What is the nature of true self? (Spinoff)
-
Time to move on, I guess.
This is a spinoff from :
What is Real? and
what is the name of the part of you that experiences rebirth
As per topic title. -
Cease your False Self and your True Self lives! (translation updated in this post)
Translation from:
http://www.humanbliss.com.sg/ques_ansdetails.asp?articleNo=192
Q: Could Shi Fu please give us a discourse on what is “True Self”?
A: “True Self” is the opposite term of “False Self”, if you would like to know what “True Self” is, you would need to know what “False Self” is. We often say “this shirt is mine”, “this house is mine”, everything are ours. After saying for half a day, we still do not know where “I” is.
If you say that our nose is “I”, then the eyes are who? If you say the eyes are “I”, then the ears are who? If you say the ears are “I”, then mouth is who? If you say the hands are “I”, then the legs are who? Actually all these are not Self. Therefore we say: My nose, My eyes, My ears, My mouth, My hair, My hands, My legs… we say everything belongs to me, but do not say that these are Me. What exactly is ‘Self’ then? Everyone would like to find out where is the ‘I’, please close your eyes to search and see if you can locate the "I". Shi Fu wants everyone to find the "I", everybody should know where is "I", if Shi fu were to find the ‘I’ for you, then this ‘I’ is no longer special. Often we hear many people are intelligent, yet they can’t even find the ‘I’, since we cannot even find the "I", how can we say “My dad”, “My son”, “My son’s wife”, “My valuable possessions”… everything is “Mine”, where exactly is “I” then?
Here there is a layman (ju shi) who answered “I” is the mind, then please, this layman find your mind and show everyone. In the past the 2nd Zen Patriarch went to find Patriarch Bodhidharma, saying “Venerable! My mind is in pain. Please pacify my mind.” Bodhidharma replied, “Show it to me and I will pacify it for you.” Shen Kuang said in amazement, “Cannot find the mind!” Actually everyone is very clever, if someone wishes to deceive us it is not easy, yet the whole life we are deceived by our Mind, yet we are not aware of it at all.
I see that to find the ‘I’ is very difficult for everyone, why not put it that way: Everyone has eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, mind consciousness – these are the “Six Roots”. In relative to the “Six Roots” are Sight, Sound, Odour, Taste, Touch, “Six Dust”. We say our eyes are the “Eye Root”, seeing the colours are called “Six Dust”, the reason why know whether this is white, black, red etc…. is because of “Eye Consciousness”. We will be able to hear the sound of cars, the sound of speaking, the sound of the aeroplanes, the voice of singing, is because of “Ear-consciousness”, allowing us to differentiate, perceive so many sounds. Other than that, a single tongue, why is it able to know Sour, Sweet, Bitter, and Spicy, perceive so many tastes? It is because of “Tongue-consciousness”. Nose can smell so many kinds of odour, knowing perfumes are fragrant, excrement are foul-smelling; this is “Nose-consciousness”. Even if we close our eyes,
We can raise out our hands to touch, and therefore know that this is table, chair, microphone, clothes, etc… this kind of using body to feel and perceive is called “Body-consciousness”. Also, when we close our eyes and think “What you say is very meaningful, what you said is right, your solution can work, and his sayings are meaningless…” This kind of pondering is called “Mind-consciousness”.
Other than the six consciousnesses said above – Eye-consciousness, Ear-consciousness, Nose-consciousness, Tongue-consciousness, Body-consciousness and Mind-consciousness, there is also a Seventh and Eighth consciousness. Seventh consciousness is “Self” – “False Self”, and is the master of this body. The eighth consciousness can be said to be our Warehouse, it can also be said to be a Videotape. For example we meet someone in America, our eyes see at once, the mind immediately forms an impression – I think I recognize this person! Oh! Yes yes yes! This is Mr Zhang, or Mr Wang. But, where have I met him before? This, I must think a while. When we finally remembered, this is when we take out our videotape from the Eighth consciousness and playing it.
Actually the Seventh Consciousness “False Self” is very strange! When our Six Roots (Six Sense Organ) are resting, it never rests; when our six roots are sleeping, it never sleeps; it wants to take out all the videotapes from the Eighth consciousness to watch. Yet this “False self” can function beyond our life, it can bring us to Heaven, it can also bring us to Hell. During the time of death, the “False Self” changes into a Transient-invisible-body (antarabhava; bardo). The Transient-invisible-body then goes into rebirth. We, the people who wishes to learn from the Buddha and cultivate, is to stop this “False Self”, not let it exist. “False Self” would ask our eyes to see bad things, it will also ask our mind to think of bad things, it would also ask our legs to do bad things, therefore “False Self” is not good at all to cultivation.
