The Eternal Self of the Buddha

[dwai]

Edited August 2, 2009 by dwai

[Vajrahridaya]

Does that sound like Brahman to you?

 

Sure does to me...

 

 

Oh boy... yes another scripture that non-buddhists just refuse to understand. They love to propagate their self existing eternalistic ideas onto it.

 

The realization of Nirvana is eternal. The self spoken of is the body/mind complex that has accumulated the heaps through realization and one realizes the Dharmakaya, Sambhogakaya and the Nirmanakaya.

 

There is still NO reification of a truly self existing eternal self. Other than the endless realization that is Nirvana.

 

This Self of the Buddha is in fact merely the realization of the inherent non-abiding nature of all things, always since beginningless time.

 

It's not the self of Vedanta and not a source of all existence. The dharmakaya is a result body.

 

To read this scripture properly, one needs a genuine teacher who understands the subtleties. Otherwise, one will be just like Dwai and reify, reify, reify without proper comprehension of the meaning.

 

Yes Dwai, you are wrong again from a genuine Buddhist perspective.

 

Most of this commentary is what is known as Dark Zen style and they are a fringe Buddhist group and not accepted by the vast majority of Buddhist groups, at all.

 

Atman is being used in a figurative manner here, in the sense that all beings have the potentiality of realization.

 

This scripture is also argued against as being somewhat of a Hindu concoction. Because it's the absolute only scripture that talks about an eternal self existing Self, when in the Pali Suttas he clearly states that there is not, as I quoted in the Chicken or the Egg thread.

 

Hindu's looooove this scripture though. I know, I used to love it and use it to propagate my view which was akin to Dwai's for many years of my life. I realized I was wrong though and off the mark.

 

There is positive in Buddhism. Realization is very positive. But there is no reification of a Self, course or fine, limited or unlimited... only relative, never ultimate. Unless it's talking about the ultimate realization that is Nirvana, which means like a flame put out.

 

The true nature of things is inherent in as much as the inherent nature of things are empty, not that there is a true and abiding essence. Unless one were to talk of essence as in the essential nature is non-abiding. There is still no super Will to surrender to, no divine conductor of the play, no true being behind all being.

 

I'm talking about Buddhism as a whole, not one fringe scripture that really needs some contextualization.

[xabir2005]

[Sunya]

"Ātman is an essence of things that does not depend on others; it is an intrinsic nature. The non-existence of that is selflessness".

-- Candrakīrti -- Bodhisattvayogacaryācatuḥśatakaṭikā 256.1.7

 

Why is it so hard to just accept that Buddhism does not have an atman or Brahman?

 

As the belief in ātman is identified as a cause of saṃsāra, it is not merely cognate with the various concepts of ātman as found in Hindu philosophy, and indeed the specific identification of what ātman is, is an essential philosophical concept for the Buddhist meditator.

 

If no concept of ātman were to exist at all, then we would all be naturally free from saṃsāra. What this entails is that ātman is identified as existing as a concept - more specifically, as a cognitive obscuration; moreover, it is this specific cognitive obscuration which is identified as being the root cause of all suffering.

 

So, when Buddhists claim that there is no ātman, they are not really saying that it does not exist, but that it exists solely as a cognitive obscuration - as an innate response to the world around us; and this deeply enmeshed obscuration lies at the root of all misery.

 

What Buddha talks about in the Tathagatagarbha Sutras as Eternal, Pure, and Unchanging is the Dharmakaya or Body of Truth. This is basically the realization of Emptiness, as Emptiness is the base of all Beings since all Beings are empty. but this Emptiness is not an essence it is a condition, and the Buddha never says that no phenomena exists since it is only Emptiness that exists as an unchanging eternal essence that Is everything. So Dharmakaya is not equal to Brahman at all because Buddha never teaches monism.

 

It is important to understand that this sutra is Mahayana and comparing it to Theravada is comparing two systems with the same core, but of completely different method. The Mahaparinirvana Sutra without the teachings of Dependent Origination and Emptiness is a Hindu Atman teaching. Since you do not understand what the basic teachings of Buddhism are, you will only see this advanced sutra through the eyes of Monism

[Lucky7Strikes]

Dwai,

 

Key word missing from all that: "Source"

 

What round is this...like 5? Wonder how many pages this thing'll go...

