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.
Batchelor had a clear position regarding the so-called "Two Truths Doctrine" in Buddhism. Though I can't access my notes, I have his new book, which goes into tremendous detail on the concepts of "ground", "Truth", and so on. Skimming the chapter where he discusses Buddhist treatments on truth and the nature of reality, I see that he rejects the idea that there are two truths, relative and ultimate. I can't go into the details of his analysis of the Pali, different interpretations by venerable bhikkus, etc., but the conclusion he comes to is that the Buddha taught about truth as a virtue, something to be actively practiced in daily life in one's relationship to others, not as an abstract philosophical construct on the nature of reality.
He feels that discussions of Ultimate Reality take the Buddha's teachings from the practical to the metaphysical, and he traces the history of how the translations and commentaries evolved from sticking to the basics of practicing virtue (right speech, right livelihood, etc.) to spinning off into a complex theory of reality.
I don't know if this is helpful. I suppose it would shake the foundation of Zen and other Mahayana schools. I guess it boils down to what teachings or school one finds helpful to one's practice of becoming more compassionate and equanimous; if having an understanding that we all have Buddhanature waiting to be cultivated and nurtured is helpful, and that the fruition of that effort leads to Buddhahood as True Self, then one is free to make that choice. I'm not sure how Buddhanature got mixed up with the two-truths issue, anyway. I'm not sure it's relevant to that.
It's only a joke if one chooses to see it as such @federica ....However trying to verbally describe the so called true self could be seen as a joke....Just go back through past threads on the topic and see if there is any consensus on what it is or is not...
It would seem that 'deep understanding' if any will come from ones personal experiential knowledge...and if such a knowledge could be put into layman's verbal terms...all who study the Dharma would become enlightened by just reading the written word...
Hence the 'reasoning' behind my above post....But there's nothing wrong in exercising the ol' grey matter though...
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@SpinyNorman said:
This is basic stuff. Independent or inherent existence, not dependent on conditions, absolute rather than relative.
This is where people get messed up I think. A common misconception. It's the objective and the relative, not the absolute and the relative. Or rather the Two Truths are the Subjective and the Objective... One is not more "real" than the other.
Nor are they separate. Objectivity must include subjectivity.
I haven't heard the two truths spoken of like this before, objective and relative or subjective. It doesn't sound right to me but maybe I'm not getting your meaning, can you break it down?
I guess it depends on interpretation and I'm probably not in the majority on that.
It's usually expressed as the subjective and the absolute but absolute is not an antithesis to subjectivity, objectivity is.
When we speak of it in terms of a subjective truth vs an absolute truth we take away from the subjective experience and deny it's reality which makes compassion kind of a farce.
If we use the drop and the ocean analogy then we can see subjectivity in the drop and objectivity in the ocean. The ocean is not more real than the drop, it is the big picture while the drop is a piece of the puzzle.
I don't believe anyone here is suggesting our true self is a sentient entity and that is partially why I am starting to see why invoking any kind of self is a stumbling block including the idea that there is no self.
What I am doing is suggesting the possibility that the process we are a part of is becoming more aware as more individuals awaken to it.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
When I picture "ground of being" I sort of picture a garden where potential energy exists as probability within space itself and is either decreased or eventually made to manifest.
@David said:
When I picture "ground of being" I sort of picture a garden where potential energy exists as probability within space itself and is either decreased or eventually made to manifest.
I like this David guy. Good posts. Lots of food for thought.
Self may only be just a referent at best. True self may be referring to a phenomenon where the aggregates only fabricate, exist, and dies out over and over without perpetuating stress or negating impermanence, nor over fabricating selfness. Possibly.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@Zania said:
My understanding of the answer to this question is that the Buddha said there is nothing we can point to that we can call a self. He didn't even see it as worth discussing.
I can just see Buddha's face when a students asks "do I exist?"
Self is a construct, an illusion created by the 5 aggregates. It's an ever changing process arising and passing.
See, now you've gone and conjectured which begs a further question. If the self is just an illusion, what is being tricked?
Why have compassion for a bunch of illusions?
I think it's best to leave "self" out of it.
I think separation is the illusion, not being.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@SpinyNorman said:
This is basic stuff. Independent or inherent existence, not dependent on conditions, absolute rather than relative.
This is where people get messed up I think. A common misconception. It's the objective and the relative, not the absolute and the relative. Or rather the Two Truths are the Subjective and the Objective... One is not more "real" than the other.
Nor are they separate. Objectivity must include subjectivity.
I haven't heard the two truths spoken of like this before, objective and relative or subjective. It doesn't sound right to me but maybe I'm not getting your meaning, can you break it down?
I guess it depends on interpretation and I'm probably not in the majority on that.
It's usually expressed as the subjective and the absolute but absolute is not an antithesis to subjectivity, objectivity is.