There are many methods of cultivation aimed at defeating “False Self”. The Zen sect’s method is to do sitting meditation and koans, for example “striking seventh ch’an”, is to keep sitting and not letting the “False Self” arise. This so-called “Strike Seventh” is to strike down the Seventh Consciousness and not allowing the sentient-mind to arise. Chanting-Buddha dharma door is to chant “Amituofuo, Amituofuo”, keep on chanting until the Seventh Consciousness ceases its function. There is a saying “Striking the (sentient) mind dead, the Dharmakaya (dharma body) lives”, this is the meaning. If we cannot strike dead this “False Self”, then the Dharmakaya (dharma body) cannot live. Human Vehicle Buddhism advocates “Striking Seventh” every moment, by ceasing the Seventh Consciousness, the Dharmakaya reveals itself; once the Dharmakaya lives, “True Self” will be produced. Actually “True Self” is only a name, if you think that “True Self” is really True Self, then that is wrong, it should be “No-Self is Self”, that is True Self. -
As explained in the other post, True Self in Buddhism does not have any inherent existence as posited by other religions.
Another point is, Dharmakaya is nothing like the spirit you speak of, it is not experienced within but is all pervading.
---
http://www.snowlionpub.com/chapters/jeorli.htm
...To explain the first reason: "all sentient beings are pervaded by the emptiness of Dharmakaya" means that the ultimate Buddhahood is Dharmakaya, Dharmakaya is all-pervading emptiness, and emptiness pervades all sentient beings. Therefore, all sentient beings are of the Buddha-nature.
Saying "there are no differentiations in the nature of suchness" means that the suchness of the Buddha is identical to the suchness of sentient beings. None is better or worse; none is bigger or smaller; none is higher or lower. So, because of that, all sentient beings are of the Buddha-nature... -
what is the name of the part of you that experiences rebirth
first that come to my mind is the Five Aggregates.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/khandha.htmlConstructing a Self
/\
§ 22. "Monks, I will teach you the burden, the carrier of the burden, the taking up of the burden, and the casting off of the burden. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said, "And which is the burden? 'The five clinging-aggregates,' it should be said. Which five? Form as a clinging-aggregate, feeling as a clinging-aggregate, perception as a clinging-aggregate, fabrications as a clinging-aggregate, consciousness as a clinging-aggregate: This, monks, is called the burden.
"And which is the carrier of the burden? 'The person,' it should be said. This venerable one with such a name, such a clan-name: This is called the carrier of the burden.
"And which is the taking up of the burden? The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming: This is called the taking up of the burden.
"And which is the casting off of the burden? The remainderless dispassion-cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving: This is called the casting off of the burden." -
Action is being truly observant of your own thoughts, good or bad, looking into the true nature of whatever thoughts may arise, neighter tracing the past or inviting the future, neither allowing any clinging to experiences of joy, nor being overcome by sad situation. In so doing, you try to reach and remain in the state of great equilibrium, where all good and bad, peace and distress are devoid of true identity.
By Dudjom Rinpoche -
CLICK ANYWHERE BELOW FOR LINK TO THIS COMMENTARY
What is the real self? Our Original Nature is our real self. It depends on the body temporarily; the body is not different from a house. A house is completed and then gradually deteriorates; similarly, the body has birth and death and the part in between. Our True Nature (real self), on the other hand, has neither birth nor death. It is enduring and unchanging. The teaching of Real Self and of illusory ego is basic to all Buddhadharma. When it is understood, clinging is easily broken off.
Before you people start confusing yourselves again, you need to understand exactly what "real self;" "Original Nature" is.
It is a confused person who says that real self is non existing and all pervading and it shows where your confusion lies.
You are getting confused between true self and true reality. You have to transcend samsara and nirvana to know true reality.
It would be better for you if you understand what "true self" is first then realise the true self.