[Sunya]

So one must be quite careful not to make an error. The Lanka states unequivocably that the tathagatagarbha doctrine is merely a device to lead those who grasp at a true self the inner meaning of the Dharma, non-arising, the two selflessnesses and so on

 

very important ^

 

but also, one should look into the teachings of Buddha Nature and compare that with Atman. and note the difference between the two statements

 

Everyone has Buddha Nature

 

Atman is the true self, Atman is Brahman, Everyone/everything is Brahman

 

 

The nature of all phenomena is void and emptiness from beginningless time, but all sentient beings have Buddha Nature which is the inner potentiality to realize their true nature of voidness.

 

Everything is Brahman.

 

I really don't see the similarity... the True Self of Mahayana is the potentiality for enlightenment. and after enlightenment in Mahayana, one does see all beings as having Buddha nature, and one does see, on another level, that all of reality is a dance of energies, but.. one never stops seeing that people are suffering from their own side. How does Advaita address that? My understanding is that after realization of Brahman, the individuals that we experience are seen as Brahman and their suffering really doesn't matter because its all a play. the Absolute level of Brahman is the only reality, as Maharshi says: Brahman alone is real. but Buddhism, all schools, never says that Emptiness or Dharmakaya alone is real. and people will always suffer from their own side, so enlightenment is actually reaching the zenith of compassion and skillful activity to help all beings. Being never disappear and stop suffering in Buddhism. the Relative never stops. Nirvana is Samsara.

Edited August 2, 2009 by mikaelz

[Vajrahridaya]

Thanks guys for contextualizing!! I also read that critic by Loppon Namdrol many years ago as an Advaita Shaivite and was like... "oh" Meditated on it... for a number of years... before having my own realization of the truth of my own false assumption based upon Vedantin conditioning.

 

 

 

Dwai,

 

Key word missing from all that: "Source"

 

What round is this...like 5? Wonder how many pages this thing'll go...

 

It's all from a contested page on Wikipedia.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Thanks guys for contextualizing!! I also read that critic by Loppon Namdrol many years ago as an Advaita Shaivite and was like... "oh" Meditated on it... for a number of years... before having my own realization of the truth of my own false assumption based upon Vedantin conditioning.

It's all from a contested page on Wikipedia.

 

I meant the Hindu interpretation of Brahman or a universal consciousness as a "source" of creation. I don't think the Buddha ever says that the "Self" is a source.

[Vajrahridaya]

I meant the Hindu interpretation of Brahman or a universal consciousness as a "source" of creation. I don't think the Buddha ever says that the "Self" is a source.

 

Well, only the "supreme source" of personal experience of Nirvana/Samsara, but not of the entire cosmos... No.

[dwai]

I meant the Hindu interpretation of Brahman or a universal consciousness as a "source" of creation. I don't think the Buddha ever says that the "Self" is a source.

 

See you have understand what Advaita says...Brahman/Atman is not the source. But it is also Not not the source. There is no other than Atman/Brahman. So what source and what creation? All the material universe is adhyasa or superimposition of categorical frameworks by jiva (which is limiting adjunct of Atman).

 

You guys can scream till you're hoarse in the throat about "How non-Buddhists don't understand the meaning of the Tathagatagarbha sutras". But the fact is that it is simply back-pedaling and trying to retro-fit an incompatibility (wrt your beliefsystem).

 

The text is clear and simple, as was most of the Buddha's teachings. There is a self. The Buddha simply taught Non-self so stupid and egotistical people manage to drop the "lesser I" and finally see the "Absolute I".

 

 

I'm talking about Buddhism as a whole, not one fringe scripture that really needs some contextualization.

 

Hmm...wonder why Buddhists across the world seem to agree upon the fact that the Mahaparinibbana sutta is actually the closest they can come to getting historical records of Shakyamuni and his life (and mahasamadhi).

 

The Mahaparinibbana Sutta is a Buddhist sutra in the Digha Nikaya of the Tripitaka. It concerns the end of Gautama Buddha's life and is the longest sutta of the Pali Canon.