When we speak of it in terms of a subjective truth vs an absolute truth we take away from the subjective experience and deny it's reality which makes compassion kind of a farce.
If we use the drop and the ocean analogy then we can see subjectivity in the drop and objectivity in the ocean. The ocean is not more real than the drop, it is the big picture while the drop is a piece of the puzzle.
I don't believe anyone here is suggesting our true self is a sentient entity and that is partially why I am starting to see why invoking any kind of self is a stumbling block including the idea that there is no self.
What I am doing is suggesting the possibility that the process we are a part of is becoming more aware as more individuals awaken to it.
I think I understand now.
Its not subjective vs ultimate its relative vs ultimate.
So I think you're interpreting relative as being the experience of an individual. Opposing it against the whole of reality.
What is empty of self is that "selves" aren't isolated, solid entities like ping pong balls dancing about knocking into one another. All phenomena are totally hollow and vacant all the way down, so they interpenetrate or interbe as Thich Naht Hahn likes to say. Then on top of that we could get into the idea that there aren't actually phenomena that even interbe, its all just mental imputation on top of the non entity of quantum foam.
One example of this usage is in the phena sutta, which states that on close inspection, each of the five aggregates are seen as being vain, void and unsubstantial, like a lump of foam [SN 22.95].
@person said:All phenomena are totally hollow and vacant all the way down, so they interpenetrate or interbe as Thich Naht Hahn likes to say. >
I have mixed feelings about TNHs "interbeing" thingy, which I think is a variation on Indras net. The problem I see with it is that the stress on interconnection distracts from the central truth of sunyata, which is conditionality and lack of self-nature.
@David said:> When I picture "ground of being" I sort of picture a garden where potential energy exists as probability within space itself and is either decreased or eventually made to manifest.
Perhaps descriptive of the sub-atomic world, but of course Buddhism deals with the phenomenal world.
Actually the way you talk about things sounds more like Taoism than Buddhism. Nothing wrong with Taoism, but it is good to be clear about the differences.
@Dakini said:> You get an A+ in Batchelor Buddhism, lol! That's exactly what he says.
Stephen is always pinching my ideas. Years ago I showed him my pamphlet on "Neapolitan without Beliefs" and then he writes a best-selling book! Pah!
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@SpinyNorman said:
This is basic stuff. Independent or inherent existence, not dependent on conditions, absolute rather than relative.
This is where people get messed up I think. A common misconception. It's the objective and the relative, not the absolute and the relative. Or rather the Two Truths are the Subjective and the Objective... One is not more "real" than the other.
Nor are they separate. Objectivity must include subjectivity.
I haven't heard the two truths spoken of like this before, objective and relative or subjective. It doesn't sound right to me but maybe I'm not getting your meaning, can you break it down?
I guess it depends on interpretation and I'm probably not in the majority on that.
It's usually expressed as the subjective and the absolute but absolute is not an antithesis to subjectivity, objectivity is.
When we speak of it in terms of a subjective truth vs an absolute truth we take away from the subjective experience and deny it's reality which makes compassion kind of a farce.
If we use the drop and the ocean analogy then we can see subjectivity in the drop and objectivity in the ocean. The ocean is not more real than the drop, it is the big picture while the drop is a piece of the puzzle.
I don't believe anyone here is suggesting our true self is a sentient entity and that is partially why I am starting to see why invoking any kind of self is a stumbling block including the idea that there is no self.
What I am doing is suggesting the possibility that the process we are a part of is becoming more aware as more individuals awaken to it.
I think I understand now.
Its not subjective vs ultimate its relative vs ultimate.
Ultimate is still better than absolute, I agree but usually it is presented as absolute vs conventional or subjective. Using the word absolute for one of the two truths negates half of the truth.
So I think you're interpreting relative as being the experience of an individual. Opposing it against the whole of reality.
Opposing is a strong word. The two truths work together. We would not be aware of the ultimate reality if it weren't for the conventional or subjectivity.
No mud, no lotus.
What is empty of self is that "selves" aren't isolated, solid entities like ping pong balls dancing about knocking into one another.
Trying to define self by negation of self doesn't work and only tends to confuse the issue. I think emptiness is better described without using the word "self".
Is "self" supposed to mean something eternal?
If so then the only self would be change as that's the only real game in town. However change is not a thing we can be because it is not a thing at all but the process of being.
Because change is eternal, there is no original form and there is no abiding identity.
All phenomena are totally hollow and vacant all the way down, so they interpenetrate or interbe as Thich Naht Hahn likes to say. Then on top of that we could get into the idea that there aren't actually phenomena that even interbe, its all just mental imputation on top of the non entity of quantum foam.