Would appreciate if you can tell me what "true self" is. -
Slam people, then ask the very people for help.Originally posted by casino_king:CLICK ANYWHERE BELOW FOR LINK TO THIS COMMENTARY
What is the real self? Our Original Nature is our real self. It depends on the body temporarily; the body is not different from a house. A house is completed and then gradually deteriorates; similarly, the body has birth and death and the part in between. Our True Nature (real self), on the other hand, has neither birth nor death. It is enduring and unchanging. The teaching of Real Self and of illusory ego is basic to all Buddhadharma. When it is understood, clinging is easily broken off.
Before you people start confusing yourselves again, you need to understand exactly what "real self;" "Original Nature" is.
It is a confused person who says that real self is non existing and all pervading and it shows where your confusion lies.
You are getting confused between true self and true reality. You have to transcend samsara and nirvana to know true reality.
It would be better for you if you understand what "true self" is first then realise the true self.
Would appreciate if you can tell me what "true self" is.
what a hypocrite...
Ask the saying goes 'Xiu3 Mu4 Bu4 Ke3 Diao1', maybe should just let him rot and let him find out things the tough way. -
Originally posted by dreamer24:Slam people, then ask the very people for help.
what a hypocrite...
-
Seems that you've already have the answer. So why ask in the first place?Originally posted by casino_king:CLICK ANYWHERE BELOW FOR LINK TO THIS COMMENTARY
What is the real self? Our Original Nature is our real self. It depends on the body temporarily; the body is not different from a house. A house is completed and then gradually deteriorates; similarly, the body has birth and death and the part in between. Our True Nature (real self), on the other hand, has neither birth nor death. It is enduring and unchanging. The teaching of Real Self and of illusory ego is basic to all Buddhadharma. When it is understood, clinging is easily broken off.
Before you people start confusing yourselves again, you need to understand exactly what "real self;" "Original Nature" is.
It is a confused person who says that real self is non existing and all pervading and it shows where your confusion lies.
You are getting confused between true self and true reality. You have to transcend samsara and nirvana to know true reality.
It would be better for you if you understand what "true self" is first then realise the true self.
Would appreciate if you can tell me what "true self" is. -
Yes, why?Originally posted by path_seeker:Seems that you've already have the answer. So why ask in the first place? -
deluded hypocrite lah... why...why..why..Originally posted by casino_king:Yes, why? -
Originally posted by dreamer24:deluded hypocrite lah... why...why..why..
-
You might want to ask yourself why you lidat one...
-
why i lidat... because i try to learn from u lor...Originally posted by casino_king:You might want to ask yourself why you lidat one... 
but must admit your delusion and hyporcrisy is superior. -
http://www.geocities.com/advaitavedant/contratman.htm
Mahayana Buddhist Refutations of Atman
Buddha's Refutes the Notion that Tathagatagarbha is the Upanishadic Atman, or that the Buddhist Nirvana is the same as Upanishadic Moksha, from the Lankavatara Sutra
Then Mahamati said to the Blessed One: In the Scriptures mention is made of the Womb of Tathagatahood and it is taught that that which is born of it is by nature bright and pure, originally unspotted and endowed with the thirty-two marks of excellence. As it is described it is a precious gem but wrapped in a dirty garment soiled by greed, anger, folly and false-imagination. We are taught that this Buddha-nature immanent in everyone is eternal, unchanging, auspicious. It is not this which is born of the Womb of Tathagatahood the same as the soul-substance that is taught by the philosophers? The Divine Atman as taught by them is also claimed to be eternal, inscrutable, unchanging, imperishable. It there, or is there not a difference?
The Blessed One replied: No, Mahamati, my Womb of Tathagatahood is not the same as the Divine Atman as taught by the philosophers. What i teach is Tathagatahod in the sense of Dharmakaya, Ultimate Oneness, Nirvana, emptiness, unbornness, unqualifiedness, devoid of will-effort. The reason why I teach the doctrine of Tathagatahood is to cause the ignorant and simple-minded to lay aside their fears as they listen to the teaching of egolessness and come to understand the state of non-discrimination and imagelessness. The religious teaching of the Tathagatas are just like a potter making various vessels by his own skill of hand with the aid of rob, water and thread, out of the one mass of clay, so the Tathagatas by their command of skillful means issuing from Noble Wisdom, by various terms, expressions, and symbols, preach the twofold egolessness in order to remove the last trace of discrimination that is preventing disciples from attaining a self-realisation of Noble Wisdom. The doctrine of the Tathagata-womb is disclosed in order to awaken philosphers from their clinging to the notion of a Divine Atman as a transcendental personality, so that their minds that have become attached to the imaginary notion of a "soul" as being something self-existing, may be quickly awakened to a state of perfect enlightement. All such notions as causation, succesion, atoms, primary elements, that make up personality, personal soul, Supreme Spirit, Sovereing God, Creator, are all figments of the imagination and manifestations of mind. No, Mahamati, the TathagataÂ’s doctrine of the Womb of Tathagatahood is not the same as the philosopherÂ’s Atman.
