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.
My understanding is that Zen, and other more "true self" oriented Buddhism, deals more with the experiential side of emptiness rather than the philosophical side.
So is emptiness experienced as "true self" then? How does that work? "True self" implies some inner essence which is "immune" from sunyata, but as the Heart Sutra says, "attainment too is emptiness".
The thing about emptiness is that it's empty all the way down, even emptiness is empty. No room for essences or absolutes, or selves, it's all just flux and conditionality.
Well, this all gets pretty fine detail so just a minor difference in understanding or wording means we're talking about different things.
I gather the experience of true self that a Hindu experiences and the true self that a Buddhist experiences would be different even if they used the same terms. It could not be that way though and is certainly argued by traditional lines of Buddhism.
The Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism is very philosophical and thinks that the more gnostic schools of Nyigma and Kagyu are indeed reifying their experience of shunyata. I don't know how to tell which position is true for sure, I just see seemingly enlightened people in both camps and come to the conclusion that maybe both are correct in the sense of the blind men and the elephant. This is the rangtong/shentong distinction and the debate goes way back.
I like what Dudjom Rinpoche said:
"The Madhyamaka of the Prasangika and the Svatantrika is the coarse, Outer Madhyamaka. It should indeed be expressed by those who profess well-informed intelligence during debates with extremist Outsiders, during the composition of great treatises, and while establishing texts which concern supreme reasoning. However, when the subtle, inner Madhyamaka is experientially cultivated, one should meditate on the nature of Yogacara- Madhyamaka."
@silver said:
Hmm...maybe this true self business is what some non-dualists call awareness?
(Me...I call it spirit.)
Awareness or pure consciousness cannot stand alone. One has to be aware or conscious of something - that is its definition. In other words consciousness is dependent on conditions and cannot be self existent.
"Exactly so, lord. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another."
"Which consciousness, Sāti, is that?" [1]
"This speaker, this knower, lord, that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & evil actions."
"And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness'? [2] But you, through your own poor grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root] and produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your long-term harm & suffering."
silverIn the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded.USA, Left coast.Veteran
If anyone has had an out-of-body experience, they know that this invisible thing that is aware and conscious is the part of us that is self-determined and not the empty shell that is our body... Oi dunno!
@SpinyNorman said:
What I am asking is how a notion of "true self" can be helpful to any Buddhist's understanding when it contradicts the central Buddhist teaching of sunyata, which negates self-nature.
The same way that sunyata is helpful. True self and sunyata mean the same thing. But of course, if you go and reify the words "true self", then they mean different things.
Probably why Mumon (Wu-men), the compiler of the Mumonkan wrote the following verse.
Words do not convey the fact;
Language is not an expedient.
Attached to words, your life is lost;
Blocked by phrases, you are bewildered.
What exactly do you think this "true self" is, and how do you square it with sunyata?
Exactly? An oak tree in the courtyard! But it doesn't need to be squared because they are the same thing to begin with, just different words being used.
@SpinyNorman said:
What I am asking is how a notion of "true self" can be helpful to any Buddhist's understanding when it contradicts the central Buddhist teaching of sunyata, which negates self-nature.
The same way that sunyata is helpful. True self and sunyata mean the same thing. But of course, if you go and reify the words "true self", then they mean different things.
Probably why Mumon (Wu-men), the compiler of the Mumonkan wrote the following verse.
Words do not convey the fact;
Language is not an expedient.
Attached to words, your life is lost;
Blocked by phrases, you are bewildered.
What exactly do you think this "true self" is, and how do you square it with sunyata?
Exactly? An oak tree in the courtyard! But it doesn't need to be squared because they are the same thing to begin with, just different words being used.
I still don't get it. "True self" and sunyata are polar opposites, and mutually exclusive. It's like claiming that theism and atheism mean the same thing, it simply doesn't make sense. It's not about reifying language, it's about using language it in a nonsensical way.
I don't understand why you would equate "true self" to a tree. Perhaps you mean that the true nature of the tree is emptiness? But why confuse the issue by talking about "self"?
@person said:> The Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism is very philosophical and thinks that the more gnostic schools of Nyigma and Kagyu are indeed reifying their experience of shunyata. I don't know how to tell which position is true for sure, I just see seemingly enlightened people in both camps and come to the conclusion that maybe both are correct in the sense of the blind men and the elephant. This is the rangtong/shentong distinction and the debate goes way back.
I think some schools have reified sunyata, so that it begins to resemble a sort of substitute Brahman. Meanwhile others have introduced the idea of "true self" which begins to resemble a sort of substitute Atman. It's all rather strange! Perhaps historically some corruption by Taoist beliefs, Tibetan shamanism and even Advaita. And perhaps also a reluctance to accept the full implications of sunyata and voidness.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
How is emptiness and self polar opposites?
We are nothing more than potential being expressed.
Again, unless "self" has some magical connotations I'm unaware of, I see no conflict.
