ‘the Self’ [atman]. This is as in the case of the great Doctor who well understands the milk medicine. The same is the case with the Tathagata. For the sake of beings, he says “there is the Self in all things” O you the four classes! Learn Dharma thus!”
(I got multiple translations as well to back this one up)


No, in the Nirvana Sutra, the Buddha is using intentional language that cannot be taken literally.
of course only your quotes are to be taken literally, everyone else who's quotes disagree with you are automatically metaphorical right.
Further earlier in this chapter Maitreya declares at 9.4 "all phenomena are buddhahood," but according to your oft stated point of view, this is impossible since [buddha = self] and [self = not the aggregates] and so on.
So really, I think you need to rethink your literalism on these points
[/quote]

Your not understanding the passages

All phenomena is Buddhahood, because the illusion of the snake is the Rope ;)

Awakening of Faith in Mahayana

Question: How is this to be corrected? Answer: In order to correct this error it should be understood that the Tathagata-garbha, from the beginning, contains only pure excellent qualities which, outnumbering the sands of the Ganges, are not independent of, severed from, or different from Suchness; that the soiled states of defilement which, outnumbering the sands of the Ganges, are not independent of, severed from, or different from Suchness; that the soiled states of defilement which, outnumbering the sands of the Ganges, merely exist in illusion; are, from the beginning, nonexistent; and from the beginningless beginning have never been united with the Tathagata-garbha.

Further explanation given in the Awakening of Faith in Mahayana text



Awakening of Faith in Mahayana

c. The Relationships between Enlightenment and Nonenlightenment Two relationships exist between the enlightened and nonenlightened states. They are “identity” and “nonidentity”.

(1) Identity Just as pieces of various kinds of pottery are of the same nature in that they are made of clay, so the various magic-like manifestations (maya) of both enlightenment (anasrava: nondefilement) and nonenlightenment (avidya: ignorance) are aspects of the same essence, Suchness. For this reason, it is said in a sutra that “all sentient beings intrinsically abide in eternity and are entered into nirvana. The state of enlightenment is not something that is to be acquired by practice or to be created. In the end, it is unobtainable [for it is given from the beginning].” Also it has no corporeal aspect that can be perceived as such. Any corporeal aspects [such as the marks of the Buddha] that are visible are magic-like products of Suchness manifested in accordance with the mentality of men in defilement. It is not, however, that these corporeal aspects which result from the suprarational functions of wisdom are of the nature of nonemptiness [i.e., substantial]; for wisdom has no aspects that can be perceived.

(2) Nonidentity Just as various pieces of pottery differ from each other, so differences exist between the state of enlightenment and that of nonenlightenment, and between the magic-like manifestations of Suchness manifested in accordance with the mentality of men in defilement, and those of men of ignorance who are defiled [i.e., blinded] as to the essential nature of Suchness.

Bakmoon
Posts: 746
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 12:31 am

Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?

Post by Bakmoon » Tue Sep 29, 2015 1:46 am

dzogchungpa wrote:
Bakmoon wrote:That's a serious misreading and taking out of context of the Ananda Sutta.
You should really let Thanissaro Bhikkhu know, since that is basically how he reads it.
I am quite familiar with Ajahn Thanissaro's writings. His main point is that the teaching that all things are not-self is intended to be a perception to be cultivated, rather than being part of philosophical system building.

Ajahn Thanissaro has a very brief article devoted to this subject that I would highly recommend. I'll just post the final conclusion here.
So, instead of answering "no" to the question of whether or not there is a self — interconnected or separate, eternal or not — the Buddha felt that the question was misguided to begin with. Why? No matter how you define the line between "self" and "other," the notion of self involves an element of self-identification and clinging, and thus suffering and stress. This holds as much for an interconnected self, which recognizes no "other," as it does for a separate self. If one identifies with all of nature, one is pained by every felled tree. It also holds for an entirely "other" universe, in which the sense of alienation and futility would become so debilitating as to make the quest for happiness — one's own or that of others — impossible. For these reasons, the Buddha advised paying no attention to such questions as "Do I exist?" or "Don't I exist?" for however you answer them, they lead to suffering and stress.

