Atman, true self, in Buddha last sutra ,

[LAOLONG]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahayana_Mahaparinirvana_Sutra

[doc benway]

http://thedaobums.com/topic/37270-seeing-recognising-maintaining-ones-enlightening-potential/?p=637817

[Seeker of Wisdom]

IMHO, I don't think interpreting these texts as saying that there actually is a Self fits with Buddhism as a whole. It's fundamental that grasping onto ANY view of self, from 'I am' to 'I am this' to 'I'm not this' to 'I'm not', is unhelpful, a view construed over the pure reality of 'this is'.

 

http://thedaobums.com/topic/35341-lessons-in-buddhism/page-2#entry578123

 

http://thedaobums.com/topic/35341-lessons-in-buddhism/page-2#entry622578

Edited August 2, 2015 by Seeker of Wisdom

[Apech]

Buddha nature and Atman are not the same thing.

[Wells]

.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Wells

[LAOLONG]

http://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php/Mahayana_Mahaparinirvana_Sutra

In this sutra there is true self, atman

[Apech]

Why do you have this opinion?

In my understanding: Buddha Nature = Atman = Purusha = Dharmakaya = the Self.

 

I have this opinion because what you said is incorrect.

[Apech]

http://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php/Mahayana_Mahaparinirvana_Sutra

In this sutra there is true self, atman

 

Possibly a late sutra into which non.Buddhist ideas have been introduced.

[C T]

The assertion that sentient beings inherently possess buddha nature can often be misconstrued to mean they have an eternally pure self. Whether this is correct or not is not the consideration - the consideration ought to be whether views helps to move us further along or else a cause for more fetters. 

 

There are also those who misunderstand the term 'Continuum' to mean 'eternal'. In the context of the Mahaparinirvana Sutra the former is stressed in relation to a pure, abiding, unalterable nature that is beyond conceptual mind - again, there are those who take this to mean what they want it to mean, but howsoever it is asserted, that very assertion limits the very thing that is being asserted. 

[3bob]

thus drop concepts either way per the 4 four negation and get on with it

[Wells]

.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Wells

[C T]

thus drop concepts either way per the 4 four negation and get on with it

Its not that straightforward though for most of us. Recognising thus, the encouragement from teachers is to master the mind so that as practitioners we can wisely discriminate between what is useful and what is potentially binding - this promotes freedom to progress along the path.

 

In the Buddhist teachings, especially among the 'lesser' yanas, those that concern relativity, mundane living, and daily practice which revolves around calm abiding and mindfulness, concepts have their usefulness (to a degree). The potential problem is that some will get stuck at the achievement(s) they gain while progressing along in those areas of practice, and as per ingrained karmic (dualistic) tendencies, begin to grasp at these achievements as though they are the ultimate fruition, or perhaps see themselves as having reached the end of the path. So this is a kind of arrogance, one which good practitioners are taught to recognise and in that recognition, avoid this trap and similar others which can arise in subtler and subtler forms as realisation/knowledge/prajna deepens. If arrogance were to seep in, it is often unavoidable that the seeds of confusion and disappointment get planted in that mindstate, as potential. The Buddha knew of this trap, hence taught the Middle Way (both as a concept and as an ultimate truth) to those who adopt it find release from both nihilistic and eternalistic views.  

[Apech]

Your logic is invalid.

 

I cann explain my point of view but I ma on someone elses computer right now and don't have time for long post.  Will try later when I get home.

[Apech]

Your logic is invalid.

 

 

This is my logic ...

 

 

Back home now.

 

Right so my view on the equivalence of the terms Purusha, Atman. Dharmakaya and Buddha Nature … oh and of course Self.

 

Although I do practice as a Buddhist I am not one of those people who thinks there is only one true way.  I think that position is ridiculous and unhelpful.  So nothing I say is about this view being better than another - but what I would say that terms need to be understood in context and reading across with a kind of sloppy sameness just leads to confusion and blah.