@SpinyNorman said:
I still don't get it. "True self" and sunyata are polar opposites, and mutually exclusive.
Your definition of "true self" is yes. That I would agree with.
But why confuse the issue by talking about "self"?
I don't find the issue confusing to begin with!
I don't understand why you would equate "true self" to a tree.
That's because you already have your own definition of what true self means.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
What I find confusing is when people try to deny or confirm a "self" (true or otherwise) and then fail to give a proper definition.
@David said: How is emptiness and self polar opposites?
We are nothing more than potential being expressed.
As I explained, emptiness is lack of self-nature, so it simply doesn't make sense to talk about it as "true self" or "self" or anything implying selfhood. If this is still not clear, could you tell me bit isn't clear exactly?
I don't know where you are getting this "potential" idea from. Sunyata is just the nature of the aggregates, it is not a "ground of being" thingy or Brahman substitute.
@seeker242 said:I think true self can't be found via thinking about stuff.
I think "true self" is a misleading fiction. Not really a helpful idea at all.
I would say it's helpful for some people, not helpful for others.
How is it helpful? It is just something else to cling to. Some people become "true selfers" and try to smuggle an atman into Buddhism, try to make it into another school of Hinduism. How is that helpful?
And how does it help if people grasp at Buddhanature as "true self", isn't that completely missing the point?
This is why the Buddha saved the Buddhanature/True Self teachings until his deathbed. Because first one has to realize no-self and practice it, before one is ready to hear the teachings on True Self.
@Dakini said:> This is why the Buddha saved the Buddhanature/True Self teachings until his deathbed. Because first one has to realize no-self and practice it, before one is ready to hear the teachings on True Self.
On his deathbed? Really? Strange it's not mentioned in the suttas. I assume it must be in a sutra then?
@Dakini said:> This is why the Buddha saved the Buddhanature/True Self teachings until his deathbed. Because first one has to realize no-self and practice it, before one is ready to hear the teachings on True Self.
On his deathbed? Really? Strange it's not mentioned in the suttas. I assume it must be in a sutra then?
So what exactly are these teachings on True Self?
The Mahaparinirvana sutras. He delivered them after he became fatally ill from eating some bad food. They're part of the corpus of Mahayana sutras.
correction: apparently the Parinirvana sutra is part of a grouping called the Tathagatagarbha sutras. I thought it was the other way around. Here's some info from Wiki on the group: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tathāgatagarbha_sūtras
OK. So could you give a brief synopsis of these True Self teachings, and how they square with sunyata?
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@David said: How is emptiness and self polar opposites?
We are nothing more than potential being expressed.
As I explained, emptiness is lack of self-nature, so it simply doesn't make sense to talk about it as "true self" or "self" or anything implying selfhood. If this is still not clear, could you tell me bit isn't clear exactly?
I've never heard of this "self nature" you speak of but at any rate I'm not saying anything about a true self except by asking for clarification on what this "self" label really means.
If you cannot define "self" properly then you really have no basis to deny or confirm its reality.
I don't know where you are getting this "potential" idea from. Sunyata is just the nature of the aggregates, it is not a "ground of being" thingy or Brahman substitute.
Sunyata has a few definitions it seems but emptiness is just the potential to change. Because things change and have no original form they are empty of a beginning.
This "self" business seems like it just serves to confuse.
Nobody has clearly explained what this "true self" thingy is supposed to be, I am just going by what it sounds like. What it sounds like is the polar opposite of sunyata, which is the lack of self-nature, lack of essence, the emptiness of the aggregates in the Heart Sutra. It sounds like something which is supposed to get a free pass from sunyata, but apparently it is the same as sunyata. Though if this "true self" thingy is actually the same as sunyata then why call it something else in the first place? And why give it a name which implies exactly the opposite of sunyata? All rather confusing and far too convoluted for my taste.
Sunyata is change, so I still don't get your idea of potential being expressed, it sounds more like Brahman.
Sunyata has a few definitions it seems but emptiness is just the potential to change. Because things change and have no original form they are empty of a beginning.
This "self" business seems like it just serves to confuse.
I'd recommend letting it go if so.
That's the best and most concise explanation of sunyata I've ever heard!
Spiny, this would take a good teacher to explain how to square True Self/Buddhahood with sunyata; some people say the teaching contradicts the Buddha's earlier teachings on sunyata. Because Buddhahood (another term for "True Self") is permanent, once realized.
I'm not a teacher, nor have I even taken a course on these sutras. though I did attend a retreat in which this topic was one of several discussed by Batchelor. But part of the problem for you (?) might be that you're confusing the concept of the mundane self with "Self", or Buddhahood, Enlightenment. My understanding of the way we are to understand these teachings is that we all have the potential (seed, embryo) of Buddhahood within us, the tathagatagarbha. Should any of us be so skilled and fortunate as to become Enlightened, and realize Buddhahood, that is the realization of the True Self, the flowering of the seed. At which point, we are liberated from the cycle of rebirth, unless as bodhisattvas, we chose to continue, for the benefit of sentient beings.
