"there is such a self"

[3bob]

[Gerard]

Very nice.

 

Thanks for bringing this topic up! It clearly shows how students of Buddhism should stay away from Buddhist written material.

 

Experience it for yourself, this is what I learnt in my first Vipassana retreat. And this is the path I have been following since then.

 

EXPERIENCE THINGS.

[goldisheavy]

Very nice.

 

Thanks for bringing this topic up! It clearly shows how students of Buddhism should stay away from Buddhist written material.

 

 

So first you thank the guy for providing you with this written material, and right in the same breath you say we all need to stay away from the written material.

 

Hypocrite.

[Sunya]

Some need a True Self teaching where the ultimate nature of mind, the primordial empty awareness, is identified with as a method to attain its recognition. Most Buddhist schools view this as problematic since it can lead to grasping, and (i'm guessing) one could very well get stuck at the 'Witness' stage due to grasping at an ultimate Self. But, the hardcore no-self attitude of Madhyamaka can be quite difficult and is always supplemented in Tibetan traditions by Cittamatra (mind-only) teachings, which (I think) were inspired by the Mahaparanirvana sutra.

[Lucky7Strikes]

And where is this self you speak of? Where is it?

 

SHOW ME SHOW ME SHOW ME!

 

Some need a True Self teaching where the ultimate nature of mind, the primordial empty awareness, is identified with as a method to attain its recognition. Most Buddhist schools view this as problematic since it can lead to grasping, and (i'm guessing) one could very well get stuck at the 'Witness' stage due to grasping at an ultimate Self. But, the hardcore no-self attitude of Madhyamaka can be quite difficult and is always supplemented in Tibetan traditions by Cittamatra (mind-only) teachings, which (I think) were inspired by the Mahaparanirvana sutra.

 

And have you known anything without witnessing it?

 

NO, NO MORE STAGES!!!

 

These are states. There is no such thing as a superior state. That is becoming imprisoned by another set of conditions.

 

No-self does not mean there is no self. It means that there is no fixed entity called a self. Each individual Awareness is absolutely free, it is the Void, the "I"-ness. Each and every being, who experiences existence is it.

 

The merging of the existent, the manifest, into the I ness is the experience of I Amness. The merging of the non-existent, the "I" ness into the existence is Anatta. Both of these states are impermanent, for the experience of be recognized, the duality of I and You need to arise. There must be reflection.

Edited January 7, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Aetherous]

"You should use expedient means"

 

What does this mean?

[goldisheavy]

"You should use expedient means"

 

What does this mean?

 

It means using skillful lies to bring us closer to truth.

[Aetherous]

What are skillful lies?

[Mark Foote]

[Gerard]

So first you thank the guy for providing you with this written material, and right in the same breath you say we all need to stay away from the written material.

 

Hypocrite.

 

Being thankful for showing material that contradicts one of the main principles of Buddhist philosophy: anatta.

 

Why am I being an hypocrite for making that comment? Hahahaha.

 

STAY AWAY FROM WRITTEN MATERIAL IF YOU WANT TO REALLY UNDERSTAND NOT ONLY BUDDHISM BUT ALSO ANY OTHER SPIRITUAL PRACTICES.

 

Start feeling instead of feeding the voracious mind.

[rex]

STAY AWAY FROM WRITTEN MATERIAL IF YOU WANT TO REALLY UNDERSTAND NOT ONLY BUDDHISM BUT ALSO ANY OTHER SPIRITUAL PRACTICES.

Written material is good, but if you've lucky enough to have a teacher that you can really trust, then you don't have to get overly concerned over written material as they can clear things up and contextualise. I'd rather stay away from the hearsay and superstitions of others, they invariably have a hidden agenda. Edited January 7, 2010 by rex

[xabir2005]

Edited January 7, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Edited January 7, 2010 by xabir2005

[3bob]

Hey, 3Bob, can you give us the stanza number on that quote?- I have the Pali Society translation of PariNibbana Sutta in hand, and I'm not finding the passage you quote. Thanks.

 

Hello Mark,

 

Good question. Which is partly why I mentioned that the source of the quote was from, "The Pocket Buddha Reader", edited by Anne Bancroft, Shambhala publications 2001...and she did not include a bibliography in that edition; perhaps she did in another edition? Oops I was just now looking at the back of the book and found the following additional information: Originally published as Buddha speaks, 2000, by Anne Bancroft, which includes a bibliography. Maybe someone here has a copy of that book and will look it up for us?

 

Good day, Bob

[xabir2005]

Hey, 3Bob, can you give us the stanza number on that quote?- I have the Pali Society translation of PariNibbana Sutta in hand, and I'm not finding the passage you quote. Thanks.

The Pali version of Pari Nibbana Sutta is different from the Mahayana version which Bob quoted from, which is vastly different in content and nature from the original version. The Pali version is the literal account of what actually happened when Shakyamuni Buddha was passing away.

 

Whereas, all Mahayana sutras are not from the historical Buddha as in spoken by Shakyamuni Buddha in India 2500 years ago, but actually latter works hundred of years later from revealed sources.