 

Purusha comes originally from Samkhya philosophy and means pure observing consciousness and is contrasted with Prakriti which is primal substance i.e. that from which everything (including subtle non-physical things) are made.  Samkhya is a dualism because it has these two ‘absolutes’.  Purusha is completely other than Prakriti and is Self or actually Selfs which by its (their) presence cause the more subtle forms of Prakriti like Buddhi and citta to incandesense but not through interaction but by mere presence.  The Buddha studied this system but later rejected it as being not his way.  The term Purusha is also used in yoga philosophy in a similar sense as a pure observing consciousness but yoga is not so firmly dualistic as Samkhya.

 

Atman of course comes from the Vedas, where it is used in two senses, one for the soul of the king or brahmin which is caused to ascend to heaven through the ritual fire ceremonies etc. and also as a name for the absolute - or the indivisible essence.  The idea in the sense of self is that we each have an essence which is eternal and it is this that reincarnates lifetime through lifetime.  In the Upanishads and Vedanta teachings there is much discussion of the Atman, how big it is, where located and so on.  The Buddha firmly rejected this idea of an eternal soul or essence because he upheld dependent origination which says that even this atman would arise in dependence on causes and conditions and cease when they no longer applied.  So whatever appeared to be an Atman - actually even if very long lived was not actually eternal or irreducible and so on.

 

Of course when you come to the more sophisticated vedanta such as Advaita this Atman idea has become more subtly understood i.e. as being itself non-different to the brahman, the universal consciousness-bliss-being.  But Shankara did not arrive on the scene until some 1300 years after the Buddha, so it hard to say exactly what the Buddha would have said about this presentation of Atman.  However what is clear about the Buddha’s teachings is that he actively resisted the kind of enquiry which the other Indian systems addressed i.e. ‘what truly exists?’.  Both Purusha/Prakriti and Atman/Brahman are answers to this question.  And as answers are therefore very appealing to modern seekers especially those who have been Christian.

 

Buddhism has from the beginning - with a few wibbles and wobbles - avoided ontological solutions.  The Buddhas message as I see it is ‘wake up and see things as they really are’ - with a sub-clause saying I’m not going to describe that to you - I am going to tell you how to do it yourself.  So, as I say, subject to a few oddities along the way Buddhism does not provide an answer to ‘what truly exists?’ except that it is whatever the Buddha realised when he became enlightened.  To give that a name would perhaps be to say he didn’t just see it, he became it … and thus we could say the buddha's own mind is the ultimate truth … and we can call this Dharmakaya (truth-body).

 

What the Buddha said about this realisation was that it is ‘unborn’ - which means not created, not contrived, not built, or conceptualised.  So if that is the case then it must mean that for us to be able to realise it - it must already in some sense be there.  Because if it is the case that we don’t have to fabricate it, then it must be a case of just dropping or removing whatever obstructs it.  And if that is true then we must have this realisation already without knowing we do.  In which case if we have the capacity to become enlightened we must have the nature of enlightenment … i.e. Buddha-nature within us somehow.  And that’s what Buddha-nature is to me. 

 

So is that a self?  Well if by self you mean some irreducible core of you-ness - then no it isn’t.  To try to stop people hanging on too closely to this sense of their own importance the Buddha taught anatman - no-self.  But when challenged (I think by Ananda) about self he refused to answer.  This is probably because he refused to be drawn into a fruitless debate … and ultimately clinging on to ’no-self’ is probably just as bad as clinging on to self.   So the best answer probably about self is that paradoxically there both is a self and not a self at the same time and dropping either side of this trip wire is a mistake.  Even if you practice a system which teaches self … then when you come to realise it you will realise it was not at all what you thought anyway. 

[allinone]

..read that sutra.

Edited August 3, 2015 by allinone

[allinone]

Op, why not to post a quote from that sutra?