But abandonment of clinging to the mundane self is a pre-requisite for attaining Buddhahood/True Self, for exactly the reason you pointed out earlier. One can't achieve Buddhahood if one is clinging to "self", and confusing Buddha-potential or Buddhahood with a permanent self. One could even say, somewhat paradoxically, that the True Self (Buddhahood) is the pinnacle, the ultimate conclusion, of one's no-self practice.
This is the best I can do. In any case, these teachings aren't offered in your average sangha teachings. They're only offered to very advanced practitioners, I assume. Of course nowadays with the internet, everything is easily accessible to everyone.
This still doesn't answer your question about how a permanent Buddhahood squares with sunyata. Is Buddhahood ever-changing in some manner? Or is this another one of those seeming Buddhist paradoxes? Or does this make the teaching's authenticity suspect, because of the apparent contradiction? Or is the contradiction only apparent due to a lack of understanding of how it all works? I can't help you, there. Take your pick of any of those answers, or see your local Mahayana teacher. Good luck and Buddhaspeed.
@SpinyNorman said:
So "True Self" is Buddhahood then, and not sunyata? And if it is permanent, where does it go when you die?
Isn't the Buddha said to dwell in a Tushita heaven? I'm not familiar with that part of the teachings. But if it's very subtle consciousness that goes from one rebirth to another, couldn't that consciousness dwell permanently in the ether, somewhere? It's released from having to be reborn, so it simply dwells, discarnately.
@SpinyNorman said:
Sorry but I think you are using language in a nonsensical way
A lot of people think that, which is why it's not helpful for some and is for others.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@SpinyNorman said:
Nobody has clearly explained what this "true self" thingy is supposed to be, I am just going by what it sounds like. What it sounds like is the polar opposite of sunyata, which is the lack of self-nature, lack of essence, the emptiness of the aggregates in the Heart Sutra. It sounds like something which is supposed to get a free pass from sunyata, but apparently it is the same as sunyata.
That's why I don't use "true self". I just figure that it is a well meaning label for what we really are in light of non-separation and impermanence.
Though if this "true self" thingy is actually the same as sunyata then why call it something else in the first place?
Because some need help wrapping their head around sunyata without getting nihilistic.
And why give it a name which implies exactly the opposite of sunyata? All rather confusing and far too convoluted for my taste.
Beats me. I still don't know why people need to use the word "self" to describe anything other than the individual.
Sunyata is change, so I still don't get your idea of potential being expressed, it sounds more like Brahman.
Not to me. To me it just sounds like the potential to change. Why that needs to have a self (whatever that is) I have no idea.
If it had its own self, what would it need us for?
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
I'd recommend looking into the rangtong/shentong difference. I don't understand it to explain but this is the area where this argument has been fought out in. @SpinyNorman I think you are in the rangtong group who think shentong is reifying, but shentong think rangtong have slipped into nihilism.
I think they're probably different approaches to the same thing.
Once upon a time (true story time coming up) I decided to become an atheist to deepen my comprehension of mystical theology. In Buddhist words I wanted to experience the emptiness of form. I did.
It is close to nihilism but different. In fact I became an atheistic theist after two years of genuine none belief in Deity. Where angels fear to tread, lobster goes dancing ...
Now how to bring a 'form of emptiness' into the 'empty True Selflessness of form' as the Mahayana said to the Theravadin Void?
@lobster said:
Once upon a time (true story time coming up) I decided to become an atheist to deepen my comprehension of mystical theology. In Buddhist words I wanted to experience the emptiness of form. I did.
It is close to nihilism but different. In fact I became an atheistic theist after two years of genuine none belief in Deity. Where angels fear to tread, lobster goes dancing ...
Now how to bring a 'form of emptiness' into the 'empty True Selflessness of form' as the Mahayana said to the Theravadin Void?
I think a notion of a true self can be useful as it's the thing that needs to be negated. The idea that there is an ''i" behind the thoughts,actions. Thoughts exist but their is no thinker behind them or experiencing them.
@silver said:
If anyone has had an out-of-body experience, they know that this invisible thing that is aware and conscious is the part of us that is self-determined and not the empty shell that is our body... Oi dunno!
That "soul" that one talks about cannot be the subject. It is merely another object. All that you can point to or talk about or conceive cannot be you.
Q: This word 'citta' is used in the suttas for the subjective consciousness. If there's a citta from which the asavas (biases) are removed and a citta which is liberated, how does this fit in with the idea of self or no-self? How does one avoid self-view in thinking about the citta? If there's no self, who is it that's aware and what is it that becomes enlightened?