later
[Buddha] They ("philosophers") imagine that Nirvana consists (of) ... the absorption of the finite-soul in the supreme Atman; or who see all things as a manifestation of the vital-force of some Supreme Sprit to which all return; (...)
... clinging to these foolish notions, there is no awakening, and they consider Nirvana to consist in the fact that there is no awakening.
Nagarjuna:
Chapter 9, Madhyamakakarika
1. Certain people say: Prior to seeing hearing, and other [sensory faculties] together with sensation and other [mental phenomena] Is that to which they belong.
2. [They reason:] How will there be seeing, etc. of someone (i.e. as the subject seeing) who does not exist? Therefore, there exists a definite (vyavasthita) entity before that [seeing, etc.].
3. But that definite entity is previous to sight, hearing, etc., and sensation, etc -- How can that [entity] be known?
4. And if that [entity] is determined without sight [and other sensory faculties], Then, undoubtedly, those [sensory faculties] will exist without that [entity].
5. Someone becomes manifest by something (i.e. like vision); something is manifest by someone. How would someone exist without something? How would something exist without someone?
6. [The opponent admits:] Someone does not exist previous to (purva) sight and all the other [faculties] together. [Rather,] he is manifested by any one of [them:] sight, etc., at any one time.
7. [Nagarjuna answers:] But if nothing exists previous to sight and all the other [faculties] together, How could that [being] exist individually before sight, etc.?
8. [Further,] if that [being] were the "seer," that [being] were the "hearer," that [being] were the one who senses, Then one [being] would exist previous to each. Therefore, this [hypothesis] is not logically justified.
9. On the other hand, if the "seer" were someone else, or the "hearer" were someone else, or the one who senses were someone else, Then there would be a "hearers when there was already a "seer," and that would mean a multiplicity of "selves" (atma).
11. When he to whom seeing, hearing, etc., and feeling, etc. belong does not exist, Then certainly they do not exist.
12. For him who does not exist previous to, at the same time, or after seeing, etc. The conception "He exists," "He does not exist," is dissipated.
Shunyatasaptati
56. Consciousness occurs in dependence on the internal and external sense-fields. Therefore consciousness is empty, like mirages and illusions.
57. Since consciousness arises in dependence on a discernible object, the discernible does not exist [in itself]. Since [the conscious subject] does not exist without the discernible and consciousness, the conscious subject does not exist [by itself].
Bodhicittavivarana
4. When the self imagined by the tirthikas is analyzed logically, it obtains no place within the [five] skandhas.
5. If it were [identical with] the skandhas [the self] would not be permanent, but the self has no such nature. And between things permanent and impermanent a container-content relationship is not [possible].
6. When there is no so-called self how can the so-called creator be permanent? [Only] if there were a subject might one begin investigating its attributes in the world.
7. Since a permanent [creator] cannot create things, whether gradually or all at once, there are no permanent things, whether external or internal.
8. Why [would] an efficacious [creator] be dependent? He would of course produce things all at once. A [creator] who depends on something else is neither eternal nor efficacious.
9. If [he] were an entity he [would] not be permanent, for things are perpetually instantaneous (since [you] do not deny that impermanent things have a creator).
36. Considering that without a body there is no consciousness, you must also state what kind of specific knowledge of itself this [consciousness] possesses!
39. The knowable is known by a knower. Without the know-able no knowing [is possible]. So why not accept that subject and object do not exist [as such]?
40. Mind is but a name. It is nothing apart from [its] name. Consciousness must be regarded as but a name. The name too has no own-being.