One example of this usage is in the phena sutta, which states that on close inspection, each of the five aggregates are seen as being vain, void and unsubstantial, like a lump of foam [SN 22.95].
A lump of foam is solid enough before it dissolves.
All this seems to me to lend to an idea that because things are temporary they are somehow meaningless. This is a slippery slope towards nihilism for some but the same truth leads others to see the beauty of it.
Being temporary isn't bad at all. It makes beauty all the more precious and suffering easier to deal with.
Emptiness does not signify a lack of being. Emptiness signifies the many forms it takes.
We take.
Compassion has to be a logical consequence to understanding this stuff or we have it wrong.
I would say some insight into emptiness makes one's experience more vivid and special.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@David said:> When I picture "ground of being" I sort of picture a garden where potential energy exists as probability within space itself and is either decreased or eventually made to manifest.
Perhaps descriptive of the sub-atomic world, but of course Buddhism deals with the phenomenal world.
Actually the way you talk about things sounds more like Taoism than Buddhism. Nothing wrong with Taoism, but it is good to be clear about the differences.
Taoism isn't really far off from Buddhism and that's why there is Zen. It is said that Zen Buddhism is really Taoism in disguise.
Particle physics is only possible because of the phenomenal... I don't see your point there.
Btw, the days of me getting too invested in this stuff are gone. When we disagree just picture us talking over tea and smiling.
I just want to be clear that even when we disagree, I feel kinship towards everyone here. And @SpinyNorman I've always dug your points of view.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@person said:All phenomena are totally hollow and vacant all the way down, so they interpenetrate or interbe as Thich Naht Hahn likes to say. >
I have mixed feelings about TNHs "interbeing" thingy, which I think is a variation on Indras net. The problem I see with it is that the stress on interconnection distracts from the central truth of sunyata, which is conditionality and lack of self-nature.
I see it as a more easily digestible form of emptiness. A consequence of "things" being empty is that they are able to interact and change through that interaction, if "things" had a solid essence they wouldn't be able to interact. Tomayto, Tomahto
@David said:
Ultimate is still better than absolute, I agree but usually it is presented as absolute vs conventional or subjective. Using the word absolute for one of the two truths negates half of the truth.
I didn't even notice the absolute/ultimate difference. What I'm not really on board with is using the word subjective, its too personal
Opposing is a strong word. The two truths work together. We would not be aware of the ultimate reality if it weren't for the conventional or subjectivity.
No mud, no lotus.
Opposing in the sense of differentiating rather than in conflict with.
Trying to define self by negation of self doesn't work and only tends to confuse the issue. I think emptiness is better described without using the word "self".
Is "self" supposed to mean something eternal?
If so then the only self would be change as that's the only real game in town. However change is not a thing we can be because it is not a thing at all but the process of being.
Because change is eternal, there is no original form and there is no abiding identity.
self is supposed to mean something eternal, but even if you took a snapshot of self frozen in time it would still be empty because it is made up of non self things.
A lump of foam is solid enough before it dissolves.
I did use the qualifier of being a non entity to try to avoid turning the foamy flux into a "thing"
All this seems to me to lend to an idea that because things are temporary they are somehow meaningless. This is a slippery slope towards nihilism for some but the same truth leads others to see the beauty of it.
Being temporary isn't bad at all. It makes beauty all the more precious and suffering easier to deal with.
Emptiness does not signify a lack of being. Emptiness signifies the many forms it takes.
We take.
Compassion has to be a logical consequence to understanding this stuff or we have it wrong.
I generally agree and think maybe its just two sides of the same coin. Emptiness means there is no essence to things but because there is no solidity it also means that there can be cause and effect, creation, destruction, kindness, harm, all the things that lead to compassion.
Buddha's teachings say what we are not. But as to the question regarding is there any self, or what happens after we die - I think there is some sutta which says that when Buddha was asked these questions, then Buddha did not answered these questions.
So is Zen and Mahayana Buddhism not purely Buddhism?
@misecmisc1 said:
Buddha's teachings say what we are not. But as to the question regarding is there any self, or what happens after we die - I think there is some sutta which says that when Buddha was asked these questions, then Buddha did not answered these questions.
So is Zen and Mahayana Buddhism not purely Buddhism?
Very controversial question, OP! The Buddha did say to a number of questions (like: how does karma work?) that they were "imponderables".
Buddha's teaching as per Therevada Buddhism says - there is a path from Samsara to Nirvana, which is the 8-fold path. Mahayana Buddhism (in particular Heart Sutra) says - there is no Samsara and no Nirvana, the moment 'I' appears Samsara appears and so is Nirvana, there is no path from Samsara to Nirvana rather every moment Samsara and Nirvana both are available.
So are these two teachings same? it seems to be different as they say opposite statements regarding path from Samsara to Nirvana.
