Atman, Other-Emptiness, and other Buddhists

[Breathe]

Eradication of views of self?

One of the staples of many Hindu beliefs.

Eradication of clinging to rites and rituals?

Quite common.

No caste system?

Not in the way you imagine it. Rarely paid much attention except amongst the poorer, folk Hindus, anyway.

Sorry, I don't see it.

Not your fault.

 

[Ekanta]

wrong post, will redo it

 

[Poeticus]

Well, Buddhism came from the Shramanic tradition and rejected Vedantic Brahminism, for one.

No caste system?

Buddha even ordained nuns! Oh, the horror! :faint:

Vedantic Brahminism?​

The joining of jnāna kaṇḍa with karma kaṇḍa?
As far as I know, no such thing existed.
It is rather an oxymoron.​

Regarding the caste system, are you
suggesting that it is an integral part of
the Hindu conglomeration? If so, such
is also incorrect.​

And, the ordaining of nuns was not
revolutionary for the region - there are many
Rishikā-s* that "authored"** various portions of
the śrī veda-s.​

______________________
* Female Rishi-s

** Not authored, per se, but the traditional
narrative is that the Veda-s were revealed by
the śrī deva-s to many Rishi-s and Rishikā-s.​

 

[Elector]

You don't get it do you? What part of "not relevant" don't you understand?

Pranams,

Well let me explain the relevance for you.

"Although Rebirth and Reincarnation seem similar, they are not the same. In Brahmanism, they believe in some kind of "eternal Self" that reincarnates. On the other hand the Blessed One taught that there is no eternal self and it is only the impressions (the subtle body) that undergo rebirth."

"Karma in Brahmanism is not like the Karma of Buddhism. In Brahmanism the Karma goes to some "eternal self". "

"Ultimately there is no individual Self/ego/soul of Brahmanism, this is merely clinging to some personal/cosmic idea, unlike Anatta"
etc. etc.

Don't you (and the other Buddhists) constantly make such incorrect assertions around here?
How would you feel if I went to the Hinduism DIR and started saying things like "Shunyata is voidism, it is nihilism", "Nirvana is heaven in Buddhism", "Meditation in Buddhism is a state of passiveness", "The Buddha is some super-God"? Does it seem fair to just throw such statements around?
So I respectfully request you and the other members to stop spreading such wrong information about Sanatana Dharma in this DIR.

Existence is no more a thing than "fast" or "short".

Except that if you strip Existence of "fast-ness", "short-ness", or/and all objects/qualities, it still - by its very definition - exists. On the other hand, try stripping "fast" or "short" of existence.

Do you think shortness exists independently of short objects? Does that even make sense? Does fast or slow mean anything without reference to an object?

- Suppose existence is a property/quality of things
- A quality - by definition - is something different from the "thing" it qualifies.
- Existence is different from the things
- What is different from Existence? Non-existence only.
- Therefore Existence is the property of non-existence.

 

[crossfire]

Vedantic Brahminism?​

The joining of jnāna kaṇḍa with karma kaṇḍa?
As far as I know, no such thing existed.​

Regarding the caste system, are you
suggesting that it is an integral part of
the Hindu conglomeration? If so, such
is also incorrect.​

Hey, I'll agree with you that Hinduism might have adopted ideas from Buddhism. However, I will not agree if you say that Buddhism came from Hinduism.

How's that?

 

[Poeticus]

Hey, I'll agree with you that Hinduism might have adopted ideas from Buddhism. However, I will not agree if you say that Buddhism came from Hinduism.

How's that?

But, what troubles you that you must
insist such? As I mentioned much
earlier:​

Buddhism did not come from Hinduism(s).
Buddhism, along with Jainism and Lokāyata, are
not of the astika, and various Hindu
syncretists misappropriate them into the fold.​

 

[crossfire]

But, what troubles you that you must
insist such?

Because I get that claim thrown at me quite a bit by some Hindus. Not all of them, just some.