To avoid the suffering implicit in questions of "self" and "other," he offered an alternative way of dividing up experience: the four Noble Truths of stress, its cause, its cessation, and the path to its cessation. Rather than viewing these truths as pertaining to self or other, he said, one should recognize them simply for what they are, in and of themselves, as they are directly experienced, and then perform the duty appropriate to each. Stress should be comprehended, its cause abandoned, its cessation realized, and the path to its cessation developed. These duties form the context in which the anatta doctrine is best understood. If you develop the path of virtue, concentration, and discernment to a state of calm well-being and use that calm state to look at experience in terms of the Noble Truths, the questions that occur to the mind are not "Is there a self? What is my self?" but rather "Am I suffering stress because I'm holding onto this particular phenomenon? Is it really me, myself, or mine? If it's stressful but not really me or mine, why hold on?" These last questions merit straightforward answers, as they then help you to comprehend stress and to chip away at the attachment and clinging — the residual sense of self-identification — that cause it, until ultimately all traces of self-identification are gone and all that's left is limitless freedom.

In this sense, the anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness. At that point, questions of self, no-self, and not-self fall aside. Once there's the experience of such total freedom, where would there be any concern about what's experiencing it, or whether or not it's a self?
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... self2.html
In other words, according to Ajahn Thanissaro, one develops the perception of not-self in order to obtain liberation, and then after it has been obtained, one leaves behind one's view of not-self because it isn't needed any more. Of course, one does not slide back into views of a self upon letting go of the view of not-self, because a liberated being has cut the fetter of a view of a self. I really don't see how this is significantly different from instructions given for Madhyamaka meditation that say that after analysis has been completed, one lets go of one's views and rests in that state.

Bakmoon
Posts: 746
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 12:31 am

Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?

Post by Bakmoon » Tue Sep 29, 2015 1:56 am

Son of Buddha, I have a question for you, and I'm not trying to be argumentative here, I just really need some help understanding what you are trying to say.

What is your position about the Self and the Tathagatagarbha? According to you, what is the self/Tathagatagarbha? Is it an entity that is separate from the aggregates? Is it some kind of mind? Is it the quality of wisdom? Is it the attributes of Buddhahood? I can't understand your position from your quotes alone.

Malcolm
Posts: 31143
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?

Post by Malcolm » Tue Sep 29, 2015 3:01 am

Son of Buddha wrote:[

When the quote says the perfected nature does not exist, it clarifies that statement by saying that it does not exists IN THE SAME WAY of the forders understanding which is the existence imputed upon the phenomena and persons(known as the 2 selves of the forders), so all you quote is actally saying is that it doesn't exist in ONE manner, BUT it exists in ANOTHER manner hence: "It is also not a nonentity, because at that time suchness, the characteristic of the perfected exists", of course the very terms Existence and Non Existence are words used to describe an Samsaric understanding and Suchness is beyond samasaric understanding. hence the non duality teachings (freedom from existence and nonexistence)
It is saying two things, it does not exist as a nature [svabhāva], but it exists as a svalakśana, a characteristic. For example, space does not exist as a nature [since there is no entity of space], but it does exist as a characteristic [since the characteristic of space is absence of obstruction.

It does exist however as a characteristic, and what is that characteristics, emptiness a.k.a suchness,
Now you are just agreeing with me, I have been saying for years that the term True Self is just a word used to describe the Characteristics of Suchness which is you said "does exist"......... welcome to the club.
No, I am not agreeing with you — you fail to distinguish between an entity and a characteristic.

The True Self is not an identity
Then the term cannot be taken literally, since after all, a self is nothing but an identity.

however to think that the Supreme Self has the Characteristics of Not Self is one of the 4 perversions.
The so called "supreme self" is just selflessness, i.e the absence of being an entity. Your supreme self is not an entity, it is therefore not real, it does not exist.


hence you acknowledged that the Self means something that is real.
No, I have shown that the intention of the term "self" is indirect and not to be taken literally.