 

Because of its attention to detail, it has been resorted to as the principal source of reference in most standard studies of the Buddha's life.[1]

[Vajrahridaya]

See you have understand what Advaita says...Brahman/Atman is not the source. But it is also Not not the source. There is no other than Atman/Brahman. So what source and what creation? All the material universe is adhyasa or superimposition of categorical frameworks by jiva (which is limiting adjunct of Atman).

 

You guys can scream till you're hoarse in the throat about "How non-Buddhists don't understand the meaning of the Tathagatagarbha sutras". But the fact is that it is simply back-pedaling and trying to retro-fit an incompatibility (wrt your beliefsystem).

 

The text is clear and simple, as was most of the Buddha's teachings. There is a self. The Buddha simply taught Non-self so stupid and egotistical people manage to drop the "lesser I" and finally see the "Absolute I".

Hmm...wonder why Buddhists across the world seem to agree upon the fact that the Mahaparinibbana sutta is actually the closest they can come to getting historical records of Shakyamuni and his life (and mahasamadhi).

 

The Parinibban sutta of the Pali Cannon is NOT the Parinirvana Sutra of the Mahayana Cannon. You don't read your Wiki sources very well do ya?

 

The Nirvana Sutra, or Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra (Chinese: Niepan Jing (涅槃經); Japanese: Nehankyō (涅槃経); Tibetan: myang 'das kyi mdo).[1]) is a major Mahayana sutra, which its English-translator, Kosho Yamamoto, has described as 'one of the three great masterpieces of Mahayana Buddhism'[2]. It is one of several Buddhist texts having approximately the same title, another well-known text being (the Mahaparinibbana Sutta), part of the Pali Canon. However, both for historical reasons and for the sake of clarity, the former is generally referred to by its full Sanskrit title, Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Mahā-sūtra (or simply "Nirvana Sutra") in cases where confusion may arise, the latter by its Pali title, Mahaparinibbana Sutta.

 

Were not backpedaling at all. We are clarifying for you.

 

All the Mahayana Sutras are to be taken into context and the text itself talks about as Namdrol stated.

 

Read Namdrol's explanation. As, that's the truth of the Sutra.

 

Brahman is always considered a source of all in Hinduism, as one with everything simultaneously. One can wriggle around saying how can it be the source of itself? Stop trying to make Vedanta sound like Buddhism. Shankaracharya's teachers did that and now the further one gets into the future away from the initial teachings of the Buddha the more that Hinduism sounds and tries to be like Buddhism, naming itself the Sanatana Dharma, when the first description was found in the Dhamapada and is originally a Buddhist designation, and Advaita Vedanta being somewhat of a Crypto Buddhism, even with some of the way Shankara trained the Monks, and had them take refuge in the Guru, Dharma, and Sangam, etc. etc.. Except there is one flaw, it's not Buddhism, because Hinduism reifies an eternal substratum. Which, in the Pali Cannon as I quoted in the other thread...

 

BUDDHAS DESCRIPTION OF SOME WRONG VIEWS:

The Buddha says:

 

"There is the case where an uninstructed, run of the mill person.... does not discern what ideas are fit for attention....

.... "As he attends innappropriately in this way, one of the six kinds of views rises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true and established, or the view I have no self... or the view it is precisely by means of the self that I percieve the self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is percisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true and established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine... the knower that is sensitive her and there (omnipresent) to the ripening of good and bad actions is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity.

 

....Vehemently denies.

 

There is no way you can prove that your position is the Buddhas teachings. It just is not. All Buddhist schools agree on this. Except Dark Zen.

[Lucky7Strikes]

See you have understand what Advaita says...Brahman/Atman is not the source. But it is also Not not the source. There is no other than Atman/Brahman. So what source and what creation? All the material universe is adhyasa or superimposition of categorical frameworks by jiva (which is limiting adjunct of Atman).

 

You guys can scream till you're hoarse in the throat about "How non-Buddhists don't understand the meaning of the Tathagatagarbha sutras". But the fact is that it is simply back-pedaling and trying to retro-fit an incompatibility (wrt your beliefsystem).