 

Mahaparinirvana sutra:

 

 

The Buddha said: "O good man! "Self" means "Tathagatagarbha" [buddha-Womb,

Buddha-Embryo, Buddha-Nature]. Every being has Buddha-Nature. This is the Self. Such Self has, from the very beginning, been under cover of innumerable defilements.

 

 

and excerpt from a gatha there:

 

..

If a person is able truly to discern

That his/ her intrinsic being possesses the Buddha-dhatu [buddha-Nature],

Then you should know that such a person

Will enter into the Secret Matrix [ = the Tathagatagarbha].

That person who knows the Self [atman] and what belongs to the Self [atmiya]

Has already transcended the mundane world.

..

 

Edited August 3, 2015 by allinone

[forestofclarity]

Root Sequence Sutta

 

Highlight include:

 

There is the case, monks, where an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma...He perceives Unbinding as Unbinding.Perceiving Unbinding as Unbinding, he conceives things about Unbinding, he conceives things in Unbinding, he conceives things coming out of Unbinding, he conceives Unbinding as 'mine,' he delights in Unbinding. Why is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.

...

The Tathagata — a worthy one, rightly self-awakened — ...He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has comprehended it to the end, I tell you.

[Seeker of Wisdom]

Mahaparinirvana sutra: "The Buddha-nature is in fact not the self. For the sake of [guiding] sentient beings, I describe it as the self."

 

^^^ Avoiding one extreme.

 

Maha-nidana sutta: "To what extent, Ananda, does one delineate when delineating a self? Either delineating a self possessed of form and finite, one delineates that 'My self is possessed of form and finite.' Or, delineating a self possessed of form and infinite, one delineates that 'My self is possessed of form and infinite.' Or, delineating a self formless and finite, one delineates that 'My self is formless and finite.' Or, delineating a self formless and infinite, one delineates that 'My self is formless and infinite.'

 

[in each case 'a fixed view of a self obsesses him']

 

^^^ Avoiding another extreme.

 

My conclusion - Buddhism isn't interested in metaphysical thought about self vs. non-self. What it's interested in is the effect of these views.

 

The act of reading a self onto phenomena is problematic grasping. The act of obsessing over the opposite theory is problematic grasping. The solution is to see phenomena just as they are - not 'me' or 'mine'. This strategy is what anatta is really pointing to - 'in the seen just the seen', and all that.

 

As Thanissaro says in 'Wings to Awakening':

 

"According to the texts, the most insidious issues that can excite uncertainty are questions that center on the concept of "I": "Do I exist?" "Do I not exist?" In the cosmological or metaphysical mode, this concept leads to such questions as: "Does the self exist?" "Does it not exist?" In the psychological or personal narrative mode, it leads to a sense of self-identity, attachment to the object with which one identifies, and all the suffering that inherently results. In either mode, this concept leads to uncertainty about the past and future: "Did I exist in the past?" "Will I exist in the future?" "What will I be?" All of these questions obviously pull the mind out of the phenomenological mode; passage §51 shows that the Buddha regarded them as leading to mental effluents and thus unworthy of attention. The one time he was asked point-blank as to whether or not there is a self [sN 44.10; MFU, pp. 85-86], he refused to answer, thus showing that the question deserves to be put aside.

 

What then of the well-known Buddhist teachings on not-self? [...] we're apparently safe in assuming that if we try to draw inferences from his statements to give either a categorical answer (No, there is no self; or Yes, there is) or an analytical answer (It depends on how you define "self") to a question that the Buddha showed by example should not be asked or answered, we are drawing inferences where they should not be drawn.