 

[Ekanta]

From Chapter 21 of the Shobogenzo:

[Upon hearing the term ‘Buddha Nature’, many practitioners have
erroneously surmised It to be the same as the non-Buddhist ‘innate eternal self ’ of
the Shrenikans.3 This is because they have not yet become ‘such a person’,* or are
not in accord with their True Self, or have not met with a genuine Master. To no
avail, they take their mind, will, or consciousness, which are constantly on the
move like wind and fire, to be their perception and comprehension of their Buddha
Nature. Who has ever said that there is anything within Buddha Nature to perceive
or comprehend? Even though persons who have perceived and comprehended It
are Buddhas, Buddha Nature is beyond any thing we perceive or comprehend.
Even more, the perception that leads us to recognize Buddhas as persons who have
discerned It and know It is not perception as some people have erroneously
explained it, for this perception lies beyond the realm of their mind, which is ever-moving like wind and fire. Simply put, a couple of faces of a Buddha or an
Ancestor are what we perceive It to be. ]


Now, I'm not sure what's difficult to understand about this, but it seems one of the great Zen masters of the Soto school would know a bit more than us about what he's talking about.

And what does the quote mean then?

Footnote 3. "Dōgen discusses the Shrenikan view in Discourse 6: On ‘Your Very Mind Is Buddha’ (Soku Shin Ze Butsu)"

Translator’s Introduction (chapter 6):
"In this discourse, Dōgen makes clear that the saying “Your very mind is Buddha” is to be understood in a particular way:
[1.] it is a remark addressed to one who has already given rise to the intention to train and realize Buddhahood.
[2.] Those who have not yet done so are apt to think of ‘mind’ as referring to intellective, perceptual, and cognitive functions, which are viewed as constituting a personal ‘self ’, a misconception akin to the Shrenikan view that such functions constitute an immortal soul....
[3.] He then goes on to show how the meaning of the saying “Your very mind is Buddha” can be explored more deeply and what some of its implications are."
.........

The erroneous "Shrenikan view" is to view the functions of the mind as an "immortal soul", i.e. the skandhas. These folks are not ready to hear that "Your very mind is Buddha" since they will misunderstand it. The teaching of anatta will help these folks.

Those who are ready for the deeper teaching, who no longer view the mind (or skandhas) as an "immortal soul", i.e. those who have been taught anatta they are ready for the deeper meaning of "Your very mind is Buddha".

And finally, what does "Your very mind is Buddha" then mean?
Dogen then explaines “Your very mind is Buddha” (in chapter 6) as:

1. Bodaishin (the mind that seeks buddha) and in the most extreme form he states it as:
“Even if, half-heartedly, you give rise to the intention to train and realize the Truth for yourself, your very mind will be Buddha.”

2. The non-duality between everything (Buddha-nature beyond mind and its dualities):
“The so-called ‘mind which has been correctly Transmitted’ refers to the whole mind being synonymous with ‘all thoughts and things’… what is called ‘mind’ is the great earth with its mountains and rivers; it is the sun, the moon, and the stars.”

 

[crossfire]

So I respectfully request you and the other members to stop spreading such wrong information about Sanatana Dharma in this DIR.

I won't mention it again.

 

[von bek]

Except that if you strip Existence of "fast-ness", "short-ness", or/and all objects/qualities, it still - by its very definition - exists. On the other hand, try stripping "fast" or "short" of existence.


- Suppose existence is a property/quality of things
- A quality - by definition - is something different from the "thing" it qualifies.
- Existence is different from the things
- What is different from Existence? Non-existence only.
- Therefore Existence is the property of non-existence.

Existence is relative. Not an absolute. It's a label. "Redness" does not exist apart from red objects. "Smoothness" does not exist apart from the objects being described. "Hardness" does not exist apart from hard objects. "Blueness" does not exist apart from blue objects. "Tallness" does not exist independently of all things. "Skinny" does not exist apart from objects. (Even one object would not be enough to ascertain skinniness as it would have to exist in relation to another object that is not as skinny. Same thing for categories such as short or fast.) "Yellowness" does not exist apart from objects discriminated as being yellow. "Wetness" does not exist apart from objects that are wet. "Dryness" does not exist apart from objects that are dry. "Broken" does not exist apart from objects that are considered broken. "Walking" does not exist independently of objects that are walking. "Sleepy" does not exist apart from life feeling sleepy. "Energetic" does not exist independently of energetic objects. "Smoky" does not exist apart from smoke. "Coldness" does not exist apart from objects perceiving cold, and again this sort of thing presupposes objects being compared and therefore unable to exist apart from the comparison, something can only be "cold" in comparison to "hot". "Cloudy" does not exist apart from clouds. "Brittleness" does not exist apart from brittle objects. "Strength" does not exist apart from objects that are strong. And, existence does not exist independently of objects posited as existing in some manner.