 

The text is clear and simple, as was most of the Buddha's teachings. There is a self. The Buddha simply taught Non-self so stupid and egotistical people manage to drop the "lesser I" and finally see the "Absolute I".

 

I meant "source" as you have stated it.

 

Dwai, why do you keep starting these arguments? There are no Buddhas or fully enlightened masters of Vedanta here (although "someone" may thinks otherwise) to speak of any such thing as an ultimate Truth with certainty and from experience.

 

Both sides have clearly stated the differences in their understandings...more than enough.

 

Go realize the Self as you see fit, and if you do, great! And if it's not enough and you think there's more, then maybe you can try exploring other Paths. But if it is, let it bring you ultimate freedom and joy.

 

Just as people have pointed out, even various Buddhists understand Buddhism differently. And "Self" is just a word pertaining to the realization of that experience. Some sects don't acknowledge others and concepts are interpreted likewise.

 

I hope these discussions don't hinder your progress and acceptance of other Paths and their methods (this includes the varying interpretations). The Truth of things don't belong to Buddhism or Vedanta philosophy, so we all might be wrong to continually assert this and that from mere speculation.

 

Yet the map we each choose to carry can be different. And none of us will know whether or not it has been the right direction until we get there. So why not just see it like it is and move on?

Edited August 3, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[findley]

...I don't know whether I should be impressed with this buddhist scholarship... Or ... ...

 

I guess study of buddhist religion is as acceptable a hobby as any. ...

 

... I wonder if you buddhists really believe that such nonsense is conducive to 'enlightenment'? (I mean, really?)

 

I mean, really-- genuine curiousity. No offensive intentions involved.

[Vajrahridaya]

...I don't know whether I should be impressed with this buddhist scholarship... Or ... ...

 

I guess study of buddhist religion is as acceptable a hobby as any. ...

 

... I wonder if you buddhists really believe that such nonsense is conducive to 'enlightenment'? (I mean, really?)

 

Sure, clarifying the meaning. Coupled with good down home practice is exactly what enlightened the Buddha, the 84 Mahasiddhas. Plus many current Masters. The Dzogchen system requires study and practice and ends in the Jalus or Body of light where one dissolves everything into the radiances of Bodhichitta Awareness, or Rigpa.

 

You take care findley.

[findley]

HA ! I GOT IT !!

 

IT GETS YOU LAID !!!!! of course... vajradingdong seems to have a hot girlfriend sharing his avatar.

 

I guess not all buddhists are the 'suck-assy' types, eh

[Sunya]

There is no way you can prove that your position is the Buddhas teachings. It just is not. All Buddhist schools agree on this. Except Dark Zen.

 

I wouldn't even consider Dark Zen a school of Buddhism, its just an internet phenomenon created by people who cling to an eternal Self and try to fit Buddhism in there and claim they have the 'original and true Buddhism' and go around vehemently arguing against Buddhists who actually understand Dharma.

 

HA ! I GOT IT !!

 

IT GETS YOU LAID !!!!! of course... vajradingdong seems to have a hot girlfriend sharing his avatar.

 

I guess not all buddhists are the 'suck-assy' types, eh

 

 

yes we study Buddhism to get laid, you got it. now run off, I think you'd find more in common with people on the PUA forums at fastseduction

[dwai]

I meant "source" as you have stated it.

 

Dwai, why do you keep starting these arguments? There are no Buddhas or fully enlightened masters of Vedanta here (although "someone" may thinks otherwise) to speak of any such thing as an ultimate Truth with certainty and from experience.

 

Both sides have clearly stated the differences in their understandings...more than enough.

 

Go realize the Self as you see fit, and if you do, great! And if it's not enough and you think there's more, then maybe you can try exploring other Paths. But if it is, let it bring you ultimate freedom and joy.

 

Just as people have pointed out, even various Buddhists understand Buddhism differently. And "Self" is just a word pertaining to the realization of that experience. Some sects don't acknowledge others and concepts are interpreted likewise.

 

I hope these discussions don't hinder your progress and acceptance of other Paths and their methods (this includes the varying interpretations). The Truth of things don't belong to Buddhism or Vedanta philosophy, so we all might be wrong to continually assert this and that from mere speculation.

