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=0The 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.