Further earlier in this chapter Maitreya declares at 9.4 "all phenomena are buddhahood," but according to your oft stated point of view, this is impossible since [buddha = self] and [self = not the aggregates] and so on.
So really, I think you need to rethink your literalism on these points
Your not understanding the passages
All phenomena is Buddhahood, because the illusion of the snake is the Rope ;)
No, the illusion of a snake has never been the rope. If you really think that the illusion of snake is the rope you have just betrayed the basic flaw in your thinking.

Phenomena are not established as real, and neither is Buddhahood. As Nāgārjuna quips:
  • Whatever is the nature of the Tathagata, that is the nature of the world;
    as the Tathagata has no nature, the world has no nature.

smcj
Posts: 6948
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?

Post by smcj » Tue Sep 29, 2015 4:08 am

Whatever is the nature of the Tathagata, that is the nature of the world;
Sounds like monism to me so far...
...as the Tathagata has no nature, the world has no nature.
...which only defines the essential nature of the monism.

I'm not really into that idea, just :stirthepot:
--------------------
But on another subject, or rather a different take on the same subject, I'd like to ask the Madhyamikas how they differentiate between the English "primordial" and "transcendent"? If interdependent origination accounts for the observable universe, and if gzhi is beyond causes and conditions and is characterized as "primordial", how is that different that calling "transcendent"? Obviously "transcendent" has a connotation of "above", and "primordial" has the connotation of "prior" or "below", but both are similar in the idea as "apart from".

Just askin'....
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
DespreTine
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 5:02 am
Location: San Jose, California

Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?

Post by DespreTine » Tue Sep 29, 2015 4:33 pm

smcj wrote:
Whatever is the nature of the Tathagata, that is the nature of the world;
Sounds like monism to me so far...
...as the Tathagata has no nature, the world has no nature.
...which only defines the essential nature of the monism.
Assuming you mean substrate-monism, not theistic monism.
That could only apply as monism if "not having a nature" formed some kind of basis that things could arise from. This would be where the emptiness-of-emptiness would come in. The lack-of-essence/noumena is not itself something "real" or capable of acting or projecting etc.

If you are thinking some kind of theistic monism, then Nagarjuna's arguments against singular and plural agents/entities would apply here.

User avatar
monktastic
Posts: 487
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:48 am
Location: NYC

Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?

Post by monktastic » Tue Sep 29, 2015 5:56 pm

smcj wrote: But on another subject, or rather a different take on the same subject, I'd like to ask the Madhyamikas how they differentiate between the English "primordial" and "transcendent"? If interdependent origination accounts for the observable universe, and if gzhi is beyond causes and conditions and is characterized as "primordial", how is that different that calling "transcendent"? Obviously "transcendent" has a connotation of "above", and "primordial" has the connotation of "prior" or "below", but both are similar in the idea as "apart from".
I don't have much to add, but I'd like to say that for me, "primordial" does not have the connotation of "apart from". To me it merely implies "fundamental" (and perhaps so fundamental as to be intrinsic or inseparable).
This undistracted state of ordinary mind
Is the meditation.
One will understand it in due course.

--Gampopa

Bakmoon
Posts: 746
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 12:31 am

Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?

Post by Bakmoon » Tue Sep 29, 2015 6:08 pm

smcj wrote:
Whatever is the nature of the Tathagata, that is the nature of the world;
Sounds like monism to me so far...
...as the Tathagata has no nature, the world has no nature.
...which only defines the essential nature of the monism.
There's a significant difference between a nature and a substance. A substance is an underlying entity or material that makes up something, and monism claims that all things are different forms of a single underlying substance. A nature however, is just a functional description of the qualities of something, and isn't a 'thing' that you can literally point to. If I say that the nature of a cup of water is that it is cool to the touch, flows when I pour it, is clear, and is refreshing to drink, I can't somehow examine the water and find the coolness, the flowing-ness, etc... somehow dissolved into the water. All of these natures are just descriptions.
smcj wrote: But on another subject, or rather a different take on the same subject, I'd like to ask the Madhyamikas how they differentiate between the English "primordial" and "transcendent"? If interdependent origination accounts for the observable universe, and if gzhi is beyond causes and conditions and is characterized as "primordial", how is that different that calling "transcendent"? Obviously "transcendent" has a connotation of "above", and "primordial" has the connotation of "prior" or "below", but both are similar in the idea as "apart from".