 

A more fruitful line of inquiry is to view experience, not in terms of the existence or non-existence of the self, but in terms of the categories of the four noble truths, which §51 identifies as the truly proper subject of appropriate attention. If we look at the way the Buddha phrases questions about not-self [sN 22.59, MFU, pp. 79-80] in the context of the duties appropriate to the four noble truths [§195], we see that they function as tools for comprehending stress and abandoning the craving and clinging that cause it. Thus this line of questioning helps bring about the ending of the mental effluents. Rather than asking, "Do I exist?", one should ask, "Is this mine? Is this me? If these things are regarded as me or mine, will there be suffering?" These questions, when properly answered (No, No, and Yes), can lead directly to the phenomenological mode and on to release from clinging and from suffering and stress. Thus they are worth asking.

 

When applied to the hindrances and factors for Awakening, this line of inquiry can bring the mind to the third stage of frames-of-reference meditation by calling into question the "me" and "my" assumed in the first step of questioning. This undermines any sense of self-identification, first with the hindrances — such as "I'm drowsy" — and then with the factors for Awakening — such as "My mind is serene" [§167]. All that then remains is the radically phenomenological mode that enters fully into the emptiness on the verge of non-fashioning [iI/B], where there are no longer any questions, but simply awareness that "There are mental qualities"... "There is this." This is the threshold to Awakening."

Edited August 3, 2015 by Seeker of Wisdom

[doc benway]

 

My conclusion - Buddhism isn't interested in metaphysical thought about self vs. non-self. What it's interested in is the effect of these views.

 

I like your post overall but while you and I may not be interested in metaphysical thought about self vs non-self, the sutric path certainly is. Lots of time is spent on this in philosophy training in monasteries. The debates regarding Madhyamaka vs Yogicara have gone on for centuries and are a core part of the Geshe degree, and continue to this day as is going on here. The question is, does it help?

 

Clearly there is some value in the discursive methods but how much? I'm currently reading a very short and sweet "book" (more like pamphlet) written by Jean-Luc Achard called The Principles of the Direct Introduction to the Natural State. In it he paraphrases Jigme Lingpa in pointing out that the discursive realization achieved through such sutric debate and reasoning along the Madhyamaka path is not equivalent to the direct, non-discursive experience of the natural state experienced through proper Dzogchen practice.

 

This question of direct experience of the natural state vs exhaustive discursive investigation and what role each plays is at the heart of the Tibetan classic - Mipham's Beacon of Certainty translated by John Petit. It's a bit of a tough read (for me anyway) but there is a more accessible version - Journey to Certainty: The Quintessence of the Dzogchen View: An Exploration of Mipham's Beacon of Certainty by Anyen Rinpoche. One of my favorite books on Buddhism. Also challenging at times but much more accessible than the core text.

Edited August 3, 2015 by steve

[Seeker of Wisdom]

I like your post overall but while you and I may not be interested in metaphysical thought about self vs non-self, the sutric path certainly is.

If by 'sutric' you mean 'not tantric', IMO there's variation on that. My practice is largely Mahasi-style noting from Theravada, and the general attitude from what I've read seems to be 'shut up, sit/walk, note it, see how it is'.

 

Lots of time is spent on this in philosophy training in monasteries. [...] Clearly there is some value in the discursive methods but how much?[...]

Becoming reasonably convinced through logic that there can't be a self can be an extremely important step - at least, it was for me - because it makes it so much easier to go about the practice without constant doubt and clinging to assumptions 'this MUST be me/mine'. Stuff like Chandrakirti's chariot analysis, reasoning through each of the skhandas not being self, or in self, or containing self, or being self collectively, is definitely worth doing. It clears leaves off the line.

 

Learning that it isn't about whether or not there is a self, but whether or not one can be found, and the entrapment of clinging to views, is another leap in understanding. That's where practice takes off, and the practice itself is really the liberating thing, of course. I challenge anyone to give noting a good try and still be convinced that there is a self.

Edited August 4, 2015 by Seeker of Wisdom

[doc benway]

If by 'sutric' you mean 'not tantric', IMO there's variation on that. My practice is largely Mahasi-style noting from Theravada, and the general attitude from what I've read seems to be 'shut up, sit/walk, note it, see how it is'.

 

I guess I mean not tantric and not dzogchen.