A: This is where Buddhism excels. It totally frustrates that desire. The Buddha wouldn't give an inch on that, because that's the non-dualism of the Buddha's teaching. It's psychologically uninspiring. You're left with just letting go of things rather than holding on to the feeling of a God or Oneness or the Soul or the Subject with capital S, or the Overself, or the Atman or Brahman or whatever - because those are all perceptions and the Buddha was pointing to the grasping of perception. The "I am" is a perception - isn't it? - and "God" is a perception. They're conventionally valid for communication and so forth, but as a practice, if you don't let go of perception then you tend to still have the illusion - an illusoriness coming from a belief in the perception of the overself, or God or the Oneness or Buddha Nature, or the divine substance or the divine essence, or something like that.
Like with monism - monistic thinking is very inspiring. "We're all one. We are one - that's our true nature - the one mind." And you can talk of the universal mind and the wholeness and the oneness of everything. That's very uplifting, that's the inspiration. But non-dualism doesn't inspire. It's deliberately psychologically non-inspiring because you're letting go of the desire for inspiration, of that desire and need and clutching at inspiring concepts. This doesn't mean that those concepts are wrong or that monistic thinking is wrong; but the Buddha very much reflected the attachment to it. So, you're not an annihilationist saying there's nobody, nothing, no subject, but by non-dualism, you just let go of things till there's only the way things are.
Then who is it that knows? People say: "Then what is it that knows? Who is it that knows the way things are, who is it that's aware? What is it that's aware?" You want me to tell you? I mean you're aware aren't you? Why do you have to have a name for it? Do you have to have a perception? Why can't there just be awareness? Why do you have to call it mine, or the eternal essence, or whatever? Why do you have to name it? Why not just be that, be aware. Then you see the desire, the doubt, wanting to label it, add to it. It's avijja paccaya sankhara (creating conditions out of ignorance). The process goes on of wanting to complicate it by giving it a name, calling it something.
Just like the question "Can you see your own eyes?" Nobody can see their own eyes. I can see your eyes but I can't see my eyes. I'm sitting right here, I've got two eyes and I can't see them. But you can see my eyes. But there's no need for me to see my eyes because 1 can see! It's ridiculous, isn't it? If I started saying "Why can't I see my own eyes?" you'd think "Ajahn Sumedho's really weird, isn't he!" Looking in a mirror you can see a reflection, but that's not your eyes, it's a reflection of your eyes. There's no way that I've been able to look and see my own eyes, but then it's not necessary to see your own eyes. It's not necessary to know who it is that knows-because there's knowing. And then you start creating views about who is it that knows, then you start the avijja paccaya sankhara and on through the whole thing again to despair and anguish.
@person said:
I'd recommend looking into the rangtong/shentong difference. I don't understand it to explain but this is the area where this argument has been fought out in. @SpinyNorman I think you are in the rangtong group who think shentong is reifying, but shentong think rangtong have slipped into nihilism.
I think they're probably different approaches to the same thing.
Given that in Buddhism suffering is caused by craving and clinging, this tendency to reify looks dubious and counterproductive to me. It's just a more refined form of clinging, more clutching at metaphysical straws, like "Oh, the void is scary, there must be something out there we can hang on to".
It also turns Buddhism into another form of Hinduism or Taoism. We might as well call sunyata and Nirvana "God" and be done with it.
That which is seeking and already knowing the answer to the question.... which is "not two"....(said with a knowing smile )
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@person said:
I'd recommend looking into the rangtong/shentong difference. I don't understand it to explain but this is the area where this argument has been fought out in. @SpinyNorman I think you are in the rangtong group who think shentong is reifying, but shentong think rangtong have slipped into nihilism.
I think they're probably different approaches to the same thing.
Given that in Buddhism suffering is caused by craving and clinging, this tendency to reify looks dubious and counterproductive to me. It's just a more refined form of clinging, more clutching at metaphysical straws, like "Oh, the void is scary, there must be something out there we can hang on to".
It also turns Buddhism into another form of Hinduism or Taoism. We might as well call sunyata and Nirvana "God" and be done with it.
I does sound like you're embracing nihilism here. It also seems like you're dismissing the insights of others out of spite. Clinging works both ways and I would have to guess that you're averse to the idea of a "true self" or whatever label.
Personally, I prefer the dharma to make sense and nihilism just doesn't cut it. Not on paper or in reality.
For the void to be the void it has to hold the seed of everything. It is not a magic "nothing".
@David said: It also seems like you're dismissing the insights of others out of spite.
Not at all, and this is a strange comment for you to make. This is a discussion forum, and views are going to be challenged from time to time, even yours.
It is nothing to do with "nihilism". The central teaching in Buddhism is conditionality, dependent arising, the middle way between existence and non-existence. This is the basis of the anatta and sunyata teachings.
What I am challenging here is the tendency to reify these things, making them more refined objects of clinging. For example trying to turn sunyata into a "ground of being" Brahman substitute.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Yes but sunyata is none other than a ground of being from many points of view. That's a pretty good term for it in my view as an example.
I don't mean any offense and I hope it doesn't appear as if I did. It's just that I don't understand how you get a reification theory out of that.
