"Self" or "Atman" are abused terms

[3bob]

Commentary quoted from the Divine Life Society: Excerpt form the Chhandogya Upanishad

by Swami Krishnananda

 

"...True Being is not unconscious. It is not a cause, nor is it the subtle manifest condition. It is not also a physical body. It is supreme luminosity, param jyoti. It is the Light of all lights. It is not a light like the light of the sun, but it is self-luminous Being. It is a Light which does not need illumination from something else other than itself. It is self-luminous in the sense that it illumines itself. This does not mean that it is ignorant of the existence of others. It is the Self of all beings. It is not the self of one person or two persons, of one individual or a group of individuals. The word 'self' is an abused term; so is the term 'Atman' due to the limitations of language. We are always accustomed to use the term 'self' in respect of individuals as 'myself', 'yourself', 'himself', 'herself', 'itself', etc. It is not in this sense that the word 'self' is used here. It is not this self or that self we are referring to. It is the Selfhood which is the true Being of everything that is. So, Self-luminosity does not mean the luminosity of any particular self in the sense of a body, because we have already made it clear that the Self is not a body. To bring it once again in association with a body for the purpose of the interpretation of the meaning of the Self would be a travesty of affairs. Self-luminosity is Universal luminosity. It is not luminosity of an individual. Why is it Universal luminosity? Because, it is the Self of everything in the universe. It is the Selfhood of everything that is anywhere. So it is a comprehensive luminosity of universal Selfhood.

 

"O Indra, such is your true Being into which you seek initiation. This is the true serenity and composure of the Self. You have to stand by your own right. You have to assume your real status. This is freedom, this is called atma-svarajya, the freedom of the Self," said Prajapati..."

 

I posted this for consideration that the terms, "Self" or "Atman" are often abused by certain parties in a multitude of ways. Besides, intellect being limited by pov's can at best can only consider such and not really circumscribe same, whether in agreement or disagreement as to what is being attempted to point towards in this quote - or for that matter counter quotes.

 

Om

Edited August 7, 2011 by 3bob

[forestofclarity]

Allow me to add Padmasambhava's two cents from Self Liberation through Seeing with Naked Awareness:

 

As for this sparkling awareness, which is called "mind,"

Even though one says that it exists, it does not actually exist.

(On the other hand) as a source, it is the origin of the diversity of all the bliss of Nirvana and all of the sorrow of Samsara.

And as for it's being something desirable; it is cherished alike in the Eleven Vehicles.

With respect to its having a name, the various names that are applied to it are inconceivable (in their numbers).

Some call it "the nature of the mind" or "mind itself."

Some Tirthikas call it by the name Atman or "the Self."

The Sravakas call it the doctrine of Anatman or "the absence of a self."

The Chittamatrins call it by the name Chitta or "the Mind."

Some call it the Prajnaparamita or "the Perfection of Wisdom."

Some call it the name Tathagata-garbha or "the embryo of Buddhahood."

Some call it by the name Mahamudra or "the Great Symbol."

Some call it by the name "the Unique Sphere."

Some call it by the name Dharmadhatu or "the dimension of Reality."

Some call it by the name Alaya or "the basis of everything."

And some simply call it by the name "ordinary awareness."

[3bob]

Allow me to add Padmasambhava's two cents from Self Liberation through Seeing with Naked Awareness:

 

As for this sparkling awareness, which is called "mind,"

Even though one says that it exists, it does not actually exist.

(On the other hand) as a source, it is the origin of the diversity of all the bliss of Nirvana and all of the sorrow of Samsara.

And as for it's being something desirable; it is cherished alike in the Eleven Vehicles.

With respect to its having a name, the various names that are applied to it are inconceivable (in their numbers).

Some call it "the nature of the mind" or "mind itself."

Some Tirthikas call it by the name Atman or "the Self."

The Sravakas call it the doctrine of Anatman or "the absence of a self."

The Chittamatrins call it by the name Chitta or "the Mind."

Some call it the Prajnaparamita or "the Perfection of Wisdom."

Some call it the name Tathagata-garbha or "the embryo of Buddhahood."

Some call it by the name Mahamudra or "the Great Symbol."

Some call it by the name "the Unique Sphere."

Some call it by the name Dharmadhatu or "the dimension of Reality."

Some call it by the name Alaya or "the basis of everything."

And some simply call it by the name "ordinary awareness."

 

An interesting quote Forestofemptiness Thanks for sharing.

[doc benway]

Some call it "the nature of the mind" or "mind itself."

Some Tirthikas call it by the name Atman or "the Self."

The Sravakas call it the doctrine of Anatman or "the absence of a self."

The Chittamatrins call it by the name Chitta or "the Mind."

Some call it the Prajnaparamita or "the Perfection of Wisdom."

Some call it the name Tathagata-garbha or "the embryo of Buddhahood."

Some call it by the name Mahamudra or "the Great Symbol."

Some call it by the name "the Unique Sphere."

Some call it by the name Dharmadhatu or "the dimension of Reality."