Just askin'....
Primordial literally means something like 'from the very begining' although it doesn't automatically imply a beginning. If something is primordially empty for example, that means that it always was empty, is empty, and always will be empty. That is quite different from calling something transcendental.

smcj
Posts: 6948
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?

Post by smcj » Tue Sep 29, 2015 6:40 pm

Primordial literally means something like 'from the very begining' although it doesn't automatically imply a beginning. If something is primordially empty for example, that means that it always was empty, is empty, and always will be empty. That is quite different from calling something transcendental.
However if you differentiate between the phenomenal universe, and say that it is all causes and conditions, and then say that "primordial" is beyond causes and conditions, you are not talking about something that is encompassed by the phenomenal universe by the very definitions you are using.

I'm using "transcendental" just because I'm being a troll, but however you want to deal with it semantically the idea stays the same.
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
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?

Post by dzogchungpa » Tue Sep 29, 2015 6:44 pm

Bakmoon wrote:There's a significant difference between a nature and a substance. A substance is an underlying entity or material that makes up something, and monism claims that all things are different forms of a single underlying substance. A nature however, is just a functional description of the qualities of something, and isn't a 'thing' that you can literally point to. If I say that the nature of a cup of water is that it is cool to the touch, flows when I pour it, is clear, and is refreshing to drink, I can't somehow examine the water and find the coolness, the flowing-ness, etc... somehow dissolved into the water. All of these natures are just descriptions.
If I am not mistaken, 'nature' here is translating 'svabhāva', which can have various meanings but in this case is actually something like what you are calling a substance.
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche

Bakmoon
Posts: 746
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 12:31 am

Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?

Post by Bakmoon » Tue Sep 29, 2015 6:50 pm

dzogchungpa wrote:
Bakmoon wrote:There's a significant difference between a nature and a substance. A substance is an underlying entity or material that makes up something, and monism claims that all things are different forms of a single underlying substance. A nature however, is just a functional description of the qualities of something, and isn't a 'thing' that you can literally point to. If I say that the nature of a cup of water is that it is cool to the touch, flows when I pour it, is clear, and is refreshing to drink, I can't somehow examine the water and find the coolness, the flowing-ness, etc... somehow dissolved into the water. All of these natures are just descriptions.
If I am not mistaken, 'nature' here is translating 'svabhāva', which can have various meanings but in this case is actually something like what you are calling a substance.
Yes, but the term svabhāva isn't always used in an ontological sense. Even Madhyamaka texts use the term svabhāva in this sense, such as saying that all things are of the nature of emptiness. If the term svabhāva meant substance or intrinsic existence in such instances, then those texts would be totally incoherent because they would be saying that all things are formed of an underlying substance, and that substance is a negation of substance, which is a flat out self-contradiction.

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

Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?

Post by dzogchungpa » Tue Sep 29, 2015 6:53 pm

Bakmoon wrote:
dzogchungpa wrote:
Bakmoon wrote:There's a significant difference between a nature and a substance. A substance is an underlying entity or material that makes up something, and monism claims that all things are different forms of a single underlying substance. A nature however, is just a functional description of the qualities of something, and isn't a 'thing' that you can literally point to. If I say that the nature of a cup of water is that it is cool to the touch, flows when I pour it, is clear, and is refreshing to drink, I can't somehow examine the water and find the coolness, the flowing-ness, etc... somehow dissolved into the water. All of these natures are just descriptions.
If I am not mistaken, 'nature' here is translating 'svabhāva', which can have various meanings but in this case is actually something like what you are calling a substance.
Yes, but the term svabhāva isn't always used in an ontological sense. Even Madhyamaka texts use the term svabhāva in this sense, such as saying that all things are of the nature of emptiness. If the term svabhāva meant substance or intrinsic existence in such instances, then those texts would be totally incoherent because they would be saying that all things are formed of an underlying substance, and that substance is a negation of substance, which is a flat out self-contradiction.
Right, but the quote in question is:
Whatever is the nature of the Tathagata, that is the nature of the world;
as the Tathagata has no nature, the world has no nature.
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 » Tue Sep 29, 2015 6:56 pm