True self is more of a philosophical statement and should be taken as such. No need to analyze it or break it down into bits and pieces. It is as much a variable as is the "self" itself. It does though imply a dishonest self, and we need to question that from time to time.
@David said: It also seems like you're dismissing the insights of others out of spite.
Not at all, and this is a strange comment for you to make. This is a discussion forum, and views are going to be challenged from time to time, even yours.
It is nothing to do with "nihilism". The central teaching in Buddhism is conditionality, dependent arising, the middle way between existence and non-existence. This is the basis of the anatta and sunyata teachings.
What I am challenging here is the tendency to reify these things, making them more refined objects of clinging. For example trying to turn sunyata into a "ground of being" Brahman substitute.
I don't have my notes from the Batchelor retreat easily accessible, but I remember him saying that the Buddha stood the Hindu "ground of being" concept on its head. He said the Buddha's was a "groundless ground". (That sounds like sunyata, doesn't it?) He said this was one of the Buddha's m.o.'s; to take Hindu ideas, and give them a completely different, even an opposite, spin. I don't know if that helps, or if it's too vague.
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. Self is a construct, an illusion created by the 5 aggregates. It's an ever changing process arising and passing.
@Dakini said:> I don't have my notes from the Batchelor retreat easily accessible, but I remember him saying that the Buddha stood the Hindu "ground of being" concept on its head. He said the Buddha's was a "groundless ground". (That sounds like sunyata, doesn't it?) He said this was one of the Buddha's m.o.'s; to take Hindu ideas, and give them a completely different, even an opposite, spin. I don't know if that helps, or if it's too vague.
Yes, that sounds right, looking at early Buddhism. It's as if the Buddha took quite a lot out, and then later Buddhist schools started putting it back in, influenced by other cultures and religions.
So the Buddha took out Atman and Brahman, and people have been trying to smuggle them back in ever since!
0
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
@Dakini said:> I don't have my notes from the Batchelor retreat easily accessible, but I remember him saying that the Buddha stood the Hindu "ground of being" concept on its head. He said the Buddha's was a "groundless ground". (That sounds like sunyata, doesn't it?) He said this was one of the Buddha's m.o.'s; to take Hindu ideas, and give them a completely different, even an opposite, spin. I don't know if that helps, or if it's too vague.
Yes, that sounds right, looking at early Buddhism. It's as if the Buddha took quite a lot out, and then later Buddhist schools started putting it back in, influenced by other cultures and religions.
So the Buddha took out Atman and Brahman, and people have been trying to smuggle them back in ever since!
That gels with my understanding too. It's one of the things that I find difficult about Tibetan and Mahayana traditions, that they don't seem to have the clear cut differentiation of "these were the words of the Buddha" and "this is later material from Lama so-and-so" but tend to present it all as one big single tradition.
I'm finding I have a strong tendency to say, "I would like to start by learning the words and tradition of the Buddha, without the material that has grown up around it in subsequent centuries". As I understand it, that means studying the Pali cannon.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited August 2016
Groundless ground just sounds like ground of being without solidity.
It is only logical.
If we exist but we do not exist as individuals except by way of illusion then obviously there is a truth to what we are.
Unless one figures we do not actually exist and then we're entering the land of silliness.
Again, for those claiming a lack of self, please define the word "self".
Buddhadharma teaches conditionality, lack of self-nature or essence, hence the teachings on anatta and sunyata.
It is what it is.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited August 2016
That's a non-answer.
What is "self-nature or essence"?
If it cannot be defined then it cannot be dismissed except through willful ignorance.
This is basic stuff. Independent or inherent existence, not dependent on conditions, absolute rather than relative.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited August 2016
Even claiming a self to be illusion still clings to notions of self. Any notion that has self involved even no self involves the self.
Who do we think we are showing compassion for?
Just forget about trying to confirm or deny your own reality, it's a silly way to waste your time!
You asked a question and I gave you an answer. I think you are just being awkward for the sake of it.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited August 2016
@SpinyNorman said:
You asked a question and I gave you an answer. I think you are just being awkward for the sake of it.
No, I'm making a point. You gave the answer I expected but it's not the one I asked for.
I didn't ask what Buddhadharma is, I asked what exactly is being denied. A lack of self doesn't help define what "self" means.
The post in between your last two was meant for the original question, not as a part of our current dialogue.
@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.
This is how compassion is logical and not some ideal born from the fears of the non-beings.
Dharma that doesn't deepen our compassionate understanding is garbage.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited August 2016
Mistake in editing, so sorry.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited August 2016
Could the very way things go ever become aware of itself? If it did would it be a "self"?
Who could conform or deny such a thing?
Are we just temporary manifestations of the very way things go?
If so and we come to know it, would we not really be the very way things go becoming aware of itself?
I'm not saying we are, just asking if we could be.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
My understanding of the Hindu notion of the Self is that when the small self dissolves the ground of being is a unity or wholeness with the universe, we are all one. When Buddhists talk about dissolution of the conventional self they don't talk about oneness they let go of that concept too saying it is just a grander form of conventionality.
