True Self

[Vajrahridaya]

The concept of Non-Self is highly misunderstood, even by so-called Buddhists. That which is called the "True Self" by Hindus is not the same as the Non-Self of the Buddhists. Infact, the Non-Self of Buddhism is called the "Jiva" by the Hindus. The Hindu True Self is transcendence of Duality...the Non-Self (relative Self) is a dualistic identity.

 

Round {N} can now start...

 

This "True Self" is merely the reification of one of the formless Jhanas. As explained by the Buddha, so the Buddha still rejects the Upanishadic transcendent Self, as this ideation reflects a subtle clinging based upon a lack of insight into dependent origination/emptiness.

 

The Buddha explained how this clinging leads either to a long lived God realm with Brahma, Vishnu or Shiva... or a formless bliss realm.

 

This attachment to a subtle and static essence does not lead to Nirvana, as explained by the Buddha.

 

For Samsarins, the blessing of Buddhist transmission and refuge is needed to understand the Buddha.

 

From Wiki:

 

The Arupa Jhānas

 

Beyond the four jhānas lie four attainments, referred to in the early texts as aruppas. These are also referred to in commentarial literature as immaterial/the formless jhānas (arūpajhānas), also translated as The Formless Dimensions:

 

Dimension of Infinite Space - In the dimension of infinite space there are - "the perception of the dimension of the infinitude of space, unification of mind, contact, feeling, perception, intention, consciousness, desire, decision, persistence, mindfulness, equanimity, & attention"

 

Dimension of Infinite Consciousness - In the Dimension of infinite consciousness there are - "the perception of the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, unification of mind, contact, feeling, perception, intention, consciousness, desire, decision, persistence, mindfulness, equanimity, & attention"

 

Dimension of Nothingness - In the dimension of nothingness, there are - "the perception of the dimension of nothingness, singleness of mind, contact, feeling, perception, intention, consciousness, desire, decision, persistence, mindfulness, equanimity, & attention"

 

Dimension of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception - About the role of this jhana it is said: "He emerged mindfully from that attainment. On emerging mindfully from that attainment, he regarded the past qualities that had ceased & changed: 'So this is how these qualities, not having been, come into play. Having been, they vanish.' He remained unattracted & unrepelled with regard to those qualities, independent, detached, released, dissociated, with an awareness rid of barriers. He discerned that 'There is a further escape,' and pursuing it there really was for him."

 

In the suttas, these are never referred to as jhānas. According to the early scriptures, the Buddha learned the last two formless attainments from two teachers, Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta respectively, prior to his enlightenment.

 

It is most likely that they belonged to the Brahmanical tradition.

 

However, he realized that neither "Dimension of Nothingness" nor "Dimension of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception" lead to Nirvana and left. The Buddha said in the Ariyapariyesana Sutta:

”But the thought occurred to me, ‘This Dhamma leads not to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to Awakening, nor to Unbinding, but only to reappearance in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception.’ So, dissatisfied with that Dhamma, I left.”

 

Also, the Prajnaparamita Sutra says very clearly that there is no universal Self of all.

Edited January 12, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Nope, there is no disconnect ime. For instance: (and in my interpretation which may not work for others) In the 8 jhanas to the "beyond" of the 8th there are no disconnects, yet the "beyond" is not dependent upon those 8 for if it was then a complete end to suffering would not be possible; btw counter to some interpretations I'd say a complete end to suffering takes more than just insight. (for where do insights take place if not in consciousness, the finest of aggregates?)

 

Om Shanti, Om Shanti, Om Shanti Om

 

Actually, they are all connected and the Buddha explains this in Mahayana Sutras. I wish I could remember exactly which one, but there are a few.

 

The Flower Garland Sutra talks about the interpenetration of all states and realms and since the different jhanas lead to different realms, it goes for those as well.

 

Enlightenment in Buddhism is insight into what is, not a merging with a transcendent "is". That would be reifying a formless samadhi and nothing more.

 

As well, consciousness is still dependently originated. You are trying to find a final Self, but the continuum of dependent origination is instantaneous, and all equally empty of inherent essence, even Buddhanature.

 

Also, the experience of a transcendent Self arises dependent upon a subtle clinging in the alayavijnana and is reflective of reifying one of the formless jhanas, which is actually the basis for the alayavijnana. This is the seed of becoming. Recognizing it's origination as endlessly dependent, empties it of this knot, thus changing it's basis from bondage to liberation. So, for a Buddha, the alayavijana transforms into the experience of dharmakaya.

