What is the nature of True Self Part 2 (spin-off)

• An Eternal Now

  20 Nov 06, 23:26

  Original topic created by Casino_King,
  What is the nature of true self? (Spinoff)
  
  I think things are becoming clearer to me now.
  
  The difference between Mahayana's term 'True Self' and Hinduism's Advaita is that... in Buddhism, the term 'True Self' or 'Self' is sort of a re-definition of the wrong concept of 'Self'
  
  

  ...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. - Ven.Shen Kai

  This part of the article I pasted on the previous thread by Casino_King is very important because it is this that sets the difference between Hinduism and Buddhism. No-Self is Self literally means that - the nature of Self is No-Self, is emptiness. It is not a "non-egoistic Self" or "selfless Self", it means, No-Self is precisely (the true nature of) Self, and if you think there is a Self with inherent existence apart from the true nature of No-Self, then you are wrong. And that is why in Mahayana, 'Self' is only a name... is not seperated from Emptiness.
  
  I have read about this a long time ago... that Mahayana's teachings on 'Self' is merely a re-assertion of a wrong concept of Self that sentient beings have, with the right "concept" of Emptiness. Without understanding this, one may misunderstand that there is a 'true Self' to be found after the ego (small self) dies. When small self dies, Great Self/True Self/Dharmakaya (the terms found in many mahayana sutras, especially those on tathagathagarbha) "manifest" but this Dharmakaya is Emptiness and without inherent existence.
  
  So, 'true self' is really just a substitute names... refering to our true nature of emptiness... there is no inherent existence/self at all.
  
  See: http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=38847&st=0
  
  

  The wiki article sounds like Dr Tony Page or one of his followers. He runs the Mahaparinirvana Sutra site. He is convinced that, in a Jonangpa-ish manner Buddha really taught a self-existent Atman or Self.
  
  What these folks ignore is that when Atman is used, without being criticised, and is equated or linked to Tathagatagarbha etc.; the Buddha-nature does not = atman, but Atman = buddha-nature. That is, the non-inherent, shunyata, emptiness of buddha-nature is also the nature of Atman. Not that the inherent self-nature, svabhava of Atman = buddha-nature.

• Cenarious

  20 Nov 06, 23:41

  the place where jesus lived didnt have this kind of concept so christianity = pureland buddhism
• An Eternal Now

  20 Nov 06, 23:54

  Originally posted by Cenarious:

  the place where jesus lived didnt have this kind of concept so christianity = pureland buddhism

  aiyo told you dont comment so much on christianity la......
  
  especially controversial things
• An Eternal Now

  21 Nov 06, 00:03

  (double post)
• An Eternal Now

  21 Nov 06, 00:03

  Thusness agreed with the post by the E-Sangha member about the Buddha-nature does not = atman, but Atman = buddha-nature. That is, the non-inherent, shunyata, emptiness of buddha-nature is also the nature of Atman. Not that the inherent self-nature, svabhava of Atman = buddha-nature but would like me to add on...
  
  Not that nothing exist, but existence is always in a form of manifestation. When we say ‘self’, we cannot understand it apart from the 5 aggregates. When we say ‘Self’, it cannot be understood apart from bare 18 dhatus (without the intervention of mental formation) phenomena that dependently arise as a result of causes and conditions.
  
  That is, there is thinking, hearing, seeing but there is no thinker, hearer and seer. If we fail to see the thinking, hearing and seeing, we are deluded; if we see the hearer, thinker and seer, we are also deluded; if we see and not understand the arising is due to conditions we are also deluded for arising is not without conditions and cannot be separated from conditions. .
  
  Postulation of something experiencing another thing arises only conceptually not directly. In direct experience, ‘Self’ has no role; there is no necessity for us to postulate a ‘self’ or ‘Self’ in actual experience.
• solomon1983

  3 Dec 06, 01:05

  Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

  Original topic created by Casino_King,
  What is the nature of true self? (Spinoff)
  
  I think things are becoming clearer to me now.
  
  The difference between Mahayana's term 'True Self' and Hinduism's Advaita is that... in Buddhism, the term 'True Self' or 'Self' is sort of a re-definition of the wrong concept of 'Self'
  
  

  Casino_king... is from the 'new version of hinduism' whom believes in God , which is located somewhere near payer lebar rd...i couldnt remember the name....
• Xprobe

  3 Dec 06, 01:18

  hey guys, if someone is able to describe true self, he/she already attained buddhahood
  
  all other explanations or descriptions are futile in fully capturing what "it" is