Sunyata undercuts all appearances and leaves us with nothing to hold onto. So the question is when all is empty and illusion like what is left for the enlightened mind, does it disappear? The Buddha did talk about the unborn, the unconditioned. What is the experience of that state then?
2
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?
@Dakini said:> I don't have my notes from the Batchelor retreat easily accessible, but I remember him saying that the Buddha stood the Hindu "ground of being" concept on its head. He said the Buddha's was a "groundless ground". (That sounds like sunyata, doesn't it?) He said this was one of the Buddha's m.o.'s; to take Hindu ideas, and give them a completely different, even an opposite, spin. I don't know if that helps, or if it's too vague.
Yes, that sounds right, looking at early Buddhism. It's as if the Buddha took quite a lot out, and then later Buddhist schools started putting it back in, influenced by other cultures and religions.
So the Buddha took out Atman and Brahman, and people have been trying to smuggle them back in ever since!
You get an A+ in Batchelor Buddhism, lol! That's exactly what he says.
Comments
Well, this all gets pretty fine detail so just a minor difference in understanding or wording means we're talking about different things.
I gather the experience of true self that a Hindu experiences and the true self that a Buddhist experiences would be different even if they used the same terms. It could not be that way though and is certainly argued by traditional lines of Buddhism.
The Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism is very philosophical and thinks that the more gnostic schools of Nyigma and Kagyu are indeed reifying their experience of shunyata. I don't know how to tell which position is true for sure, I just see seemingly enlightened people in both camps and come to the conclusion that maybe both are correct in the sense of the blind men and the elephant. This is the rangtong/shentong distinction and the debate goes way back.
I like what Dudjom Rinpoche said:
Awareness or pure consciousness cannot stand alone. One has to be aware or conscious of something - that is its definition. In other words consciousness is dependent on conditions and cannot be self existent.
If anyone has had an out-of-body experience, they know that this invisible thing that is aware and conscious is the part of us that is self-determined and not the empty shell that is our body... Oi dunno!
The same way that sunyata is helpful. True self and sunyata mean the same thing. But of course, if you go and reify the words "true self", then they mean different things.
Probably why Mumon (Wu-men), the compiler of the Mumonkan wrote the following verse.
Words do not convey the fact;
Language is not an expedient.
Attached to words, your life is lost;
Blocked by phrases, you are bewildered.
Exactly? An oak tree in the courtyard! But it doesn't need to be squared because they are the same thing to begin with, just different words being used.
I still don't get it. "True self" and sunyata are polar opposites, and mutually exclusive. It's like claiming that theism and atheism mean the same thing, it simply doesn't make sense. It's not about reifying language, it's about using language it in a nonsensical way.
I don't understand why you would equate "true self" to a tree. Perhaps you mean that the true nature of the tree is emptiness? But why confuse the issue by talking about "self"?
I think some schools have reified sunyata, so that it begins to resemble a sort of substitute Brahman. Meanwhile others have introduced the idea of "true self" which begins to resemble a sort of substitute Atman. It's all rather strange! Perhaps historically some corruption by Taoist beliefs, Tibetan shamanism and even Advaita. And perhaps also a reluctance to accept the full implications of sunyata and voidness.
How is emptiness and self polar opposites?
We are nothing more than potential being expressed.
Again, unless "self" has some magical connotations I'm unaware of, I see no conflict.
Your definition of "true self" is yes. That I would agree with.
I don't find the issue confusing to begin with!
That's because you already have your own definition of what true self means.
What I find confusing is when people try to deny or confirm a "self" (true or otherwise) and then fail to give a proper definition.
As I explained, emptiness is lack of self-nature, so it simply doesn't make sense to talk about it as "true self" or "self" or anything implying selfhood. If this is still not clear, could you tell me bit isn't clear exactly?
I don't know where you are getting this "potential" idea from. Sunyata is just the nature of the aggregates, it is not a "ground of being" thingy or Brahman substitute.
Sorry but I think you are using language in a nonsensical way. It's like me saying I'm a theist but don't believe in God.
This is why the Buddha saved the Buddhanature/True Self teachings until his deathbed. Because first one has to realize no-self and practice it, before one is ready to hear the teachings on True Self.
On his deathbed? Really? Strange it's not mentioned in the suttas. I assume it must be in a sutra then?
So what exactly are these teachings on True Self?
The Mahaparinirvana sutras. He delivered them after he became fatally ill from eating some bad food. They're part of the corpus of Mahayana sutras.
correction: apparently the Parinirvana sutra is part of a grouping called the Tathagatagarbha sutras. I thought it was the other way around. Here's some info from Wiki on the group:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tathāgatagarbha_sūtras
OK. So could you give a brief synopsis of these True Self teachings, and how they square with sunyata?
I've never heard of this "self nature" you speak of but at any rate I'm not saying anything about a true self except by asking for clarification on what this "self" label really means.