 

His experience of Nirvana as what is called the 9th jhana is not actually an absorption or a formless samadhi and is clearly not a revelation of a Self of all. It's only the revelation of liberating insight.

 

By projecting Hindu conditioning upon Buddhism one doesn't understand the Buddha. No Buddhist with any real scholarly understanding and experience based upon the 1st noble truth of "right view" would agree with the intention of the above quoted idea.

 

Enlightenment in Buddhism is the awareness of Kadag and Lundrup. This is basically emptiness and dependent origination, which is primordial purity and natural arising. As in awareness of the emptiness of what arises dependently is the recognition of the primordial purity of natural arising. The recognition of the emptiness of all things unbinds ones awareness, de-conditions ones thought patterns and unties the knot of becoming.

 

The insight of dependent origination empties ones awareness of the tendency for grasping, leaving it luminous and clear.

 

If you are a sentient being, awareness is intrinsic as you have consciousness, thus you have Buddhanature. A stone does not have Buddhanature.

 

Thus, Buddhanature and the concept of Brahman are not the same. The Upanishads and the Suttas and Sutras have an entirely different theory and thus experience of what constitutes enlightenment and liberation.

Edited January 12, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[pennyofheaven]

A decent try Penny , but as you will probably find out, there is seldom a level playing field around here.

 

How do you mean level of playing field?

[pennyofheaven]

Hey, I have the water in my fish pond to test against to ensure everything is on the level.

 

Huh? I am still confused? What level, what test?

[Vajrahridaya]

Huh? I am still confused? What level, what test?

 

Marble is just being silly, with some meaning in there somewhere... in metaphor.

 

=^)

[Marblehead]

Huh? I am still confused? What level, what test?

 

Hehehe.

 

Marble is just being silly, with some meaning in there somewhere... in metaphor.

 

This is absolutely true. It is a joke from a time mostly long forgotten.

 

Please disregard and continue trying to identify our 'true self', if there is such an essence.

[pennyofheaven]

It doesn't matter if you call it True Self, Origin of all things, The Essence.

 

This is called Eternalism.

 

Realization of dependent origination and emptiness is a different dimension of comprehension from this.

 

You are talking about independent origination/essence. This is different from the realization of dependent origination/emptiness.

 

One has a roof top in a top down theory, as in all things originate from this one transcendent non-thing.

 

Dependent origination sees infinite regress and emptiness without remainder. There is no essence that gives substance to all things. There is just insight into the empty, and malleable nature of everything. There is no God that made everything. No will that transcends.

 

Ok call it whatever you want to call it. I don't know what that is except for what you understand it to be. What you understand it to be however is not what I am pointing to.

 

Perhaps you misunderstood me, I don't know? I am not talking about independent anything. Nor was I talking about any will. You got all that out of my post?

 

Where is the remainder you are referring to? So essence is not pointing to the empty and malleable nature of everything, to you, ok I cannot help you not seeing that. Who is talking about God? If anyone wants to call the empty and malleable nature of everything God (not that anyone has on this thread) or essence it doesn't change its nature.

 

 

Interdependent origination/emptiness is more the description I would use.

Edited January 12, 2011 by pennyofheaven

[Vajrahridaya]

Ok call it whatever you want to call it. I don't know what that is except for what you understand it to be. What you understand it to be however is not what I am pointing to.

 

Perhaps you misunderstood me, I don't know? I am not talking about independent anything. Nor was I talking about any will. You got all that out of my post?

 

Where is the remainder you are referring to? So essence is not pointing to the empty and malleable nature of everything, to you, ok I cannot help you not seeing that. Who is talking about God? If anyone wants to call the empty and malleable nature of everything God (not that anyone has on this thread) it doesn't change its function.

 

 

Interdependent origination/emptiness is more the description I would use.

 

Well, you were talking about a faceless awareness that wears many faces, as if that awareness was static, like a mannequin that wears many clothes.

 

But, in Buddhism, both awareness and objects arise simultaneously, and one is not more the source of the other than the other. Because we are dealing with endless awarenesses and endless groups of objects, all co-originating and inter-woven and inter-dependently arisen, there is no point of origin for anything. But, there is a point of origin to find for the state of ignorant awareness and awake awareness for an individual, which is the crutch of enlightenment, but that is not an eternal essence, only an eternal potential.