Some call it by the name Alaya or "the basis of everything."

And some simply call it by the name "ordinary awareness."

Very nice quote.

It's nice to know that Padma could see the common foundation of truth being pointed to by the variety of names.

[Vajrahridaya]

Very nice quote.

It's nice to know that Padma could see the common foundation of truth being pointed to by the variety of names.

 

Yes, but Padmasambhava also stated that it's not the experience that makes one a Buddha, it's a particular insight into the experience which defines perfect Buddhahood.

 

We've all known that the experience is the same, it's how it's used which makes one a Buddha or a long lived God. This quote is often used to show that all religions are leading to the same realization, but it's pulled out of the context of Padmasambhavas entire body of teaching. The experience is called by these names... but that's just the beginning. It's called by these names many times erroneously based upon misunderstanding the true nature of the experience. A being can have this experience but still have a knowledge obscuration about the experience.

[3bob]

VJ, I'll make you a deal - you stay out of strings I start and I will stay out of yours, or ones that you take over by various means.

 

Thus and obviously it's your right to carry on all you want at your d.o. strings (or whatever) with your birds of a feather. As for here, I don't want to hear your take anymore, I've heard it a hundred times before. Btw, I think those that want to hear your take can readily find you on your own strings or those of your birds of a feather!

 

If that is asking to much of you or anyone else here then, "goodnight to all and to all a good-night".

 

Om

Edited August 7, 2011 by 3bob

[Vajrahridaya]

VJ, I'll make you a deal - you stay out of strings I start and I will stay out of yours, or ones that you take over by various means.

 

Thus and obviously it's your right to carry on all you want at your d.o. strings (or whatever) with your birds of a feather. As for here, I don't want to hear your take anymore, I've heard it a hundred times before. Btw, I think those that want to hear your take can readily find you on your own strings or those of your birds of a feather!

 

If that is asking to much of you or anyone else here then, "goodnight to all and to all a good-night".

 

Om

 

Well... If your going to quote from Buddhist texts. I can clarify if I wish. You can put me on ignore, that's your prerogative. But, no rule states that I can't disagree with a perspective fairly.

 

So, no deal brother... sorry. That wouldn't be fair. You need to stop taking a different perspective with such angst I think.

Edited August 7, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[3bob]

That would be fair but not to you since the only fair thing to you is endlessly insisting on your pov., regardless of your co-opting "Buddhism" as an excuse to do so.

Edited August 8, 2011 by 3bob

[Vajrahridaya]

That would be fair but not to you since the only fair thing to you is endlessly insisting on your pov., regardless of your co-opting "Buddhism" as an excuse to do so.

 

It's not, "My" Pov.

 

Buddhism is as Buddha taught. Your view of Buddhism is not Buddhas view on Buddhism as evidenced by endless Buddhist scholars and scholar yogi's. You co-op your own view of Buddhism by taking certain quotes out of context, not a new ploy.

[xabir2005]

Very nice quote.

It's nice to know that Padma could see the common foundation of truth being pointed to by the variety of names.

However, he later went on to talk about the faults of the lower vehicles - stating the Dzogchen view as supreme:

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/self-liberation-through-seeing-with.html

 

The Tirthikas who are outsiders see all this in terms of the dualism of Eternalism as against nihilism.

Each of the nine successive vehicles sees things in terms of its own view.

Thus, things are perceived in various different ways and may be elucidated in various different ways.

Because you grasped at these various (appearances that arise), becoming attached to them, errors have come into existence.

Yet with respect to all of these appearances of which you are aware in your mind,

Even though these appearances that you perceive do arise, if you do not grasp at them, then that is Buddhahood.

Edited August 8, 2011 by xabir2005

[Seth Ananda]

Allow me to add Padmasambhava's two cents from Self Liberation through Seeing with Naked Awareness:

 

As for this sparkling awareness, which is called "mind,"

Even though one says that it exists, it does not actually exist.

(On the other hand) as a source, it is the origin of the diversity of all the bliss of Nirvana and all of the sorrow of Samsara.

And as for it's being something desirable; it is cherished alike in the Eleven Vehicles.

With respect to its having a name, the various names that are applied to it are inconceivable (in their numbers).

Some call it "the nature of the mind" or "mind itself."

Some Tirthikas call it by the name Atman or "the Self."

The Sravakas call it the doctrine of Anatman or "the absence of a self."

The Chittamatrins call it by the name Chitta or "the Mind."

Some call it the Prajnaparamita or "the Perfection of Wisdom."

Some call it the name Tathagata-garbha or "the embryo of Buddhahood."

Some call it by the name Mahamudra or "the Great Symbol."

Some call it by the name "the Unique Sphere."

Some call it by the name Dharmadhatu or "the dimension of Reality."

Some call it by the name Alaya or "the basis of everything."

And some simply call it by the name "ordinary awareness."

 

Great quote! Yours too 3bob

 

I think its really Important to honour this experience, no matter who has it, or in what context.