If you cannot define "self" properly then you really have no basis to deny or confirm its reality.
Sunyata has a few definitions it seems but emptiness is just the potential to change. Because things change and have no original form they are empty of a beginning.
This "self" business seems like it just serves to confuse.
I'd recommend letting it go if so.
Nobody has clearly explained what this "true self" thingy is supposed to be, I am just going by what it sounds like. What it sounds like is the polar opposite of sunyata, which is the lack of self-nature, lack of essence, the emptiness of the aggregates in the Heart Sutra. It sounds like something which is supposed to get a free pass from sunyata, but apparently it is the same as sunyata. Though if this "true self" thingy is actually the same as sunyata then why call it something else in the first place? And why give it a name which implies exactly the opposite of sunyata? All rather confusing and far too convoluted for my taste.
Sunyata is change, so I still don't get your idea of potential being expressed, it sounds more like Brahman.
That's the best and most concise explanation of sunyata I've ever heard!
Spiny, this would take a good teacher to explain how to square True Self/Buddhahood with sunyata; some people say the teaching contradicts the Buddha's earlier teachings on sunyata. Because Buddhahood (another term for "True Self") is permanent, once realized.
I'm not a teacher, nor have I even taken a course on these sutras. though I did attend a retreat in which this topic was one of several discussed by Batchelor. But part of the problem for you (?) might be that you're confusing the concept of the mundane self with "Self", or Buddhahood, Enlightenment. My understanding of the way we are to understand these teachings is that we all have the potential (seed, embryo) of Buddhahood within us, the tathagatagarbha. Should any of us be so skilled and fortunate as to become Enlightened, and realize Buddhahood, that is the realization of the True Self, the flowering of the seed. At which point, we are liberated from the cycle of rebirth, unless as bodhisattvas, we chose to continue, for the benefit of sentient beings.
But abandonment of clinging to the mundane self is a pre-requisite for attaining Buddhahood/True Self, for exactly the reason you pointed out earlier. One can't achieve Buddhahood if one is clinging to "self", and confusing Buddha-potential or Buddhahood with a permanent self. One could even say, somewhat paradoxically, that the True Self (Buddhahood) is the pinnacle, the ultimate conclusion, of one's no-self practice.
This is the best I can do. In any case, these teachings aren't offered in your average sangha teachings. They're only offered to very advanced practitioners, I assume. Of course nowadays with the internet, everything is easily accessible to everyone.
This still doesn't answer your question about how a permanent Buddhahood squares with sunyata. Is Buddhahood ever-changing in some manner? Or is this another one of those seeming Buddhist paradoxes? Or does this make the teaching's authenticity suspect, because of the apparent contradiction? Or is the contradiction only apparent due to a lack of understanding of how it all works? I can't help you, there. Take your pick of any of those answers, or see your local Mahayana teacher. Good luck and Buddhaspeed.
So "True Self" is Buddhahood then, and not sunyata? And if it is permanent, where does it go when you die?
Isn't the Buddha said to dwell in a Tushita heaven? I'm not familiar with that part of the teachings. But if it's very subtle consciousness that goes from one rebirth to another, couldn't that consciousness dwell permanently in the ether, somewhere? It's released from having to be reborn, so it simply dwells, discarnately.
A lot of people think that, which is why it's not helpful for some and is for others.
That's why I don't use "true self". I just figure that it is a well meaning label for what we really are in light of non-separation and impermanence.
Because some need help wrapping their head around sunyata without getting nihilistic.
Beats me. I still don't know why people need to use the word "self" to describe anything other than the individual.
Not to me. To me it just sounds like the potential to change. Why that needs to have a self (whatever that is) I have no idea.
If it had its own self, what would it need us for?
I'd recommend looking into the rangtong/shentong difference. I don't understand it to explain but this is the area where this argument has been fought out in. @SpinyNorman I think you are in the rangtong group who think shentong is reifying, but shentong think rangtong have slipped into nihilism.
I think they're probably different approaches to the same thing.
Once upon a time (true story time coming up) I decided to become an atheist to deepen my comprehension of mystical theology. In Buddhist words I wanted to experience the emptiness of form. I did.
It is close to nihilism but different. In fact I became an atheistic theist after two years of genuine none belief in Deity. Where angels fear to tread, lobster goes dancing ...
Now how to bring a 'form of emptiness' into the 'empty True Selflessness of form' as the Mahayana said to the Theravadin Void?
I think a notion of a true self can be useful as it's the thing that needs to be negated. The idea that there is an ''i" behind the thoughts,actions. Thoughts exist but their is no thinker behind them or experiencing them.
That "soul" that one talks about cannot be the subject. It is merely another object. All that you can point to or talk about or conceive cannot be you.
Given that in Buddhism suffering is caused by craving and clinging, this tendency to reify looks dubious and counterproductive to me. It's just a more refined form of clinging, more clutching at metaphysical straws, like "Oh, the void is scary, there must be something out there we can hang on to".