 

Words are funny yes... and I deeply apologize if I was misunderstanding you and projecting other conversations with other people onto yours.

 

I bow to your penny-ness.

 

Heaven.

Edited January 12, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[pennyofheaven]

Hehehe.

 

Marble is just being silly, with some meaning in there somewhere... in metaphor.

 

This is absolutely true. It is a joke from a time mostly long forgotten.

 

Please disregard and continue trying to identify our 'true self', if there is such an essence.

 

Ok

[pennyofheaven]

Well, you were talking about a faceless awareness that wears many faces, as if that awareness was static, like a mannequin that wears many clothes.

 

But, in Buddhism, both awareness and objects arise simultaneously, and one is not more the source of the other than the other.

 

Words are funny yes... and I deeply apologize if I was misunderstanding you and projecting other conversations with other people onto yours.

 

I bow to your penny-ness.

 

Heaven.

 

Oh no I didn't intend my post that way. Perhaps I need to rethink the way I post.

 

No apology necessary. No harm done. Clarifying is part of discussing as I understand it.

 

{{{bowing}}}

[Vajrahridaya]

Oh no I didn't intend my post that way. Perhaps I need to rethink the way I post.

 

No apology necessary. No harm done. Clarifying is part of discussing as I understand it.

 

{{{bowing}}}

 

Mutual...

 

I edited the post you just quoted for the sake of just that... please re-read if you have the inclination?

 

[pennyofheaven]

Well, you were talking about a faceless awareness that wears many faces, as if that awareness was static, like a mannequin that wears many clothes.

 

But, in Buddhism, both awareness and objects arise simultaneously, and one is not more the source of the other than the other. Because we are dealing with endless awarenesses and endless groups of objects, all co-originating and inter-woven and inter-dependently arisen, there is no point of origin for anything. But, there is a point of origin to find for the state of ignorant awareness and awake awareness for an individual, which is the crutch of enlightenment, but that is not an eternal essence, only an eternal potential.

 

Words are funny yes... and I deeply apologize if I was misunderstanding you and projecting other conversations with other people onto yours.

 

I bow to your penny-ness.

 

Heaven.

 

I do agree with the Buddhist view.

[Vajrahridaya]

Edited January 12, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

I do agree with the Buddhist view.

 

So, what I was saying basically is that "True Self" in Buddhism (i.e., Parinirvana Sutra) arises dependent upon this insight of mutual-co-existence. So, it's more of an ongoing intention based upon the permanent cognition of inter-dependence and impermanence, thus empathy and compassion. So, the "True Self" is really just compassionate intention arising dependent upon recognition of inter-connectivity, meaning the recognition of what is for all.

Edited January 12, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[pennyofheaven]

So, what I was saying basically is that "True Self" in Buddhism arises dependent upon this insight of mutual-co-existence. So, it's more of an ongoing intention based upon the permanent cognition of inter-dependence and impermanence, thus empathy and compassion. So, the "True Self" is really just compassionate intention arising dependent upon recognition of inter-connectivity.

 

That makes sense.

[3bob]

Actually, they are all connected and the Buddha explains this in Mahayana Sutras. I wish I could remember exactly which one, but there are a few.

 

The Flower Garland Sutra talks about the interpenetration of all states and realms and since the different jhanas lead to different realms, it goes for those as well.

 

Enlightenment in Buddhism is insight into what is, not a merging with a transcendent "is". That would be reifying a formless samadhi and nothing more.

 

As well, consciousness is still dependently originated. You are trying to find a final Self, but the continuum of dependent origination is instantaneous, and all equally empty of inherent essence, even Buddhanature.

 

Also, the experience of a transcendent Self arises dependent upon a subtle clinging in the alayavijnana and is reflective of reifying one of the formless jhanas, which is actually the basis for the alayavijnana. This is the seed of becoming. Recognizing it's origination as endlessly dependent, empties it of this knot, thus changing it's basis from bondage to liberation. So, for a Buddha, the alayavijana transforms into the experience of dharmakaya.

 

His experience of Nirvana as what is called the 9th jhana is not actually an absorption or a formless samadhi and is clearly not a revelation of a Self of all. It's only the revelation of liberating insight.

 

By projecting Hindu conditioning upon Buddhism one doesn't understand the Buddha. No Buddhist with any real scholarly understanding and experience based upon the 1st noble truth of "right view" would agree with the intention of the above quoted idea.