53. Whoever regards consciousness as momentary cannot accept it as permanent. If mind is impermanent, how does this contradict sunyata? -
Chandrakirti
Madhyamakavatara
VI.79
Those who are outside the path of Master Nagarjuna have no means of peace. They depart from the truths of convention and thatness, and, because they depart from them, cannot attain liberation. VI.121-125
A self that is an experiencer, a permanent thing, a non-creator, and without qualities or activity is fabricated by the Tirthikas (heretics, non-Buddhists). Through finer and finer distinctions, different traditions of the Tirthikas have evolved. [But] Since such a self is not born, it does not exist, just like a child of a barren woman; and since it is not even the basis of grasping at I, it cannot be asserted even conventionally. All the characteristics attributed to it by the Tirthikas in this treatise and that treatise are damaged by the reason of its not being born, with which they are familiar; therefore none of these characteristics exists. Thus there is no self that is other than the aggregates (in Advaita, koshas) because it is not apprehended separate from the aggregates. It cannot even be asserted as the basis of worldly I-grasping minds, because though they do not cognize it, they have a view of self. Even those who have spent many aeons as animals do not see this unborn permanent; and yet they too are seen to grasp at I. Therefore there is no self that is other than the aggregates.
VI.146-149
Some assert a substantially existent person who is indescribable in terms of sameness, otherness, permanence, impermanence, and so forth. They say it is an object of knowledge of the six consciousnesses, and assert that it is the basis of grasping at I. Since you do not assert mind to be indescribable with respect to form, you should not assert existent things to be indescribable. If self exists as a thing, existent things, like mind, are not indescribable. According to you a pot, which is an entity not existing as a thing, is indescribable with respect to form and so forth. Therefore, you should not assert a self indescribable with respect to its aggregates existing by itself. You do not assert that consciousness is other than its own nature, but you do assert it to be a thing that is other than form and so forth. Since these two aspects are seen in things, the self does not exist because it lacks the characteristics of things.
Shantideva
IX. Bodhicaryavatara
60. If the awareness of sound were I, then sound would always be apprehended. But without an object of awareness, what does it cognize on account of which it is called awareness?
61. If that which is not cognizant were awareness, a piece of wood would be awareness. Therefore, it is certain there is no awareness in the absence of its object.
62. Why does that which cognizes form not hear it as well?
[Samkhya:] Because of the absence of sound, there is no awareness of it.
63. [Madhyamika:] How can something that is of the nature of the apprehension of sound be the apprehension of form? One person may be considered as a father and as a son, but not in terms of ultimate reality,
64. Since sattva, rajas, and tamas are neither a father nor a son. Moreover, its nature is not seen as related to the apprehension of sound.
65. If it is the same thing taking another guise, like an actor, he too is not permanent. If he has different natures, then this unity of his is unprecedented.
66. If another guise is not the true one, then describe its natural appearance. If it were the nature of awareness, then it would follow that all people would be identical.
67. That which has volition and that which has no volition would be identical, because their existence would be the same. If difference were false, then what would be the basis for similarity?
68. That which is not conscious is not "I," because it lacks consciousness, like a cloth and the like. If it were conscious because it has consciousness, then it would follow that when it stops being conscious of anything, it would vanish.
69. If the Self is not subject to change, what is the use of its consciousness? Thus, this implies that space, which lacks consciousness and activity, has a Self. 70. [Objection:] Without the Self, the relationship between an action and its result is not possible, for if the agent of an action has perished, who will have the result?
71. [Madhyamika:] When both of us have agreed that an action and its result have different bases and that the Self has no influence in this matter, then there is no point in arguing about this.
72. One who has the cause cannot possibly be seen as being endowed with the result. It is pointed out that the existence of the agent and the experiencer of the consequences depends on the unity of their continuum of consciousness.
73. The past or future mind is not "I," since it does not exist. If the present mind were "I," then when it had vanished, the "I" would not exist any more.
74. Just as the trunk of a plantain tree is nothing when cut into pieces, in the same way, the "I" is non-existent when sought analytically.
75. [Qualm:] If no sentient being exists, for whom is there compassion?
[Madhyamika:] For one who is imagined through delusion, which is accepted for the sake of the task.
76. [Qualm:] If there is no sentient being, whose is the task?
[Madhyamika:] True. The effort, too, is due to delusion. Nevertheless, in order to alleviate suffering, delusion with regard to one's task is not averted.
77. However, grasping onto the "I," which is a cause of suffering, increases because of the delusion with regard to the Self. If this is the unavoidable result of that, meditation on identitylessness is the best.