 

Yet the map we each choose to carry can be different. And none of us will know whether or not it has been the right direction until we get there. So why not just see it like it is and move on?

 

Well said. But that doesn't change the Absolute Truth -- The Self...

 

The Parinibban sutta of the Pali Cannon is NOT the Parinirvana Sutra of the Mahayana Cannon. You don't read your Wiki sources very well do ya?

 

Agreed...that was typed out in a hurry. But that doesn't change the fact that the Mahayana MahaParinirvana Sutras do refer to the "Self in the interior of Nirvana".

 

Were not backpedaling at all. We are clarifying for you.

 

All the Mahayana Sutras are to be taken into context and the text itself talks about as Namdrol stated.

 

Read Namdrol's explanation. As, that's the truth of the Sutra.

 

Oh so now we have to take The Mahayana Sutras in context but the Vedantic texts are to be taken out of context?

That is exaclty what you and your chela been doing all this time. It is very convenient for polemic but does nothing to increase your level of knowledge or humility.

 

I have read this Sutra exactly as it has been meant to be communicated -- There IS a Self, according to Mahayana. You might be suffering from Cognitive dissonance, but that is your problem.

 

Brahman is always considered a source of all in Hinduism, as one with everything simultaneously. One can wriggle around saying how can it be the source of itself? Stop trying to make Vedanta sound like Buddhism. Shankaracharya's teachers did that and now the further one gets into the future away from the initial teachings of the Buddha the more that Hinduism sounds and tries to be like Buddhism, naming itself the Sanatana Dharma, when the first description was found in the Dhamapada and is originally a Buddhist designation, and Advaita Vedanta being somewhat of a Crypto Buddhism, even with some of the way Shankara trained the Monks, and had them take refuge in the Guru, Dharma, and Sangam, etc. etc.. Except there is one flaw, it's not Buddhism, because Hinduism reifies an eternal substratum. Which, in the Pali Cannon as I quoted in the other thread...

 

BUDDHAS DESCRIPTION OF SOME WRONG VIEWS:

....Vehemently denies.

 

There is no way you can prove that your position is the Buddhas teachings. It just is not. All Buddhist schools agree on this. Except Dark Zen.

 

Yeah..right! I'm squirming around...

Whatever...yawn!

[contrivedname!]

what the hell is dark zen?

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Agreed...that was typed out in a hurry. But that doesn't change the fact that the Mahayana MahaParinirvana Sutras do refer to the "Self in the interior of Nirvana".

Vedantic texts are to be taken out of context?

 

 

 

Your free to cling to a Self. Doesn't change the facts of your deluded commentary on Buddhist texts that real Buddhists throughout history have commented on with understanding that does not support your claims. How have you really read the text, in it's original sanskrit? Yeah right... did you even read the dubious history of the text? How scholars dispute aspects authenticity due to other translations that don't support others. Many of the English translations that you probably read as you don't read Chinese or Tibetan, are going to be really insecure as a basis for understanding. Your clinging to this one text as the be it of your view is standing on shakey ground. Much of it is contradictory.

 

Anyway... I've never taken Vedanta out of context. I'm well aware of the stances of Vedanta both textually and experientially.

 

You in your mind can cling to this subjective outlook as long as you wish.

 

You're Vedantin interpretation of Buddhism has been debunked. I've quoted plenty of texts to do so and so have other Buddhists here.

 

According to you, all these Buddhist Masters who trained deeply and meditated deeply in caves with other Masters with deep and ancient lineages that clarify the meaning both for themselves and to offer right view to all future Buddhists are wrong according to you and so many Vedantins. I know exactly where your wrong because I was wrong in the exact same way, but you'll have to find out for yourself.

 

Take care.

 

what the hell is dark zen?

 

Google it. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=d...oq=&aqi=g10

Edited August 3, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[contrivedname!]

no thanks, i wouldnt of asked if i felt like googling it, i was more curious to get one of your or mikalez descriptions of it.

 

if your all about middle path free from extremes why do you keep arguing an extreme stance?

 

it just seems to me your refutation of monism is just about as extreme a view as a completely monistic view...

 

then again, what do i know?