 

Enlightenment in Buddhism is the awareness of Kadag and Lundrup. This is basically emptiness and dependent origination, which is primordial purity and natural arising. As in awareness of the emptiness of what arises dependently is the recognition of the primordial purity of natural arising. The recognition of the emptiness of all things unbinds ones awareness, de-conditions ones thought patterns and unties the knot of becoming.

 

The insight of dependent origination empties ones awareness of the tendency for grasping, leaving it luminous and clear.

 

If you are a sentient being, awareness is intrinsic as you have consciousness, thus you have Buddhanature. A stone does not have Buddhanature.

 

Thus, Buddhanature and the concept of Brahman are not the same. The Upanishads and the Suttas and Sutras have an entirely different theory and thus experience of what constitutes enlightenment and liberation.

 

someday people will set all such "stink" aside, which is what any teachings become through hypnotic like mental repetition as demonstrated.

 

Om

Edited January 12, 2011 by 3bob

[3bob]

But you would still be able to distinguish my true self though, wouldn't you?

 

... if your pictures start to show you going semi-transparent towards invisble like that other guy from a while back then we will have to assume that your true self is unmanifest.

[dwai]

ut oh... could be confusing when considering the "Hindu" related schools and sayings of, "Jiva is Siva"?

 

Om

 

Indeed...Jiva is Siva, in the relative, dualistic world. There are different schools of "Hindu" thought...some dualistic, some non-dualistic, some qualified non-dualism.

 

In the end, the experience is what matters...

[Vajrahridaya]

someday people will set all such "stink" aside, which is what any teachings become through hypnotic like mental repetition as demonstrated.

 

Om

 

Your so sweet when your view is challenged 3bob.

[Birch]

Wow, it's getting steamy in here

 

VJ, you should know not to get all "tantric" with people when they haven't asked for it.

 

My take is that "true self" is whatever you don't need to spend time discussing or having pointed out to you or pointing out to yourself or others, neither.

 

It's neither your ego nor your urgo or anything else and continued tries to make people believe they had one then lost it and need to find it again or should improve it or get rid of it are just poor excuses to justify very bad behaviour towards oneself and each other...IMO.

[Vajrahridaya]

Wow, it's getting steamy in here

 

VJ, you should know not to get all "tantric" with people when they haven't asked for it.

 

 

Oh it was asked for. Also, discussion and philosophizing as well as debating is all a part of Buddhist practice. So, I'll probably keep going with it since some people enjoy it. Of course, you, 3bob and Dwai are not a part of the enjoying group.

 

I'm not a big fan of the anti-intellectual, experiential excuse for ignorance, lacking the integrity to investigate deeper movement.

[Vajrahridaya]

In the end, the experience is what matters...

 

In Buddhism, it's about how the experience is intuitively understood, which clarifies the experience and empties it of clinging.

[TheJourney]

Those who desire to debate should debate. Those who don't shouldn't. For me, I no longer allow myself to be involved in conflicts. I no longer care to make people see it my way. I will help those who believe I can help them with my ideas or whatever, but those who don't like what I have to say I just let them find their own way. Debate implies that I have something to offer that they don't have themselves. I don't. I can, however, be useful if you like what I have to say and are open to it. But I don't go out of my way to make people see my way.

Edited January 13, 2011 by TheJourney

[dwai]

Those who desire to debate should debate. Those who don't shouldn't. For me, I no longer allow myself to be involved in conflicts. I no longer care to make people see it my way. I will help those who believe I can help them with my ideas or whatever, but those who don't like what I have to say I just let them find their own way. Debate implies that I have something to offer that they don't have themselves. I don't. I can, however, be useful if you like what I have to say and are open to it. But I don't go out of my way to make people see my way.

Yu shld be aware tht when you make posts on a public domain forum, you are bound to have people disagree with you....especially when you make absolute statements.

We should try and remember that the truth is nt the personal fief of any one tradition...no matter how hard any religion tries to shout its proclamation f exclusivity

[TheJourney]

Yu shld be aware tht when you make posts on a public domain forum, you are bound to have people disagree with you....especially when you make absolute statements.

We should try and remember that the truth is nt the personal fief of any one tradition...no matter how hard any religion tries to shout its proclamation f exclusivity

 

Everything is the truth. And yet because it's all true, none of it is true. It's just so funny how perfect it is.