So which teaching (Therevada or Mahayana) does actually resemble what the Buddha taught? any ideas, please. thanks in advance.
The Heart Sutra describes the bodhisattva using prajna wisdom to see the emptiness of the aggregates. This is spookily similar to the Phena Sutta in Theravada.:
"Form is like a glob of foam;
feeling, a bubble;
perception, a mirage;
fabrications, a banana tree;
consciousness, a magic trick —
this has been taught
by the Kinsman of the Sun.
However you observe them,
appropriately examine them,
they're empty, void
to whoever sees them
appropriately." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.095.than.html
The main practical difference is that one school uses the 8-fold path, and the other uses the 6 paramitas.
Clinging to notions of "true self" doesn't look very skillful to me, given that the goal of Buddhist practice is to abandon clinging and grasping.
And of course "true self" is easily confused with an Atman, an unchanging essence, something the Buddha clearly rejected.
So how does the ultimate reality of emptiness generate compassion? because as per emptiness, if everything is an illusion, then how compassion arises?
Isn't the goal of spiritual practice to realize both emptiness and the fullness of our human nature?
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@misecmisc1 said:
So how does the ultimate reality of emptiness generate compassion? because as per emptiness, if everything is an illusion, then how compassion arises?
If compassion doesn't arise from understanding then it is not a Buddhist understanding.
Isn't the goal of spiritual practice to realize both emptiness and the fullness of our human nature?
It would be pretty lame if one negated the other, wouldn't it?
I have mixed feelings about TNHs "interbeing" thingy, which I think is a variation on Indras net. The problem I see with it is that the stress on interconnection distracts from the central truth of sunyata, which is conditionality and lack of self-nature.
I see it as a more easily digestible form of emptiness. A consequence of "things" being empty is that they are able to interact and change through that interaction, if "things" had a solid essence they wouldn't be able to interact. Tomayto, Tomahto
Sure, but Interbeing goes much further than local interaction, it is a version of Indras net, and it soon leads to metaphysical speculation and pointless proliferation, like when people start going about quantum mechanics in a Buddhist context ( usually misrepresenting both Buddhism and QM ).
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
The fact that understanding suffering generates compassion means that love is a strong underlying component of what we are, imho. From brief glimpses during meditative experiences I'd suggest emptiness is just a characteristic of the internal space, so there is no form there, but there is still awareness there and an energistic value. This energistic value seems to be inherently loving.
it is a small talk, so you can listen to it. so please listen to it and please let me know - is this Zen understanding in line with Buddha's teaching or is it something which Buddha's teaching does not refer to? Please suggest. Thanks in advance.
@Kerome said:This energistic value seems to be inherently loving.
It is certainly more spacious, open, and less self-centred. This is one of the problems I have with the notion of "true self", it sounds self-referential and potentially rather egocentric.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@Kerome said:This energistic value seems to be inherently loving.
It is certainly more spacious, open, and less self-centred. This is one of the problems I have with the notion of "true self", it sounds self-referential and potentially rather egocentric.
Exactly why I feel the word is more of a hindrance than a help for understanding how we are in reality.
If we want to be less confusing it would be better to say that yes, of course there is the individual self that is not permanent but no less real for it. It may be an illusion but it is a tool to be used skillfully. It may not be a static "thing" but there is a process of being happening.
No, there is no soul. The word many of us Buddhists usually avoid and call "self" even when rejecting the idea. Afterall, if a self has to be eternal then we're talking about a soul.
And a True Self? I guess that would be attributing a soul to an all inclusive process of being. An eternal I.D. or personality to the flow instead of just the eternal flow.
Self is just a bad term to use unless referring to the impermanent individual.
in Zen, the term true nature or truely ourself or truely human seems to be used frequently.
where are the Zen masters @Cinorjer , @genkaku , @seeker242 in this discussion - what is this true nature or our true self, which is being referred to in Zen?
You know what really doesn't come through very well on an internet forum? Silence as a response, and that's what I'd love to do. But it's a very special type of silence. It's the sound of one hand clapping.
If I were to ask you here what my left hand is, you would ask back, "Don't you have a left hand? Hold it up. Move the fingers. That's your left hand."
So what is your true self? Don't you have a mind? Take a look at it. Examine your thoughts running through it. How does your self feel right now? Amazed? Stupid? Confused?
That's your true self. It's your only self. What other self can there be?
But I could have pointed that out in silence by holding out my hand. Do you hear it? Do you hear the sound of one hand clapping? Do you hear the silence? It was never about hands. In Zen, it's always about the mind. Listen to the silence of your true self.
And have a nice day.
5
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@misecmisc1 said:
So which teaching (Therevada or Mahayana) does actually resemble what the Buddha taught? any ideas, please. thanks in advance.