 

[Ekanta]

Buddhism did not come from Hinduism(s).

Of course it didnt, it just adopted the gods, karma, reincarnation, liberation, 99% of the terminology etc. But thats just a coincidence.

 

[Poeticus]

Of course it didnt, it just adopted the gods, karma, reincarnation, liberation, 99% of the terminology etc. But thats just a coincidence.

I would stress that such is a characteristic of
social-cultural-linguistic relativism, a trademark
of countless belief systems, especially those
of the Dhārmic faiths/belief systems.​

A similar conversation occurred regarding Sikhism:​

see post #357, for example.​

 

[Elector]

Existence is relative. Not an absolute. It's a label. "Redness" does not exist apart from red objects. "Smoothness" does not exist apart from the objects being described. "Hardness" does not exist apart from hard objects. "Blueness" does not exist apart from blue objects. "Tallness" does not exist independently of all things. "Skinny" does not exist apart from objects. (Even one object would not be enough to ascertain skinniness as it would have to exist in relation to another object that is not as skinny. Same thing for categories such as short or fast.) "Yellowness" does not exist apart from objects discriminated as being yellow. "Wetness" does not exist apart from objects that are wet. "Dryness" does not exist apart from objects that are dry. "Broken" does not exist apart from objects that are considered broken. "Walking" does not exist independently of objects that are walking. "Sleepy" does not exist apart from life feeling sleepy. "Energetic" does not exist independently of energetic objects. "Smoky" does not exist apart from smoke. "Coldness" does not exist apart from objects perceiving cold, and again this sort of thing presupposes objects being compared and therefore unable to exist apart from the comparison, something can only be "cold" in comparison to "hot". "Cloudy" does not exist apart from clouds. "Brittleness" does not exist apart from brittle objects. "Strength" does not exist apart from objects that are strong. And, existence does not exist independently of objects posited as existing in some manner.

Pranams,

.... and you can post another 10 paragraphs with empty words...

"Existence is relative. Not an absolute". A bold assertion, yet it stands unproved. "Existence absolutely exists" is a universal self-evident axiom. You can't disprove it.
"It's a label". A label on what?

As to the rest of your post, I will repeat for the 3rd time: You can't compare objects/qualities with Existence. I can only re-post what I - unlike you - proved:

- Suppose existence is a property/quality of things
- A quality - by definition - is something different from the "thing" it qualifies.
- Existence is different from the things
- What is different from Existence? Non-existence only.
- Therefore Existence is the property of non-existence.

The last statement is a contradiction, therefore, Existence is not a property of things.

 

[von bek]

Pranams,

.... and you can post another 10 paragraphs with empty words...

You want to make a special case for one word, "existence". There is no reason to do so. Those empty words I posted? Existence is one of them. Existence is empty of self. "Non-existence" is also meaningless apart from objects being described as non-existent.

You did not "prove" anything. I do want to remind you that this is a Buddhism DIR and debate is not allowed. I do not go into the Hinduism DIR and pick arguments that I keep rehashing day after day when I find out that, Hindus actually believe Hinduism is true. (Who knew?)

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram :namaste

Hey, I'll agree with you that Hinduism might have adopted ideas from Buddhism. However, I will not agree if you say that Buddhism came from Hinduism.