Also See:
An Indian Mahayana Buddhist on Advaita
Ch'an Master Sheng-yen, patriarch of Ch'an Buddhism, on Advaita
A Scholarly Article on Whether Theravada Buddhism and Vedanta ara compatible -
What is the real self? Our Original Nature is our real self. It depends on the body temporarily; the body is not different from a house. A house is completed and then gradually deteriorates; similarly, the body has birth and death and the part in between. Our True Nature (real self), on the other hand, has neither birth nor death. It is enduring and unchanging. The teaching of Real Self and of illusory ego is basic to all Buddhadharma. When it is understood, clinging is easily broken off.
Buddha Nature is unconditioned, indestructible, all pervading, not because it has permanent and inherent existence but because it is empty. True nature IS emptiness. The nature is empty, but contains all, because of luminosity, the knowing nature. Buddha nature is known as Emptiness and Luminosity inseperable. Even if it is mentioned "permanent" and unchanging must be understood in a sense that there is continuity, but it does not literally mean eternal from our common understanding. -
C-King,
Be grateful that despite your idiosincracies, people are still willing to attend to you.
Be humble . be grateful. BE aware, be mindful. this is the first huddle that you need to overcome...
Without this, you will never be ready. Without this, you will only be fighting with yourself. -
One more bookmarked URL I found: Dharmakaya
In a spirit of ecumenism or harmony, many people like to believe that the Dharmakaya is the same or equivalent to God.
"However, the Dharmakaya is not to be understood as a Divine Being, or an Absolutely Existent Permanent Entity.
The problem we are facing, as students in the Kagyu lineage, it seems, is the seeming contradiction between the teachings of the second and third turnings of the Dharmachakra. Briefly put, the second turning emphasizes the emptiness of self and phenomena, the absolute nonexistence of any permanent, unchanging essence. This is the Madhayamaka view. Yet, the third turning, as exemplified by the Uttaratantra Shastra, espouses a permanent, unchanging Buddha Nature, inherent in all sentient beings, which is both the cause for their eventual enlightenment, and the fruit of said enlightenment.
It must be understood that these teachings, though apparently contradictory, are actually not. The Dharmakaya, or Truth Body of the Buddha, is empty. It is beyond conceptual elaboration, and cannot be posited as a Thing, a Being, or anything else. It is really beyond existence and non-existence. Yet it is posited as "having qualities," and of being of the nature of "clear light."
It must be understood that these two points of view are not mutually
exclusive.
Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso (Buddha Nature. Snow Lion Pub., 2000) states,
"The terms "dharmadhatu," "suchness," and "absolute truth" are synonymous in that both "dharmadhatu" and "suchness" denote emptiness and the absolute truth is the way everything exists, which is also emptiness.
In the context dealt with here, which is to say in the (Shentong) view, this emptiness is to be understood mainly in the sense of ultimate emptiness or the ultimate expanse. This is the nature of mind or the way the mind truly exists, being the inseparable union of spaciousness and awareness or of emptiness and clear light.
According to the Madhyamaka, however, that nature of mind is to be understood solely from the point of view that all phenomena do not truly exist. In this view it is nothing but empty in the sense of not being accessible to any conceptualization.
It is very important to gain a proper understanding of these two different
views. What is mainly taught in the system to which the Uttaratantra Shastra belongs is the aspect of awareness (Tib. rig pa) or clear light (Tib. od gsal), whereas in the system of the Madhyamaka the aspect of emptiness in the sense of freedom from conceptual elaboration is exclusively taught.
If one understands well what is meant by the inseparable union of emptiness and clear light, one comes very close to the path of the Vajrayana (305.)"
So, although the views can be called different, it appears that a union, or synthesis, of aspects of these views is to be desired.
Khenpo Tsultrim Rinpoche also comments on the difference between the Hindu notion of eternal atman and the Mahayana idea of Buddha Nature:
"There is a great difference between "true self" as taught
in the Hindu traditions and as taught in the Mahayana system. In the first sense the term "true self" denotes a self that is eternal, unique, and independent. "True self" as taught in the Uttaratantra Shastra is equivalent to the state of peace in terms of complete freedom from any conceptual elaboration ... . The Mahayana system does not hold to the view of an eternal, unique, and independent self (343-4)."