Mahayanists say that the Buddha taught differently to different people. They have a whole canon of Buddha's teaching in Sanskrit rather than Pali. We don't hear or talk about them much because a lot of Mahayana teachings are subsequent commentaries.
3
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited August 2016
I wanted to bring something back up that often comes up in these emptiness threads. The idea that the self is empty simply because it changes over time. That isn't what makes it empty though, even if you took a snapshot of the self frozen in time, at that moment it wouldn't be a solidly identifiable thing because it would be made up of lots of non-self things.
So less like this
And more like this
The reason it changes over time is that bit by bit some of those little factors that make up the self are removed and replaced.
@misecmisc1 said:
where are the Zen masters @Cinorjer , @genkaku , @seeker242 in this discussion - what is this true nature or our true self, which is being referred to in Zen?
Questions like this always remind me of something my teacher said once. He said "Nothing that I say can help you". He also said once "I can tell you all the answers to all the koans, but that still won't help you answer them". Funny guy! ha!
Unity Magazine: You wrote that a crystallizing thought preceded it: “I can’t live with myself any longer.” Tell us about that.
Tolle: Yes. It’s interesting that stepping out of thought was actually triggered by a thought. At that moment, consciousness looked at the thought “I can’t live with myself,” and I realized there are two here—“I” and the “self I can’t live with.” And then there was another little thought: Who is this self that I can’t live with? But there was no answer; that was the last question. And then it didn’t matter. This peace had changed my perception of the world of form too, of the external world. When I woke up the next morning, everything was beautiful and intensively alive and peaceful.
@Cinorjer said:> So what is your true self? Don't you have a mind? Take a look at it. Examine your thoughts running through it. How does your self feel right now? Amazed? Stupid? Confused?
That's your true self. It's your only self. What other self can there be?
So "true self" is just our current state of mind? Emptiness?
@Cinorjer said:> So what is your true self? Don't you have a mind? Take a look at it. Examine your thoughts running through it. How does your self feel right now? Amazed? Stupid? Confused?
That's your true self. It's your only self. What other self can there be?
Err, the one that is now pointing out and saying "That's my true self".
i think as far as my understanding goes there is one point, which differs between Therevada and Mahayana (or Zen in particular). In Therevada, there is a goal of enlightenment and once that goal is achieved, the task of the life is done and the remaining time can be pretty cool , but in Zen there is no particular moment in life in which enlightenment occurs and the remaining life goes cooly, rather in Zen the practice continues endlessly till i think the body dies. So in Zen, there can be moments of enlightenment, but no end to practice to realize enlightenment, even practice-enlightenment is one word in Dogen's teachings. - Is this difference there or if my understanding is incorrect here, then please feel free to correct my understanding here? thanks in advance.
@seeker242 said:> Questions like this always remind me of something my teacher said once. He said "Nothing that I say can help you".
Ask for your money back then!
LOL! And statements the Teachers made like that are followed by "I have nothing to teach you," and "There is nothing to understand."
My spiritual journey became one of amused amazement when I realized these Teachers were saying exactly what they meant and meant exactly what they said. That their insisting it's nothing special is, in fact, the essence of Zen training. I think @SpinyNorman will agree that the one thing Zen is not, is subtle.
There is a TVTrope meme called "Exactly what it says on the tin" that sums it up. There's nothing hidden. There's no mystical, koan-like secret to it.
@SpinyNorman said:
Anyway, I still don't find the notion of "true self" helpful in a Buddhist context. Talking about the true nature of self might be more intelligible.
I still think you're getting hung up on the term "Self". Just think of True Self as being synonymous with Buddhahood--the transcending of the mundane self.
@SpinyNorman said:
Anyway, I still don't find the notion of "true self" helpful in a Buddhist context. Talking about the true nature of self might be more intelligible.
I totally agree, but are we arguing against something written/spoken somewhere or are we arguing against the terminology? It's pointless to argue against the terminology because it isn't implying anything concrete.
Comments
Batchelor had a clear position regarding the so-called "Two Truths Doctrine" in Buddhism. Though I can't access my notes, I have his new book, which goes into tremendous detail on the concepts of "ground", "Truth", and so on. Skimming the chapter where he discusses Buddhist treatments on truth and the nature of reality, I see that he rejects the idea that there are two truths, relative and ultimate. I can't go into the details of his analysis of the Pali, different interpretations by venerable bhikkus, etc., but the conclusion he comes to is that the Buddha taught about truth as a virtue, something to be actively practiced in daily life in one's relationship to others, not as an abstract philosophical construct on the nature of reality.
He feels that discussions of Ultimate Reality take the Buddha's teachings from the practical to the metaphysical, and he traces the history of how the translations and commentaries evolved from sticking to the basics of practicing virtue (right speech, right livelihood, etc.) to spinning off into a complex theory of reality.