However one approaches it, It is a massive step or achievement for an Individual.

 

That sometimes gets swept aside when we start discussing the finer points of how to Interpret the experience, and forget how amazing it is that people are even getting there in the first place.

 

And although [as you know] I agree with Vajra and Xabir's points, as the Buddhist way of approaching this state is now my favourite, and works best for me personally, I feel Its very important not to denigrate others paths to this wondrousness.

 

I also feel that certain paths are better for certain types of people, at least in periods of their lives.

 

For me it was Theistic paths that first gave me the taste of this space, and at that time in my life I would have been incapable of reaching it in any other 'less theistic' traditions. So that tradition was perfect for me then.

 

Blessings to all!

Seth.

[Vajrahridaya]

Yet with respect to all of these appearances of which you are aware in your mind,

Even though these appearances that you perceive do arise, if you do not grasp at them, then that is Buddhahood.

 

Also the mind is not grasped onto as self, seen as arising in respect to all else of the dependently originated all... equally empty of self essence.

[3bob]

Great quote! Yours too 3bob

 

I think its really Important to honour this experience, no matter who has it, or in what context.

However one approaches it, It is a massive step or achievement for an Individual.

 

That sometimes gets swept aside when we start discussing the finer points of how to Interpret the experience, and forget how amazing it is that people are even getting there in the first place.

 

And although [as you know] I agree with Vajra and Xabir's points, as the Buddhist way of approaching this state is now my favourite, and works best for me personally, I feel Its very important not to denigrate others paths to this wondrousness.

 

I also feel that certain paths are better for certain types of people, at least in periods of their lives.

 

For me it was Theistic paths that first gave me the taste of this space, and at that time in my life I would have been incapable of reaching it in any other 'less theistic' traditions. So that tradition was perfect for me then.

 

Blessings to all!

Seth.

 

Great post Seth. That was said in such a way as to not be heavy handed.

[Vajrahridaya]

Great quote! Yours too 3bob

 

I think its really Important to honour this experience, no matter who has it, or in what context.

However one approaches it, It is a massive step or achievement for an Individual.

 

That sometimes gets swept aside when we start discussing the finer points of how to Interpret the experience, and forget how amazing it is that people are even getting there in the first place.

 

...I feel Its very important not to denigrate others paths to this wondrousness.

 

I also feel that certain paths are better for certain types of people, at least in periods of their lives.

 

For me it was Theistic paths that first gave me the taste of this space, and at that time in my life I would have been incapable of reaching it in any other 'less theistic' traditions. So that tradition was perfect for me then.

 

Blessings to all!

Seth.

 

 

This I've also said from the very beginning of my entrance into this forum, even though somtimes I didn't come off as believing this, but yes... I as well believe this. Everyone has their process and all of it is valid... though empty and interdependent.

[dwai]

Commentary quoted from the Divine Life Society: Excerpt form the Chhandogya Upanishad

by Swami Krishnananda

 

"...True Being is not unconscious. It is not a cause, nor is it the subtle manifest condition. It is not also a physical body. It is supreme luminosity, param jyoti. It is the Light of all lights. It is not a light like the light of the sun, but it is self-luminous Being. It is a Light which does not need illumination from something else other than itself. It is self-luminous in the sense that it illumines itself. This does not mean that it is ignorant of the existence of others. It is the Self of all beings. It is not the self of one person or two persons, of one individual or a group of individuals. The word 'self' is an abused term; so is the term 'Atman' due to the limitations of language. We are always accustomed to use the term 'self' in respect of individuals as 'myself', 'yourself', 'himself', 'herself', 'itself', etc. It is not in this sense that the word 'self' is used here. It is not this self or that self we are referring to. It is the Selfhood which is the true Being of everything that is. So, Self-luminosity does not mean the luminosity of any particular self in the sense of a body, because we have already made it clear that the Self is not a body. To bring it once again in association with a body for the purpose of the interpretation of the meaning of the Self would be a travesty of affairs. Self-luminosity is Universal luminosity. It is not luminosity of an individual. Why is it Universal luminosity? Because, it is the Self of everything in the universe. It is the Selfhood of everything that is anywhere. So it is a comprehensive luminosity of universal Selfhood.

 

"O Indra, such is your true Being into which you seek initiation. This is the true serenity and composure of the Self. You have to stand by your own right. You have to assume your real status. This is freedom, this is called atma-svarajya, the freedom of the Self," said Prajapati..."

 

I posted this for consideration that the terms, "Self" or "Atman" are often abused by certain parties in a multitude of ways. Besides, intellect being limited by pov's can at best can only consider such and not really circumscribe same, whether in agreement or disagreement as to what is being attempted to point towards in this quote - or for that matter counter quotes.

 

Om

 

Sadhu...sadhu!

 

Tadeko vashisthah shivaha kevaloham

 

The other problem is that certain groups like to browbeat others by conveniently refusing to consider atman beyond the literal meaning

[3bob]

Thnak you Dwai

 

The point comes where the mind of argument ends.

 

Om