The Buddha on "Self"

Dakini

The Buddha taught a Middle Way between a fixed, static self and no-self, or not-self ("anatman"). He taught an ever-changing, ever-evolving self. Yet some Buddhist traditions say there is a True Self, which is the Enlightened Self. What is the basis for this assertion of a True Self? Where did that idea come from?

person

What do you mean by True Self in Buddhism? I don't think I've heard that particular term used in Buddhism. But I take it you mean the concept rather than the term. What are the terms the traditions use for a true self, that you're referring to? I don't know if its right or not I'm just wondering which specific ideas you're referring to.

Dakini

I've come across the term True Self , or "Self" (with a capital "s") in Zen, and the Jonang tradition in Tibetan Buddhism uses the term True Self. I'm not sure what it means, that's why I've posted this OP--hoping someone would know.

ok, a quick internet check turned this up: Zen Buddhist master Sekkei Harada explains the true Self as that which is realized when we leave behind the ego-self.
On wiki, under Atman.
But I'm wondering what the source of this idea is. It's not the Buddha's teachings, so where did it come from?

person

But I'm wondering what the source of this idea is. It's not the Buddha's teachings, so where did it come from?

Good question, I don't know. Hopefully someone does.

person

Here's something I came across that may help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_mind

Also follow the Wiki link at the end to mind stream for quite a bit more.

person

Actually the mind stream page is probably more relevant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindstream

Dakini

I appreciate this effort, @person.

taiyaki

Not sure where it came from but buddha nature is impermanence.

Die into impermanence and find true self, which is this very moment. Pop, gone.

zenff

There’s been some interaction between Advaita Vedanta and Mahayana-Buddhism.

Many authors are of the opinion that the similarities in Advaita and certain aspects of Buddhism were due to the Upanishadic influence on both streams. For instance, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, an important intellectual figure of 20th century India, wrote in his book Indian Philosophy:
"There are no doubt similarities between the views of Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, and this is not surprising in view of the fact that both these systems had for their background the Upanishads."[36]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta

A guy like Adyashanti Started as a Zen-student but maybe could be classified as Advaita Vedanta now.

In Buddhism one can talk about the absolute and the relative and how they are identical; in Advaita maybe they say how nothing is separate from the Self (Atman).

The similarity is that our usual perception of being a separate self is an illusion. The difference is the name which is given to what can’t be put in words anyways.

So my attempt for an answer is that Mahayana and Advaita are brother and sister.
They borrow ideas and terminology.

Dakini

Thanks, @zenff. There was a thread (or two) about Advaita and Buddhism awhile ago. Something about monism vs. dualism. Suddenly, I'd like to understand the comparison a lot better.

The absolute and the relative are identical?? How so?

zenff

Identity of Relative and Absolute

The mind of the Great Sage of India was intimately

conveyed from west to east.

Among human beings are wise ones and fools,

But in the Way there is no northern or southern Patriarch.

The subtle source is clear and bright; the tributary

streams flow through the darkness.

To be attached to things is illusion;

To encounter the absolute is not yet enlightenment.

Each and all, the subjective and objective spheres are related,

and at the same time, independent.

Related, yet working differently, though each keeps its own place.

Form makes the character and appearance different;

Sounds distinguish comfort and discomfort.

The dark makes all words one; the brightness distinguishes good and bad phrases.

The four elements return to their nature as a child to its mother.

Fire is hot, wind moves, water is wet, earth hard.

Eyes see, ears hear, nose smells, tongue tastes the salt and sour.

Each is independent of the other; cause and effect must return to the great reality

Like leaves that come from the same root.

The words high and low are used relatively.

Within light there is darkness, but do not try to understand that darkness;

Within darkness there is light, but do not look for that light.

Light and darkness are a pair, like the foot before

and the foot behind, in walking. Each thing has its own intrinsic value

and is related to everything else in function and position.

Ordinary life fits the absolute as a box ands its lid.

The absolute works together with the relative like two arrows meeting in mid-air.

Reading words you should grasp the great reality. Do not judge by any standards.

If you do not see the Way, you do not see it even as you walk on it.

When you walk the Way, it is not near, it is not far.

If you are deluded, you are mountains and rivers away from it.

I respectfully say to those who wish to be enlightened:

Do not waste your time by night or day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandokai

Dakini

um....ooohkay....? :scratch:

Someone on another forum suggested that the True Self could be the Tathagatagharba, the Buddhanature within us. That may be what some earlier Zen teachers interpreted as the Self, or True Self.

person

Someone on another forum suggested that the True Self could be the Tathagatagharba, the Buddhanature within us. That may be what some earlier Zen teachers interpreted as the Self, or True Self.

If you haven't read the Mindstream Wiki there is a lot of history and origin about Tatagatagharba. Superficially it sounds alot like Atman, so it very well could be the origin of the idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindstream

Dakini

Interesting how there are these subtle influences and cross-pollinations, if you dig back far enough in history. Thx, @person.

zenff

I’d say that in Zen-Buddhism putting the right word on it is problematic.
When one Master says “Cake” and the other says “Mu” or “The cypress in the garden” are they talking about the same thing? And is their realization different or the same?

@Dakini : Don’t you just love this poem on the identity of relative and absolute?

Dakini

It's a poem? Yeah, ok, now that I re-read it, it makes more sense. Actually, it's the most sensible thing on relative and absolute I've ever read. (Forgive me, I'm a little slow...)