 

chris

[Vajrahridaya]

no thanks, i wouldnt of asked if i felt like googling it, i was more curious to get one of your or mikalez descriptions of it.

 

if your all about middle path free from extremes why do you keep arguing an extreme stance?

 

it just seems to me your refutation of monism is just about as extreme a view as a completely monistic view...

 

then again, what do i know?

 

chris

 

Monism is extreme and Eternalistic. Buddhism is the middle path free from Eternalism or Nihilism. That's my argument. There's no extreme being posited here. I may be extreme in my personality type, but that's it. That's just my personality that I have to work with. This does not subvert the facts of Dwai's misuse of the Buddhist teachings to support his view. It should be corrected as people get confused. I'm just here... and so, I can do so. I don't plan on conquering the world. Now, I did say before that Monism can serve a person to attain higher rebirth and better cognitive powers. But according to the Buddha, Nagarjuna and countless other known Buddhist Masters, it won't lead to liberation and it's basis is Samsaric.

 

Michaelz talked about what Dark Zen is above a bit. It's just a new fringe group that takes up the Mahaparinirvana Sutra in it's English Translations that come in various types and made up a whole new religion online.

[nac]

The Buddhas are perfectly empty. They do not join up to form a single cosmic being, but they're not entirely separate from each other either. They're not different, but distinct. Sorry if I haven't managed to express it properly.

 

Believe me, Tibetan scholars have studied each line of every sutra and tantra in intricate detail, cross-referenced them and debated over them for centuries like in Nalanda. (Read The Sound of Two Hands Clapping if you don't believe me) They've still gotten things wrong many times, but nothing so fundamental such as this.

 

PS. See Yogachara and Huayan for more info. I'm afraid Buddhism doesn't appeal to the common sense or claim to be simple and easy to understand. When studying Buddhism, be prepared for subtle complexity and apparent paradoxes around every bend.

Edited August 3, 2009 by nac

[xabir2005]

I wouldn't even consider Dark Zen a school of Buddhism, its just an internet phenomenon created by people who cling to an eternal Self and try to fit Buddhism in there and claim they have the 'original and true Buddhism' and go around vehemently arguing against Buddhists who actually understand Dharma.

I remember Thusness told me many years ago that the Dark Zen folks invited him to join them before

 

Maybe he should have... and reform the wrong understanding from within

Edited August 3, 2009 by xabir2005

[Vajrahridaya]

The Buddhas are perfectly empty. They do not join up to form a single cosmic being, but they're not entirely separate from each other either. They're not different, but distinct. Sorry if I haven't managed to express it properly.

 

Believe me, Tibetan scholars have studied each line of every sutra and tantra in intricate detail, cross-referenced them and debated over them for centuries like in Nalanda. (Read The Sound of Two Hands Clapping if you don't believe me) They've still gotten things wrong many times, but nothing so fundamental such as this.

 

Indeed, thank you nac. You got it just right and expressed it clearly and simply. Much thanks!

 

There is not one Self of all, that is never a Buddhist stance. Each Buddha does have an individual realization of the same truth of all things, that all levels of experience be it mundane or mystical is dependently originated and inherently empty of swabhava, or self essence.

Edited August 3, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[contrivedname!]

Monism is extreme and Eternalistic. Buddhism is the middle path free from Eternalism or Nihilism. That's my argument. There's no extreme being posited here. I may be extreme in my personality type, but that's it. That's just my personality that I have to work with. This does not subvert the facts of Dwai's misuse of the Buddhist teachings to support his view. It should be corrected as people get confused. I'm just here... and so, I can do so. I don't plan on conquering the world. Now, I did say before that Monism can serve a person to attain higher rebirth and better cognitive powers. But according to the Buddha, Nagarjuna and countless other known Buddhist Masters, it won't lead to liberation and it's basis is Samsaric.

 

thanks for the response.

 

i am wondering, from what mind state is it that you feel you have the "correction" for peoples "confusion"?

 

according to your mind, not nagarjuna or buddha or anyone else, what is the cause of monism or nihilism leading to samsaric rebirth while the ways of the folks stated above wont do so?

 

sorry about all the questions, but they are sincere not sarcastic or anything like that (in this case )