How's that?

has it ever occured to you that the same realised state of enlightenment might just occur spontaniously within a pure mind ???

who has to take anything from any other ?

if lord Buddha could realise the true nature of reality then equaly others will do so of their own villition.

there is no need for Hinduism to adopt Buddhist ideas , and no need visa versa ,

why this constant row over the origin of true realisation , after all what were the Buddhas parting words to ananda, ....''decay is inherent in all compound things ananda , work out your own salvation with diligence'' ...he said nothing about borowing or adopting ''ideas''

what hinduism and buddhism have in common is 'realisation'

 

[crossfire]

namaskaram :namaste




has it ever occured to you that the same realised state of enlightenment might just occur spontaniously within a pure mind ???

Oh yes.

who has to take anything from any other ?

if lord Buddha could realise the true nature of reality then equaly others will do so of their own villition.

Agreed.

there is no need for Hinduism to adopt Buddhist ideas , and no need visa versa ,

Very much agreed.

why this constant row over the origin of true realisation ,

It's not about that. I think it's more about trying to force some sort of unity. Forcing unity does not work.

after all what were the Buddhas parting words to ananda, ....''decay is inherent in all compound things ananda , work out your own salvation with diligence'' ...he said nothing about borowing or adopting ''ideas''

Again, agreed.

 

[Elector]

Pranams,

You want to make a special case for one word, "existence". There is no reason to do so. Those empty words I posted? Existence is one of them. Existence is empty of self. "Non-existence" is also meaningless apart from objects being described as non-existent.

I guess repeating myself for the fourth time will not change anything, would it?

You did not "prove" anything. I do want to remind you that this is a Buddhism DIR and debate is not allowed. I do not go into the Hinduism DIR and pick arguments that I keep rehashing day after day when I find out that, Hindus actually believe Hinduism is true. (Who knew?)

If you followed my series of posts and my comment to crossfire, you'd know my reason for arguing. In the Buddhist DIR, there are a lot of people talking about the "Self/Atman", yet it seems that no one knew what the word even means...

 

[Ablaze]

Of course it didnt, it just adopted the gods, karma, reincarnation, liberation, 99% of the terminology etc. But thats just a coincidence.

And redefined it all.

 

[crossfire]

If you followed my series of posts and my comment to crossfire, you'd know my reason for arguing. In the Buddhist DIR, there are a lot of people talking about the "Self/Atman", yet it seems that no one knew what the word even means...

I didn't start this discussion.

 

[Ablaze]

And what does the quote mean then?

Footnote 3. "Dōgen discusses the Shrenikan view in Discourse 6: On ‘Your Very Mind Is Buddha’ (Soku Shin Ze Butsu)"

Translator’s Introduction (chapter 6):
"In this discourse, Dōgen makes clear that the saying “Your very mind is Buddha” is to be understood in a particular way:
[1.] it is a remark addressed to one who has already given rise to the intention to train and realize Buddhahood.
[2.] Those who have not yet done so are apt to think of ‘mind’ as referring to intellective, perceptual, and cognitive functions, which are viewed as constituting a personal ‘self ’, a misconception akin to the Shrenikan view that such functions constitute an immortal soul....
[3.] He then goes on to show how the meaning of the saying “Your very mind is Buddha” can be explored more deeply and what some of its implications are."
.........

The erroneous "Shrenikan view" is to view the functions of the mind as an "immortal soul", i.e. the skandhas. These folks are not ready to hear that "Your very mind is Buddha" since they will misunderstand it. The teaching of anatta will help these folks.

Those who are ready for the deeper teaching, who no longer view the mind (or skandhas) as an "immortal soul", i.e. those who have been taught anatta they are ready for the deeper meaning of "Your very mind is Buddha".

And finally, what does "Your very mind is Buddha" then mean?
Dogen then explaines “Your very mind is Buddha” (in chapter 6) as:

1. Bodaishin (the mind that seeks buddha) and in the most extreme form he states it as:
“Even if, half-heartedly, you give rise to the intention to train and realize the Truth for yourself, your very mind will be Buddha.”

2. The non-duality between everything (Buddha-nature beyond mind and its dualities):
“The so-called ‘mind which has been correctly Transmitted’ refers to the whole mind being synonymous with ‘all thoughts and things’… what is called ‘mind’ is the great earth with its mountains and rivers; it is the sun, the moon, and the stars.”

None of this says anything whatsoever about ātman.