Bakmoon wrote:Son of Buddha, I have a question for you, and I'm not trying to be argumentative here, I just really need some help understanding what you are trying to say.

What is your position about the Self and the Tathagatagarbha? According to you, what is the self/Tathagatagarbha? Is it an entity that is separate from the aggregates?
It co-exists with the 5 aggregates but it is separate from the 5 aggrgates

Nirvana Sutra
The Buddha-Nature of beings does not first become pure when assisted by letters. Why not? Because that nature is originally pure. Also, while co-existing with the five skandhas, the 18 realms and the 12 spheres [of the senses], the Buddha-Nature is not one with the five skandhas, the 18 realms and the 12 spheres.


And

it should be understood that the Tathagata-garbha, from the beginning, contains only pure excellent qualities which, outnumbering the sands of the Ganges, are not independent of, severed from, or different from Suchness; that the soiled states of defilement which, outnumbering the sands of the Ganges, are not independent of, severed from, or different from Suchness; that the soiled states of defilement which, outnumbering the sands of the Ganges, merely exist in illusion; are, from the beginning, nonexistent; and from the beginningless beginning have never been united with the Tathagata-garbha.

Is it some kind of mind? Is it the quality of wisdom? Is it the attributes of Buddhahood? I can't understand your position from your quotes alone.
the True Self is the attributes of Buddhahood.

The 4 virtues

it is Pure because it is empty of all adventious defilements and imperfections of Samsara.
it is Bliss because it is free from suffering.
it is the True Self because omniscience, the basic element which is the source of all phenomena transcends both self and non-self of the forders(self of persons and self of phenomena).
it is Permanent because it not subject to decay, arising or conditioning.

The True Self is defined as having no suffering no greed or anger, no ignorance.

It is beginningless, uncreated, unborn, undying, free from destruction, permanent unchanging, eternal, inherently pure, and separate from all the stores of defilement

It has the 8 sovereignty's

It is sovereign/ autonomous/ self-governing [aisvarya], and whose ground/ foundation is unchanging [asraya-aviparinama], .......ect

Malcolm
Posts: 31143
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?

Post by Malcolm » Tue Sep 29, 2015 6:57 pm

Bakmoon wrote: Even Madhyamaka texts use the term svabhāva in this sense, such as saying that all things are of the nature of emptiness. If the term svabhāva meant substance or intrinsic existence in such instances, then those texts would be totally incoherent because they would be saying that all things are formed of an underlying substance, and that substance is a negation of substance, which is a flat out self-contradiction.
Which is actually what Candrakirti says it means, i.e. emptiness is the natureless nature or the insubstantial substance.

Malcolm
Posts: 31143
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?

Post by Malcolm » Tue Sep 29, 2015 7:37 pm

dzogchungpa wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Bakmoon wrote: Even Madhyamaka texts use the term svabhāva in this sense, such as saying that all things are of the nature of emptiness. If the term svabhāva meant substance or intrinsic existence in such instances, then those texts would be totally incoherent because they would be saying that all things are formed of an underlying substance, and that substance is a negation of substance, which is a flat out self-contradiction.
Which is actually what Candrakirti says it means, i.e. emptiness is the natureless nature or the insubstantial substance.
Or even the selfless self? :stirthepot:
Yes, this is also fine, that is the meaning. This selfless self is merely a convention, a term, a name. Our friends SOB would like us to believe there is some transcendent self that is not merely a conventional name, but I don't buy it — there are too many contradictions inherent in the term, which is why we cannot take these buddhist sutras that discuss and use the term "self" literally. They are provisional and requite interpretation.