If another tradition explains the Absolute in terms similar to Rinpoche's explanation of mind, which is after all the Dharmakaya in its absolute nature, then I join hands and prostrate to such a tradition.
... meanwhile, I rejoice in those who practice any path which leads away from suffering and towards peace and compassion, to whatever extent."
~ Cone to the Kagyu email list, 2002. [The spacing of Kh. Tsultrim text is edited for easier online reading.] -
The human being is empty on the outside and empty on the inside. The body is empty and the "Divine Atman as taught by the philosophers" is also empty, correct.
What is missing? Where is Buddha now? The Buddha that has passed from this earth? -
Hint: You are still in samsara... you have not transcended (meaning that the passages you have provided is still describing samsara, when you say that the philosophers' ATMAN does not exists.)
-
You should seriously ask yourself why you are like that and correct it if you hope to have any chance to progressOriginally posted by dreamer24:C-King,
Be grateful that despite your idiosincracies, people are still willing to attend to you.
Be humble . be grateful. BE aware, be mindful. this is the first huddle that you need to overcome...
Without this, you will never be ready. Without this, you will only be fighting with yourself.
-
Originally posted by casino_king:
note that the "outside" physical body is subjected to the law of cause and effect. so one will still experience pain inside when u hit ur fist on the concrete wall.
[b]The human being is empty on the outside and empty on the inside. The body is empty and the "Divine Atman as taught by the philosophers" is also empty, correct.
/\ -
So where is Buddha NOW?Originally posted by casino_king:The human being is empty on the outside and empty on the inside. The body is empty and the "Divine Atman as taught by the philosophers" is also empty, correct.
What is missing? Where is Buddha now? The Buddha that has passed from this earth?
Some sort of realisation or experience doesn't stop anything. Only correct understanding, and not trapped in 'self' that bond us. Attachment immediately bond us, the thought of it immediate makes us a sentient, that's all. In a moment we are Buddha, in next moment we are sentient. Arising and ceasing remains. So where is where? Beside where you are standing.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Buddha is Sanskrit for what you call aware, miraculously aware. Responding, perceiving, arching your brows, blinking your eyes, moving your hands and feet, it's all your miraculously aware nature. And this nature is the mind. And the mind is the buddha. And the buddha is the path. And the path is zen. But the word zen is one that remains a puzzle to both mortals and sages. Seeing your nature is zen. Unless you see your nature, it's not zen.
- Bodhidharma
Bodhidharma's Bloodstream Sermon
More on Bodhidharma: Life of the Six Zen Partriaches from Bodhidharma to Hui Neng
....While still in India, Patriarch Bodhidharma sent two of his disciples, Fo T'o and Yeh She, to China to transmit the Sudden Enlightenment Dharma door. But no one, not even Chinese Bhikshus would speak to them. So they went to Lu Mountain where they met the Great Master Yuan Kung, who lectured on mindfulness of the Buddha.
Master Yuan asked, "What Dharma do you transmit that causes people to pay you so little respect?"
Fo T'o and Yen She could not speak Chinese, so they used sign language instead. Raising their arms in the air, they said, "Watch! The hand makes a fist and the fist makes a hand. Is this not quick?"
Master Yuan replied, "Quick indeed."
"Bodhi (Enlightenment) and affliction," they said, "are just that quick." At that moment, Dharma Master Yuan became Enlightened, realizing that originally Bodhi and affliction are not different, for Bodhi is affliction and affliction is Bodhi. he made offerings to Fo T'o and Yeh She, and shortly thereafter, the two Indian Bhikshus died on the same day, in the same place. Their graves may still be seen at Lu Mountain....
So are you looking for some kind of corpse or what?
Anyway Buddha had no corpse, his body is self-cremated in a samadhi of fire, and uncountable sharira relics that exhibits miraculous features are distributed throughout the world. -
Seriously as I have hinted many times, it is the poverty of your thinking mind to think that freedom can only come with inherent existence. Because of this, your entire mindset is skewed towards inherent existence and unable to penetrate into the deeper and more profound meaning of emptiness. Not seeing and experiencing anything. Therefore that is a bond you must forgo. So, sad to say you are looking at the wrong place.Originally posted by casino_king:Hint: You are still in samsara... you have not transcended (meaning that the passages you have provided is still describing samsara, when you say that the philosophers' ATMAN does not exists.)