I don't know if this is helpful. I suppose it would shake the foundation of Zen and other Mahayana schools. I guess it boils down to what teachings or school one finds helpful to one's practice of becoming more compassionate and equanimous; if having an understanding that we all have Buddhanature waiting to be cultivated and nurtured is helpful, and that the fruition of that effort leads to Buddhahood as True Self, then one is free to make that choice. I'm not sure how Buddhanature got mixed up with the two-truths issue, anyway. I'm not sure it's relevant to that.
Think the joke is wearing thin, now, @Shoshin ....
It's only a joke if one chooses to see it as such @federica ....However trying to verbally describe the so called true self could be seen as a joke....Just go back through past threads on the topic and see if there is any consensus on what it is or is not...
It would seem that 'deep understanding' if any will come from ones personal experiential knowledge...and if such a knowledge could be put into layman's verbal terms...all who study the Dharma would become enlightened by just reading the written word...
Hence the 'reasoning' behind my above post....But there's nothing wrong in exercising the ol' grey matter though...
I guess it depends on interpretation and I'm probably not in the majority on that.
It's usually expressed as the subjective and the absolute but absolute is not an antithesis to subjectivity, objectivity is.
When we speak of it in terms of a subjective truth vs an absolute truth we take away from the subjective experience and deny it's reality which makes compassion kind of a farce.
If we use the drop and the ocean analogy then we can see subjectivity in the drop and objectivity in the ocean. The ocean is not more real than the drop, it is the big picture while the drop is a piece of the puzzle.
I don't believe anyone here is suggesting our true self is a sentient entity and that is partially why I am starting to see why invoking any kind of self is a stumbling block including the idea that there is no self.
What I am doing is suggesting the possibility that the process we are a part of is becoming more aware as more individuals awaken to it.
When I picture "ground of being" I sort of picture a garden where potential energy exists as probability within space itself and is either decreased or eventually made to manifest.
I like this David guy. Good posts. Lots of food for thought.
Self may only be just a referent at best. True self may be referring to a phenomenon where the aggregates only fabricate, exist, and dies out over and over without perpetuating stress or negating impermanence, nor over fabricating selfness. Possibly.
I can just see Buddha's face when a students asks "do I exist?"
See, now you've gone and conjectured which begs a further question. If the self is just an illusion, what is being tricked?
Why have compassion for a bunch of illusions?
I think it's best to leave "self" out of it.
I think separation is the illusion, not being.
I think I understand now.
Its not subjective vs ultimate its relative vs ultimate.
So I think you're interpreting relative as being the experience of an individual. Opposing it against the whole of reality.
What is empty of self is that "selves" aren't isolated, solid entities like ping pong balls dancing about knocking into one another. All phenomena are totally hollow and vacant all the way down, so they interpenetrate or interbe as Thich Naht Hahn likes to say. Then on top of that we could get into the idea that there aren't actually phenomena that even interbe, its all just mental imputation on top of the non entity of quantum foam.
I have mixed feelings about TNHs "interbeing" thingy, which I think is a variation on Indras net. The problem I see with it is that the stress on interconnection distracts from the central truth of sunyata, which is conditionality and lack of self-nature.
Perhaps descriptive of the sub-atomic world, but of course Buddhism deals with the phenomenal world.
Actually the way you talk about things sounds more like Taoism than Buddhism. Nothing wrong with Taoism, but it is good to be clear about the differences.
Stephen is always pinching my ideas. Years ago I showed him my pamphlet on "Neapolitan without Beliefs" and then he writes a best-selling book! Pah!
Ultimate is still better than absolute, I agree but usually it is presented as absolute vs conventional or subjective. Using the word absolute for one of the two truths negates half of the truth.
Opposing is a strong word. The two truths work together. We would not be aware of the ultimate reality if it weren't for the conventional or subjectivity.
No mud, no lotus.
Trying to define self by negation of self doesn't work and only tends to confuse the issue. I think emptiness is better described without using the word "self".
Is "self" supposed to mean something eternal?
If so then the only self would be change as that's the only real game in town. However change is not a thing we can be because it is not a thing at all but the process of being.
Because change is eternal, there is no original form and there is no abiding identity.
A lump of foam is solid enough before it dissolves.
All this seems to me to lend to an idea that because things are temporary they are somehow meaningless. This is a slippery slope towards nihilism for some but the same truth leads others to see the beauty of it.
Being temporary isn't bad at all. It makes beauty all the more precious and suffering easier to deal with.
Emptiness does not signify a lack of being. Emptiness signifies the many forms it takes.
We take.
Compassion has to be a logical consequence to understanding this stuff or we have it wrong.
I would say some insight into emptiness makes one's experience more vivid and special.
So does this nice breeze.
Hee hee.