Bakmoon
Posts: 746
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 12:31 am

Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?

Post by Bakmoon » Tue Sep 29, 2015 7:38 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Bakmoon wrote: Even Madhyamaka texts use the term svabhāva in this sense, such as saying that all things are of the nature of emptiness. If the term svabhāva meant substance or intrinsic existence in such instances, then those texts would be totally incoherent because they would be saying that all things are formed of an underlying substance, and that substance is a negation of substance, which is a flat out self-contradiction.
Which is actually what Candrakirti says it means, i.e. emptiness is the natureless nature or the insubstantial substance.
Aren't the texts being a little bit poetic and not 100% literal when they say that though? I would take it to mean that all things are without any real nature, and this lack of a nature is conventionally designated as a nature, rather than a purely literal meaning that all things have an underlying substance, and this underlying substance is a lack of underlying substance.

Malcolm
Posts: 31143
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?

Post by Malcolm » Tue Sep 29, 2015 7:48 pm

Bakmoon wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Bakmoon wrote: Even Madhyamaka texts use the term svabhāva in this sense, such as saying that all things are of the nature of emptiness. If the term svabhāva meant substance or intrinsic existence in such instances, then those texts would be totally incoherent because they would be saying that all things are formed of an underlying substance, and that substance is a negation of substance, which is a flat out self-contradiction.
Which is actually what Candrakirti says it means, i.e. emptiness is the natureless nature or the insubstantial substance.
Aren't the texts being a little bit poetic and not 100% literal when they say that though? I would take it to mean that all things are without any real nature, and this lack of a nature is conventionally designated as a nature, rather than a purely literal meaning that all things have an underlying substance, and this underlying substance is a lack of underlying substance.
I think you can take it quite literally.

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

Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?

Post by dzogchungpa » Tue Sep 29, 2015 8:10 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Bakmoon wrote:Aren't the texts being a little bit poetic and not 100% literal when they say that though? I would take it to mean that all things are without any real nature, and this lack of a nature is conventionally designated as a nature, rather than a purely literal meaning that all things have an underlying substance, and this underlying substance is a lack of underlying substance.
I think you can take it quite literally.
Mind is blown.
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 » Tue Sep 29, 2015 8:27 pm

Malcolm wrote:[
No, the illusion of a snake has never been the rope. If you really think that the illusion of snake is the rope you have just betrayed the basic flaw in your thinking.
Yes the rope and the illusion of the snake are the same. Cause whether a person see a rope or a misperception of a snake it doesn't change the fact he is looking at the same one object.


Phenomena are not established as real, and neither is Buddhahood. As Nāgārjuna quips:
  • Whatever is the nature of the Tathagata, that is the nature of the world;
    as the Tathagata has no nature, the world has no nature.
Again, this is intentional language and is not to be taken literally. :tongue:

Also this understanding only applys to the prajnaparamita understanding , the Tathagatagarbha teachings
Teach differently

Queen Srimala Sutra
Chapter 10: The One Truth V99. O’ Bhagavan, among these four noble truths, three of these truths are impermanent and one is permanent. Why is this? Because three of these truths belong to the category of what is conditioned. Whatever is conditioned is impermanent and whatever is impermanent has an false and illusionary nature. Thus what is false and illusionary in nature is not true, impermanent and not fit to be regarded as a Refuge. Therefore, the noble truths (1)”There is suffering” (2)”There is the source of suffering” (3)”There is the path that leads to the end of suffering” are actually not the highest truth, for they are impermanent and not fit to be regarded as a Refuge. Bhagavan, the fourth Noble Truth (4)”The cessation of suffering” is separate from the conditioned. Whatever is separate from the conditioned is called permanent. Whatever is permanent does not have a false and illusionary nature. Whatever is not false and illusionary in nature is true, permanent, and fit to be regarded as a Refuge. Therefore, the Noble Truth known as the extinction of suffering is the highest truth, permanent, and is fit to be regarded as a true Refuge.

Post Reply

Return to “Tibetan Buddhism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests