Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
The 'Self' teaching of some Mahayana schools in terms of Nirvana vs the non-self Nirvana thesis...
Browsing the internet came across this interesting article about nirvana on wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana
and I am quoting this passage:
- Some Mahayana sutras go further and attempt to characterize the nature of nirvana itself. The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, which has as one of its main topics precisely the realm or dhatu of nirvana, has the Buddha speak of four essential elements which make up nirvana. One of these is ‘Self’ (atman), which is construed as the enduring Self of the Buddha. Writing on this Mahayana understanding of nirvana, William Edward Soothill and Lewis Hodous state:
‘The Nirvana Sutra claims for nirvana the ancient ideas of permanence, bliss, personality, purity in the transcendental realm. Mahayana declares that Hinayana, by denying personality in the transcendental realm, denies the existence of the Buddha. In Mahayana, final nirvana is both mundane and transcendental, and is also used as a term for the Absolute.’[47]
At the time this scripture was written, there was already a long tradition of positive language about nirvana and the Buddha.[48] While in early Buddhist thought nirvana is characterized by permanence, bliss, and purity, it is viewed as being the stopping of the breeding-ground for the "I am" attitude, and is beyond all possibility of the Self delusion.[49][50] The Mahaparinirvana Sutra, a long and highly composite Mahayana scripture,[51] refers to the Buddha's using the term "Self" in order to win over non-Buddhist ascetics.[52] From this, it continues: "The Buddha-nature is in fact not the self. For the sake of [guiding] sentient beings, I describe it as the self."[53] -
Now, do you thing that the idea of non-self as a goal reaching nirvana has driven away people from following Shakyamuni Buddha's teaching, so that at some point in the course of Buddhist history there had to be introduced a more 'self' centred nirvana state?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana
and I am quoting this passage:
- Some Mahayana sutras go further and attempt to characterize the nature of nirvana itself. The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, which has as one of its main topics precisely the realm or dhatu of nirvana, has the Buddha speak of four essential elements which make up nirvana. One of these is ‘Self’ (atman), which is construed as the enduring Self of the Buddha. Writing on this Mahayana understanding of nirvana, William Edward Soothill and Lewis Hodous state:
‘The Nirvana Sutra claims for nirvana the ancient ideas of permanence, bliss, personality, purity in the transcendental realm. Mahayana declares that Hinayana, by denying personality in the transcendental realm, denies the existence of the Buddha. In Mahayana, final nirvana is both mundane and transcendental, and is also used as a term for the Absolute.’[47]
At the time this scripture was written, there was already a long tradition of positive language about nirvana and the Buddha.[48] While in early Buddhist thought nirvana is characterized by permanence, bliss, and purity, it is viewed as being the stopping of the breeding-ground for the "I am" attitude, and is beyond all possibility of the Self delusion.[49][50] The Mahaparinirvana Sutra, a long and highly composite Mahayana scripture,[51] refers to the Buddha's using the term "Self" in order to win over non-Buddhist ascetics.[52] From this, it continues: "The Buddha-nature is in fact not the self. For the sake of [guiding] sentient beings, I describe it as the self."[53] -
Now, do you thing that the idea of non-self as a goal reaching nirvana has driven away people from following Shakyamuni Buddha's teaching, so that at some point in the course of Buddhist history there had to be introduced a more 'self' centred nirvana state?
0
Comments
A student writes:
I know you are very busy, but I was very puzzled about no-self as discussed in book 3 of the course (Discovering the Heart of Buddhism).
What I cannot understand is that if the self is non-existent, what motivates people to do things, such as this course?
Lama Shenpen replies:
Do I actually say that the self is non-existent? I didn’t mean to. What the Buddha always taught was that what was impermanent, unsatisfactory and not as we wanted it could not be the self - the self is the one who wants happiness and none of the things we grasp at as self provide that happiness - our whole idea of our self causes us suffering - so who is the us that discovers that? It is the un-grasping self, the true self, the self that is not impermanent, not suffering, that is as we want it to be. It is the Buddha Nature. When we discover that, we realise that this is what we always wanted but sought in the wrong place in the wrong way. We found aspects of it that we tried to grasp at and own but they just became unsatisfactory as soon as we grasped them -in fact we tried to grasp them only to find we had grasped at thin air - but instead of just ceasing to grasp, we became terrified and grasped more and more - and became more and more confused and still were left with just thin air. It is only when the fundamental awareness of our being turns towards that thin air, and recognises its experience of itself for what it is, that it can relax the grasping reaction and let that truth be.
You could call that the end of ego grasping and the life of the true self - or true nature - the ultimate reality of what we are. It is not something we can know by the grasping mind. It is not something to believe in as a concept – it’s a reality that discovers itself!
So it itself is motivated to discover itself and do this course!
Student:
If it is purely awareness reacting to circumstances, we would not get out of bed.
Lama Shenpen:
Volition is actually an aspect of that fundamental awareness - even our volition that tries to grasp, is an aspect of fundamental awareness - but it is confused awareness. It wants the joy of life to the full, it wants the happiness of all beings, but in its confusion it does not recognise that this is possible and so chooses lesser goals that seem more attainable. Actually none of the lesser goals bring the happiness it longs for - nonetheless the search for happiness drives us on and on from life to life. What will stop that? Realising that happiness is in awareness itself and so giving up searching for it elsewhere. That is what motivates you to follow this course. A part of you - the Buddha nature part - recognises something true about what you are discovering in your direct experience and that is motivating you to look deeper - because it’s true and it brings a feeling of rightness and happiness. Even if it’s painful, it feels alive and true and as if all this is going somewhere meaningful.
And all that is sensed by awareness itself as within itself, not something that it can grasp as an idea but something it can live, it can follow and it can find meaning in.
Do you think that is true?
Student:
Christians put a lot of faith in the soul, which they believe is a separate unchanging entity. Surely, if there was nothing there, one of them would have noticed by now.
Lama Shenpen:
You get all kinds of Christians like you get all kinds of Buddhists. Some have strong conceptual beliefs that they just trot out and say they believe in - they don’t want to think too much about whether their beliefs are true or not. They just want something to cling on to that confirms them in their idea of themselves.
Some Buddhists are like that too.
Other Christians are connecting deeply to their hearts and discovering what is genuine and true in their experience - and they find what anyone finds who does that. So they talk about their experience in much the same terms as we would.
As for soul - well it just depends what one means by it doesn’t it?
So in that sense various schools interpret this ( ). But to say it is something/nothing is to miss the mark. That is why defining what nirvana is is very difficult because as soon as you talk about it you've lost. So we work with negation. We assert what it isn't and then we see what is left.
That is where the heart of the problem is. Human interpretation of something that cannot be interpreted with the head.
I like your lama's idea of self as Buddha-Nature, too.
The Buddha taught all thoughts (which includes his personality) have no instrinsic substance.
So the term "atman" is not appropriate because "atman" is the notion of a real intrinstic "self".
The "self" or "personality" of a Buddha is just words.
The Mahayana/Vajrayana schools emphasise this personality, similar to when it is said Krishna is the Supreme Personality of the Godhead.
The Krishna teachings state there is the "undifferentiated Brahma", which is the state or mind of non-manifesting, and above that is the Supreme Personality of the Godhead.
This personality is that which engages in the ordinary human world, acting to give peace & happiness to ordinary people, who do not practise the spiritual path.
The best known Buddhist teachers, such as The Dalai Lama or Ajahn Brahm, are like this. Much of their actions are to make people feel good.
This can be contrasted to a meditation teacher, whose disposition will be inward and subdued.
So, to end, the emphasis about outer personality is Mahayana because the goal is to bring happiness to others rather than have others bring happiness to themselves.
Regards
In Mahayana, this topic is Tantra, which has a Hindu origin.
Vajrayana practise is to manifest the qualities or personality of a deity or "God".
Of course, if one has not realised emptiness, one may believe one is actually a God.
I recommend reading the book "Tantra In Tibet" by the Dalai Lama.
Or attending some Vajrayana sadhanas, such as Green Tara or Yellow Jambhala.
As for you last question in your opening post, my answer is: "Yes, absolutely".
As for my "Theravada" quote, it conforms with your quote: "In Mahayana, final nirvana is both mundane and transcendental".
Regards
For more information on Chaos Magick google... :P
It is up to the individual and their conditioned frame. Where they get caught they will get caught. But no worries, reality will always teach them otherwise.
Truth is truth. Doesn't matter how the hell you got back to where you stand right now.
I was unable to find any Therevadan artwork on the internet. Do you have any that you could share?
Also the deities in Vajrayana Buddhism are considered Buddhas, without inherent existence, and only relative existence, such as ourselves. In fact, all the Buddhist deities are considered to have once been Samsaric beings, just like us, but upon liberation into Buddhahood, they became worthy of veneration and we practice their teachings as well as the Shakyamuni Buddha.
Another one: Again does not say anything about a self.
The Buddha calls it cessation, the end, the stilling of all formations. So also the end of a 'self', obviously. In fact to nibbana litteraly means 'to go out'.
From what I've seen in the post the Nirvana Sutra directly opposes this. So I can only conclude it was not spoken by the Buddha or its texts were altered later. This does not mean I think Mahayana in itself is not a good path. In fact I think it says a lot of wise things, but this particular scripture I highly doubt.
I have to say I didn't read it though, just the summary.
With metta,
Sabre
Second, the quote below negates the narrow & rigid definitions of Nibbana, quoted. Common sense will tell us the Buddha found Nibbana when he was 35 years old and spent the next 45 years speaking, teaching & using mental formations.
'Nibbana' means the "fires of greed, hatred & delusion" go out.
Why would the Buddha concern himself with Nibbana in relation to a corpse?
The Buddha searched very hard, enduring much hardship, to find Nibbana, which he described as "here & now".
If anything is sounding "Hindu", it is the irrelevent inclusion of Nibbana after death in this thread.
:dunce:
It is spoken by the Buddha and there are other Sutras spoken by the Buddha that talk about it's meaning. It's not talking about a self existing "atman" which just means self, it's talking about an "atman" or self that arises in each moment due to the level of insight that person has realized, which for a Buddha is a permanent insight into the nature of impermanence. So, the Nirvana Sutra is talking about being permanently aware of one's ongoing process, each aspect impermanent as the next.
It's a very subtle text that needs unpacking. It's not talking about the Atman of the Upanishads that talk about Atman being Brahman, as in a singular monistic self existing source of all existence. Not at all. It's still quite in line with the Buddhas main Pali Sutta theme. But, it is subtler, as the Mahayana is indeed a subtler teaching.
The teaching on the 31 planes of existence is a teaching compiled from the Buddha. There have always been so many realms, different dimensions of existence that most people do not have access to due to being identified and locked into the limits of the 5 senses. Mahayana teachings are not for those people that believe this to be the end all be all true level of perception.
During the time of the fall of Buddhism due to Brahmin and Muslim efforts, Shankaracharya took teachings from Vajrayana and Mahayana and created Advaita Vedanta, which became the dominant form of Hinduism only after the fall of Buddhism in India around 1,000 years ago. Plenty of Shankara's teachings can be attributed to his Guru's Guru who admitted to taking teachings from Nagarjuna (Madhyamaka) and Asanga and his brother Vasubandhu (Yogachara, also known as the mind only school or chittamatra) in order to create his own synthesis of Hinduism and Buddhism known as Advaita Vedanta which also synthesized many Goddess cults during the time into itself. Even the earliest recorded yoga texts are not Hinduisms Hatha Yoga of the Nath Shaivites, but the Buddhist Yantra Yoga codified by Vairotsana from the 700's who actually learned it from earlier masters. Many of the Hatha Yoga postures are actually from the Buddhist forms of Yoga and became dominant due to the fact that Hinduism took over India.