It also turns Buddhism into another form of Hinduism or Taoism. We might as well call sunyata and Nirvana "God" and be done with it.
That which is seeking and already knowing the answer to the question.... which is "not two"....(said with a knowing smile )
I does sound like you're embracing nihilism here. It also seems like you're dismissing the insights of others out of spite. Clinging works both ways and I would have to guess that you're averse to the idea of a "true self" or whatever label.
Personally, I prefer the dharma to make sense and nihilism just doesn't cut it. Not on paper or in reality.
For the void to be the void it has to hold the seed of everything. It is not a magic "nothing".
Not at all, and this is a strange comment for you to make. This is a discussion forum, and views are going to be challenged from time to time, even yours.
It is nothing to do with "nihilism". The central teaching in Buddhism is conditionality, dependent arising, the middle way between existence and non-existence. This is the basis of the anatta and sunyata teachings.
What I am challenging here is the tendency to reify these things, making them more refined objects of clinging. For example trying to turn sunyata into a "ground of being" Brahman substitute.
Yes but sunyata is none other than a ground of being from many points of view. That's a pretty good term for it in my view as an example.
I don't mean any offense and I hope it doesn't appear as if I did. It's just that I don't understand how you get a reification theory out of that.
@SpinyNorman : even though emptiness may be the ultimate reality, if we just stop at emptiness, from where will compassion arise?
True self is more of a philosophical statement and should be taken as such. No need to analyze it or break it down into bits and pieces. It is as much a variable as is the "self" itself. It does though imply a dishonest self, and we need to question that from time to time.
I don't have my notes from the Batchelor retreat easily accessible, but I remember him saying that the Buddha stood the Hindu "ground of being" concept on its head. He said the Buddha's was a "groundless ground". (That sounds like sunyata, doesn't it?) He said this was one of the Buddha's m.o.'s; to take Hindu ideas, and give them a completely different, even an opposite, spin. I don't know if that helps, or if it's too vague.
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. Self is a construct, an illusion created by the 5 aggregates. It's an ever changing process arising and passing.
Yes, that sounds right, looking at early Buddhism. It's as if the Buddha took quite a lot out, and then later Buddhist schools started putting it back in, influenced by other cultures and religions.
So the Buddha took out Atman and Brahman, and people have been trying to smuggle them back in ever since!
That gels with my understanding too. It's one of the things that I find difficult about Tibetan and Mahayana traditions, that they don't seem to have the clear cut differentiation of "these were the words of the Buddha" and "this is later material from Lama so-and-so" but tend to present it all as one big single tradition.
I'm finding I have a strong tendency to say, "I would like to start by learning the words and tradition of the Buddha, without the material that has grown up around it in subsequent centuries". As I understand it, that means studying the Pali cannon.
Groundless ground just sounds like ground of being without solidity.
It is only logical.
If we exist but we do not exist as individuals except by way of illusion then obviously there is a truth to what we are.
Unless one figures we do not actually exist and then we're entering the land of silliness.
Again, for those claiming a lack of self, please define the word "self".
So far nobody has bothered to even try.
Buddhadharma teaches conditionality, lack of self-nature or essence, hence the teachings on anatta and sunyata.
It is what it is.
That's a non-answer.
What is "self-nature or essence"?
If it cannot be defined then it cannot be dismissed except through willful ignorance.
This is basic stuff. Independent or inherent existence, not dependent on conditions, absolute rather than relative.
Even claiming a self to be illusion still clings to notions of self. Any notion that has self involved even no self involves the self.
Who do we think we are showing compassion for?
Just forget about trying to confirm or deny your own reality, it's a silly way to waste your time!
You asked a question and I gave you an answer. I think you are just being awkward for the sake of it.
No, I'm making a point. You gave the answer I expected but it's not the one I asked for.
I didn't ask what Buddhadharma is, I asked what exactly is being denied. A lack of self doesn't help define what "self" means.
The post in between your last two was meant for the original question, not as a part of our current dialogue.
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.
This is how compassion is logical and not some ideal born from the fears of the non-beings.
Dharma that doesn't deepen our compassionate understanding is garbage.
Mistake in editing, so sorry.
Could the very way things go ever become aware of itself? If it did would it be a "self"?
Who could conform or deny such a thing?
Are we just temporary manifestations of the very way things go?
If so and we come to know it, would we not really be the very way things go becoming aware of itself?
I'm not saying we are, just asking if we could be.
My understanding of the Hindu notion of the Self is that when the small self dissolves the ground of being is a unity or wholeness with the universe, we are all one. When Buddhists talk about dissolution of the conventional self they don't talk about oneness they let go of that concept too saying it is just a grander form of conventionality.
Sunyata undercuts all appearances and leaves us with nothing to hold onto. So the question is when all is empty and illusion like what is left for the enlightened mind, does it disappear? The Buddha did talk about the unborn, the unconditioned. What is the experience of that state then?
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?
You get an A+ in Batchelor Buddhism, lol! That's exactly what he says.