Taoism isn't really far off from Buddhism and that's why there is Zen. It is said that Zen Buddhism is really Taoism in disguise.
Particle physics is only possible because of the phenomenal... I don't see your point there.
Btw, the days of me getting too invested in this stuff are gone. When we disagree just picture us talking over tea and smiling.
I just want to be clear that even when we disagree, I feel kinship towards everyone here. And @SpinyNorman I've always dug your points of view.
I see it as a more easily digestible form of emptiness. A consequence of "things" being empty is that they are able to interact and change through that interaction, if "things" had a solid essence they wouldn't be able to interact. Tomayto, Tomahto
I didn't even notice the absolute/ultimate difference. What I'm not really on board with is using the word subjective, its too personal
Opposing in the sense of differentiating rather than in conflict with.
self is supposed to mean something eternal, but even if you took a snapshot of self frozen in time it would still be empty because it is made up of non self things.
I did use the qualifier of being a non entity to try to avoid turning the foamy flux into a "thing"
I generally agree and think maybe its just two sides of the same coin. Emptiness means there is no essence to things but because there is no solidity it also means that there can be cause and effect, creation, destruction, kindness, harm, all the things that lead to compassion.
Funny question that.
Who is asking it?
That's for the machine to know and 'who' or 'what' to find out
Buddha's teachings say what we are not. But as to the question regarding is there any self, or what happens after we die - I think there is some sutta which says that when Buddha was asked these questions, then Buddha did not answered these questions.
So is Zen and Mahayana Buddhism not purely Buddhism?
Very controversial question, OP! The Buddha did say to a number of questions (like: how does karma work?) that they were "imponderables".
Buddha's teaching as per Therevada Buddhism says - there is a path from Samsara to Nirvana, which is the 8-fold path. Mahayana Buddhism (in particular Heart Sutra) says - there is no Samsara and no Nirvana, the moment 'I' appears Samsara appears and so is Nirvana, there is no path from Samsara to Nirvana rather every moment Samsara and Nirvana both are available.
So are these two teachings same? it seems to be different as they say opposite statements regarding path from Samsara to Nirvana.
So which teaching (Therevada or Mahayana) does actually resemble what the Buddha taught? any ideas, please. thanks in advance.
The Heart Sutra describes the bodhisattva using prajna wisdom to see the emptiness of the aggregates. This is spookily similar to the Phena Sutta in Theravada.:
"Form is like a glob of foam;
feeling, a bubble;
perception, a mirage;
fabrications, a banana tree;
consciousness, a magic trick —
this has been taught
by the Kinsman of the Sun.
However you observe them,
appropriately examine them,
they're empty, void
to whoever sees them
appropriately."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.095.than.html
The main practical difference is that one school uses the 8-fold path, and the other uses the 6 paramitas.
Probably neither, maybe one of the extinct schools.
http://opcoa.st/0m7bb
We need to use what is authentically skilful, not what is historical and superseded/inappropriate dogma.
Clinging to notions of "true self" doesn't look very skillful to me, given that the goal of Buddhist practice is to abandon clinging and grasping.
And of course "true self" is easily confused with an Atman, an unchanging essence, something the Buddha clearly rejected.
So how does the ultimate reality of emptiness generate compassion? because as per emptiness, if everything is an illusion, then how compassion arises?
Isn't the goal of spiritual practice to realize both emptiness and the fullness of our human nature?
If compassion doesn't arise from understanding then it is not a Buddhist understanding.
It would be pretty lame if one negated the other, wouldn't it?
Sure, but Interbeing goes much further than local interaction, it is a version of Indras net, and it soon leads to metaphysical speculation and pointless proliferation, like when people start going about quantum mechanics in a Buddhist context ( usually misrepresenting both Buddhism and QM ).
The Buddha wasn't keen on this kind of thing, and repeatedly returned to the theme of dependent origination and conditionality.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.048.than.html
The fact that understanding suffering generates compassion means that love is a strong underlying component of what we are, imho. From brief glimpses during meditative experiences I'd suggest emptiness is just a characteristic of the internal space, so there is no form there, but there is still awareness there and an energistic value. This energistic value seems to be inherently loving.
@SpinyNorman : i found one youtube url containing Suzuki Roshi's view on Nirvana and our true nature: https://youtube.com/watch?v=eFy6vJIn4co
it is a small talk, so you can listen to it. so please listen to it and please let me know - is this Zen understanding in line with Buddha's teaching or is it something which Buddha's teaching does not refer to? Please suggest. Thanks in advance.
It is certainly more spacious, open, and less self-centred. This is one of the problems I have with the notion of "true self", it sounds self-referential and potentially rather egocentric.
Exactly why I feel the word is more of a hindrance than a help for understanding how we are in reality.
