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.
Is the tathagata permanent?
Jeffrey
Veteran
in Philosophy
If it is permanent then how can it not be a self?
If it is not permanent then it wouldn't extinguish suffering permanently?
Glossary:
tathatagata - a word for buddha the awakened being
If it is not permanent then it wouldn't extinguish suffering permanently?
Glossary:
tathatagata - a word for buddha the awakened being
0
Comments
Self or No self. Being or non-being. Is or isn't. Both or Neither.
So the question itself has presuppositions of duality. For some "thing" to be permanent requires some "thing" to be apart to see its "permanence". And permanence co-arises with impermanence. So really it has no "true" relevance other than a construction on the basis of assumed constructions.
The true Buddha is beyond designations, yet includes designations. But no ontological reality is set up as a status quo. And even the absence isn't set up as a status quo.
Glossary
dharmas- stuff
The whole point of the dharma is to lead sentient beings to letting go.
Idk if this answers your question.
I see what you are saying though haha.
The primary insight into how things are formed and how the cease is infinitely important.
For some an intellectual deconstruction will lead to the intuition of the reverent pointed by the symbolic transmission.
But for most a more direct meeting over and over and over again is required. So logical conclusions may not be effective.
It is all dependent upon the individuals capacity and conditions.
Thus these are conditions but they are not causes.
From Buddhism Connect a free email mailing: Note: the non-quoted material is my independent thought and not a part of Buddhism Connect
"One reason within it's philosophy descriptive of reality is...
We as Buddhists don't make real something eternal that stands on it's own, so we don't see the cosmos the same way as monism (one-ism) does. Which is why we don't consider a monist ideation of the liberated state as actually signifying "liberation." We see that a monist is still binding to a concept, a vast ego... an identity even if beyond concept or words, is still a limitation to the liberated experience of a Buddha. We see that even the liberated state is relative, though everlasting due to the everlasting realization of inter-dependent-co-emergence. We don't see any state of consciousness or realization as being one with a source of absolutely everything. We see the liberated consciousness as just the source of our own experience, even though we ourselves are also relative to everything else. The subtle difference is a difference to be considered, because it actually leads to an entirely different realization and thus cannot be equated with a monist (one-ist) view of the cosmos at all which we consider a bound view and not equal to the liberated view.
Also... there is the concept of the creative matrix in Buddhism and this matrix is without limit and is infinite. But it's not an eternal self standing infinite. It's an infinitude of mutually dependent finites... or "infinite finites" that persist eternally without beginning or end and without a source due to mutual, interpersonal causation you could say.
It's not that a Buddhist does not directly experience a unifying field of perception beyond being a perceiver that is perceiving... but, the Buddhist does not equate this even subconsciously, deep within the experiential platform of consciousness, with a source of all being. It's merely a non-substantial unity of interconnectivity, not a vast and infinite oneness that is the subject of all objects. That would not be considered liberation from the perspective of a Buddha. That would merely be a very subtle, but delusional identification with an experience that originates dependent upon seeing through phenomena, where the consciousness expands past perceived limitations. Even this consciousness that experiences this sense of connection with everything, beyond everything is also considered a phenomena and is empty of inherent, independent reality. Yet persists for as long as the realization persists, which for a Buddha is without beginning nor end.
This subtle difference is an important difference that makes Buddhism transcendent of monism, or "there is only" one-ism.
Because of this, it is a philosophy that see's through itself completely without remainder. Thus a Buddha is considered a "thus gone one" or a Tathagata.
Take care and have a wonderful night/day!!"
You are the sacred. This all of this is the truth body of the Buddha.
Lovely talking brother!
If my concepts are simple, my practice is to not get stuck in any of those simple concepts. When I develop profound concepts, my practice is not to get stuck in any of those profound concepts either.
At the end of the day our intellectual approach leaves us empty-handed. No-one understands.
Playing around with concepts is okay and maybe helpful. But when we think we finally have captured it in a few beautifully crafted sentences; it is time to go wash our mouths.
Can it be true?
Tibetan Buddhists have mouthwash helmet drinking hat.
http://www.amazon.com/Red-Drinking-Helmet-Soda-Hat/dp/B000MTYLWC
I had heard about the Red Hat sect. It makes sense now.
The first question I think penetrates the Two Truths nicely. On the one hand, tathagata was temporary and on the other, it is the essense of our true nature which we share with all. Not just the sentient but the non because we are all part of the same act.
Can we awaken to that act? I think I've felt it. When the labels all drop away and it feels like I am absolutely everything. It's never lasts long because something always reminds me of something else.
Can't label without seperating.
It could just as easily be delusion on my part but hey... It's all in the process, I figure.
I don't think it is about self negation but not self affirmation either... It's about getting rid of the conceptual borders between the labels. To me, a label may as well be a "self".
The second question makes me think of the un-namable name. The non-attainable "self". One thing with suffering is that it requires subjectivity or duality. I don't know if this is true, but it seems to me that an awakened being can still empathize without losing touch with the inner joy of non-self attachment. Seems silly to have compassion and reach out to something that isn't really there so I think the trick is to expand our sense of what we are to include everything.
True Metta... (imo)
I feel this thing I may call a "self" for the sake of information sharing is temporary and not really a "self" because there is no solid foundation on which it stands apart from the one we all share which is in constant change. It's unchanging in that it's in a constant state of change. Naming or trying to identify on a subjective/objective level is to put a limit on something that will be added to long after the perspective doing the naming has long since experienced subjectivity.
Personally, I think the problem with labels lies mostly with the nouns.
I'll go sit down now, thank you.
Thanks for posting Vajraheart's comments.
His light and wisdom are sorely missed and it answered some questions that have been making me lean toward advaita vedanta a little lately.
For being the home-schooled kid,
I sure kept up! lololololol :mullet:
it is no more.
an arahant can see everything clearly, therefore no-self, no karma, no rebirth.
bcos you have sotapanna, anagami etc who has clear seeing but not perfect.