But, Hindu's will not concede to this argument and since India has been Hindu now for about 1,000 years. They have done a lot in order to fabricate this belief, insisting that the Buddha is the Hindu god Vishnu, etc. Anyway... it's a very old debate.
This is an interesting view, but it seems too much like eternalism. There is no "eternal" and "ever" to speak of... there is no buddha to speak of. A person, a human being as we call it, does not change fundamentally upon realizing Nirvana. The mind becomes free, but that is not to say that it is eternal in any way, shape or form. I think we're subject to a dire paradox in these days of taking not-self so far that it flips over and creates self.
Some people think that a self that is continually reborn stops, or ceases, to be reborn once Nirvana is realized. That's understandable, given the teachings on rebirth. However it's not a "self" that's being reborn. It's also understandable to want enlightenment and continued existence both if one were of such a view... but it's eternalism, I'm afraid. There was never a separate self to begin with, is no independent/permanent thing right now that can be called a true self, and isn't one to die or be extinguished... only in the conventional sense is there self.
I would have to concede to the fact that he is more realized as to the essence of Buddhism than I am.
I have read that Vajrayana and Shavite Tantra evolved at the same time though. So... there is an argument saying that both are simultaneous and finding a rigid line between the two is impossible. As even during that time, Nalanda allowed for every religion to come and study with them. Nalanda being the largest spiritual University, possibly in the entire world at that time. I'm sure through the silk road many religions got a lot of influence from the dominant religion in the world at that time, which was Buddhism. I mean, it stretched from the Middle East, India all the way through Mongolia, through China, to Japan at that time.
My two cents are out there for what they're worth, and they're not worth fighting about.
Tell me, is your sense of self awareness dead in each new moment, even though it's entire make up has changed? This sense of self awareness is endless, since the dark void of his/her unconscious is completely illumined and seen through directly, so this sense of awareness of self goes on even after the death of the body, it's just rebirth over and over again, moment after moment, with the very same awareness of realization arising with each new moment, making it a permanent state of realization. If Buddhahood was impermanent, what would be the point? This doesn't mean that Buddhahood is a permanent self existence. It means that the state of Buddha awareness arises anew in each new moment endlessly.
For an individual:
Samsara is beginningless but Nirvana is Endless. All the beginningless conditions for an individuals rebirth as bound flips into endless conditions for the individuals experience as Nirvana. This is where the Mahayana teachings go beyond. It's still not different from the Theravada teachings in essence, it's just an expansion based upon the direct experience of Buddhas who realized the essence of the Theravada teachings. A Buddhas ongoing existence after Nirvana arises dependent on the fact that there are endless Samsarins still churning endless conditions for ongoing existence. Thus, a Buddhas self arises in each moment due to the condition that there are Samsarins still attached to a self, so it's not a self arising self, it's still a self that is dependently originated and empty of self existence. The Buddhas atman is still relative, but the awareness is free from all these conditions by seeing emptiness directly, all the time, continuously.
is the last part in relation to consciousness manifesting as form and seeing that itself is emptiness.
so emptiness of emptiness. consciousness just is and out of that arises different expressions because consciousness is just potential.
i wonder if that makes sense. because that is how i interpreted your words.
Having grown up a staunch Hindu Tantric and supporter of the Vedas, Upanishads and Advaita Vedanta and due to this a strong tendency towards absolute and Eternalistic theism, it was only through open debate that I even came to Buddhism.
I was very well read in Eternalism and Theism, as well as meditatively experienced, reifying all my experiences and using them as proof of support for the Theistic doctrine. I finally came to understand dependent origination only through debate and constantly challenging my understanding through self release, and through meditating on the opposing arguments by very well educated Buddhists, I had meditative experiences and lucid dreams which confirmed the Buddhas findings.
I know very well that Mahayana does not teach Eternalism as it doesn't teach the same thing as Hinduism or Theism in general. The truth is in the details, and the nuances. Mahayana takes some conceptual unpacking, which most people find too complicating. Which is fine. We must find Buddhism where we are inwardly available for it.
If that's what you were saying, than I would have to agree!