If we want to be less confusing it would be better to say that yes, of course there is the individual self that is not permanent but no less real for it. It may be an illusion but it is a tool to be used skillfully. It may not be a static "thing" but there is a process of being happening.
No, there is no soul. The word many of us Buddhists usually avoid and call "self" even when rejecting the idea. Afterall, if a self has to be eternal then we're talking about a soul.
And a True Self? I guess that would be attributing a soul to an all inclusive process of being. An eternal I.D. or personality to the flow instead of just the eternal flow.
Self is just a bad term to use unless referring to the impermanent individual.
another insightful talk by Suzuki Roshi telling about our true nature: https://youtube.com/watch?v=c6vCVdXBoN8
in Zen, the term true nature or truely ourself or truely human seems to be used frequently.
where are the Zen masters @Cinorjer , @genkaku , @seeker242 in this discussion - what is this true nature or our true self, which is being referred to in Zen?
You know what really doesn't come through very well on an internet forum? Silence as a response, and that's what I'd love to do. But it's a very special type of silence. It's the sound of one hand clapping.
If I were to ask you here what my left hand is, you would ask back, "Don't you have a left hand? Hold it up. Move the fingers. That's your left hand."
So what is your true self? Don't you have a mind? Take a look at it. Examine your thoughts running through it. How does your self feel right now? Amazed? Stupid? Confused?
That's your true self. It's your only self. What other self can there be?
But I could have pointed that out in silence by holding out my hand. Do you hear it? Do you hear the sound of one hand clapping? Do you hear the silence? It was never about hands. In Zen, it's always about the mind. Listen to the silence of your true self.
And have a nice day.
Mahayanists say that the Buddha taught differently to different people. They have a whole canon of Buddha's teaching in Sanskrit rather than Pali. We don't hear or talk about them much because a lot of Mahayana teachings are subsequent commentaries.
I wanted to bring something back up that often comes up in these emptiness threads. The idea that the self is empty simply because it changes over time. That isn't what makes it empty though, even if you took a snapshot of the self frozen in time, at that moment it wouldn't be a solidly identifiable thing because it would be made up of lots of non-self things.
So less like this
And more like this
The reason it changes over time is that bit by bit some of those little factors that make up the self are removed and replaced.
Questions like this always remind me of something my teacher said once. He said "Nothing that I say can help you". He also said once "I can tell you all the answers to all the koans, but that still won't help you answer them". Funny guy! ha!
Unity Magazine: You wrote that a crystallizing thought preceded it: “I can’t live with myself any longer.” Tell us about that.
Tolle: Yes. It’s interesting that stepping out of thought was actually triggered by a thought. At that moment, consciousness looked at the thought “I can’t live with myself,” and I realized there are two here—“I” and the “self I can’t live with.” And then there was another little thought: Who is this self that I can’t live with? But there was no answer; that was the last question. And then it didn’t matter. This peace had changed my perception of the world of form too, of the external world. When I woke up the next morning, everything was beautiful and intensively alive and peaceful.
https://www.eckharttolle.com/article/Spiritual-Awakening-Of-Eckhart-Tolle
So "true self" is just our current state of mind? Emptiness?
Ask for your money back then!
Err, the one that is now pointing out and saying "That's my true self".
i think as far as my understanding goes there is one point, which differs between Therevada and Mahayana (or Zen in particular). In Therevada, there is a goal of enlightenment and once that goal is achieved, the task of the life is done and the remaining time can be pretty cool
, but in Zen there is no particular moment in life in which enlightenment occurs and the remaining life goes cooly, rather in Zen the practice continues endlessly till i think the body dies. So in Zen, there can be moments of enlightenment, but no end to practice to realize enlightenment, even practice-enlightenment is one word in Dogen's teachings. - Is this difference there or if my understanding is incorrect here, then please feel free to correct my understanding here? thanks in advance.
LOL! And statements the Teachers made like that are followed by "I have nothing to teach you," and "There is nothing to understand."
My spiritual journey became one of amused amazement when I realized these Teachers were saying exactly what they meant and meant exactly what they said. That their insisting it's nothing special is, in fact, the essence of Zen training. I think @SpinyNorman will agree that the one thing Zen is not, is subtle.
There is a TVTrope meme called "Exactly what it says on the tin" that sums it up. There's nothing hidden. There's no mystical, koan-like secret to it.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin
Anyway, I still don't find the notion of "true self" helpful in a Buddhist context. Talking about the true nature of self might be more intelligible.
I still think you're getting hung up on the term "Self". Just think of True Self as being synonymous with Buddhahood--the transcending of the mundane self.
I totally agree, but are we arguing against something written/spoken somewhere or are we arguing against the terminology? It's pointless to argue against the terminology because it isn't implying anything concrete.
Why not just say "Buddhahood" then?