 

Note: I am not saying this because I am a Theravadin, for Mahayanists and Vajrayanists especially those with certain level of knowledge of the historical account would also admit this, and it does not as a result mean the Mahayana scriptures are invalid. Anyway I'm a Mahayana Buddhist.

 

See Loppon Namdrol's conversation on this subject here: http://buddhism.sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/378306

Edited January 7, 2010 by xabir2005

[River Gazer]

This thread is long-winded and angry.

[C T]

It is well-accepted that the Diamond Sutra, which is the world's earliest dated printed book, is the most profound Buddhist discourse on the understanding of 'self'.

 

One of many translations of the Sutra:

http://www.diamond-sutra.com/diamond_sutra_translation.html

 

The History of the Sutra:

http://www.silk-road.com/artl/diamondsutra.shtml

[Encephalon]

This thread is long-winded and angry.

 

I would have to agree. Regrettably, my own history in this forum is not without egotism and negativity, but I have resolved to keep them in check, mostly by not "biting the hook" (in Pema Chodron's terminology).

 

There are very few Buddhist scholars in here who are prepared to delve competently into Buddhist cosmology, particularly with original texts. I would have to agree with durkhrod that it's best to leave these texts alone until one acquires the sophistication and learning to decipher their original intent, but I disagree that formal study should be avoided wholesale. Even a teenager can benefit from an Asian Studies course at the local junior college. But I think he's right regarding Vipassana; you can't "study" your way to an original experience of awakening.

 

We do have the benefit of a fantastically talented generation of western Buddhist scholars who can explicate original texts for the benefit of serious students of Asian philosophy. Unfortunately, I never see them quoted in here (David Loy, Jack Kornfield, Joanna Macy, Stephen Batchelor, to name a few). I regularly witness people beating each other over the head with original texts, a process which guarantees the degeneration of debate within two or three posts. I've had to conclude over these few months in here that online forums are about as conducive to sound reasoning as AM talk radio. There is simply no adequate alternative to a moderated classroom environment.

[ralis]

Do all of you just debate? Has anyone here realized a no self? I ask for personal accounts and 1 person responded in the objective reality thread.

 

Mikaelz, have you fully realized what you preach about or is it just another interesting intellectual exercise? If you truly want to figure this out, then liberate your mind.

 

 

ralis

[Marblehead]

Do all of you just debate? Has anyone here realized a no self? I ask for personal accounts and 1 person responded in the objective reality thread.

 

 

If that one person wasn't me then you need to increase that number to two.

 

Peace & Love!

[ralis]

If that one person wasn't me then you need to increase that number to two.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Excellent!

[Lucky7Strikes]

Do all of you just debate? Has anyone here realized a no self? I ask for personal accounts and 1 person responded in the objective reality thread.

 

Mikaelz, have you fully realized what you preach about or is it just another interesting intellectual exercise? If you truly want to figure this out, then liberate your mind.

ralis

 

These discussions are practice. The Truth, the one Law, abides at any state whether you are practicing or not. Meditation tremendously helps the seeker onto another state, another perspective, of experiencing reality, but the the Way (this is not a "objective" reality ) does not change.

Edited January 7, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Edited January 7, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[doc benway]

Nevermind...

Edited January 7, 2010 by steve f

[Lucky7Strikes]

- The reason why the 'Tathagatas' who are Arhats and fully enlightened Ones teach the doctrine pointing to the tathagatagarbha which is a state of non-discrimination and imageless, is to make the ignorant cast aside their fear when they listen to teaching of egolessness. It is like a potter who manufactures various vessels out of a mass of clay of one sort by his own manual skill and labour ... that the 'Tathagatas' preach the egolessness of things which removes all the traces of discrimination by various skillful means issuing from their trancend-ental wisdom, that is, sometimes by the doctrine of the 'tathagatagarbha' , sometimes by that of egolessness ... Thus, 'Mahamati', the doctrine of the 'tathagatagarbha' is disclosed in order to awaken the philosophers from their clinging to the idea of the ego. Accordingly, 'Mahamati', the 'Tathagatas' disclose the doctrine of the 'tathagatagarbha' which is thus not to be known as identical with the philosopher's notion of an egosubstance. Therefore , 'Mahamati', in order to abandon the misconception cherished by the philosophers, you must depend on the 'anatman-tathagatagarbha'.(13)

 

The ego exists. The fools are ones who deny the experience. The ego has no defined or stable substance to it, and its attachment to phenomena as real or true is what the Buddha is preaching against.

 

The point of this discussion is not a Atman vs. Anatta. It is the right understanding of anatta.

 

It seems like you have reified (I know we all love that word) the states of "Stage 4 I Amness" and "Stage 5 Anatta" but these are simply extreme state of awareness moving from a centralized self to a decentralized other. Awaerness is what I am. And I am like the space that lets manifestation happen. The movement of awareness, its interplay with manifest phenomena, is intent, which can occur locally from point A to B, manifest positively or negatively, from a center to all, or without a center to be found. It is un arisen for it is the very basis of any existence.