Atman, Other-Emptiness, and other Buddhists

[crossfire]

Zhentong [shentong].

From Wiki:

Shentong [...] empty of all qualities other than an inherent, ineffable nature [...]

According to a Shentongpa (proponent of Shentong), the emptiness of ultimate reality should not be characterized in the same way as the emptiness of apparent phenomena because it is prabhāsvara-saṃtāna, or "clear light mental continuum," endowed with limitless Buddha qualities.[1] It is empty of all that is false, not empty of the limitless Buddha qualities that are its innate nature.
​

The short is that it is empty of falsehood, not empty of its true, innate, perfect nature of Buddha-qualities.

Trying to grasp the ungraspable (ineffable) can be a hindrance. Speculating about it might lead to madness (see Unconjecturable Sutta)

One would certainly need to exercise great vigilance and care regarding this.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram crossfire ji:namaste

LOL! @ Buddhalicious.

As beings have innumerable hang-ups, there are innumerable dhamma doors that lead to awakening.

84,000 deluded states of mind 84,000 antidote practices :namaste

 

[LuisDantas]

I guess they would have to convince me that they are indeed Buddhists despite the insistence in holding a concept of Atman.

How would one do this?

I doubt they could. When all is said and done, "buddhist" is just a word. Everyone will have their own ideas about what it should mean.

All the same, it turns out that mine insists that atman is a mistaken conception.

I value the differential that Buddhism offers in not using concepts such as those of soul and atman, which I find to often lead people away from productive religious learning.

And why should they have to convince you they are Buddhists despite holding a different view?

Because, for whatever reason, they seem to want me acknowledge them as Buddhists.

 

[Jainarayan]

He broke, over time.

No reason for Buddhism to cave though.

It has nothing to do with Buddhism "caving". It has to do with your misstatement that Jesus did not come to teach anyone but the Jews. But Jesus has nothing to do with this thread to begin with.

 

[Jainarayan]

Because, for whatever reason, they seem to want me acknowledge them as Buddhists.

In which case they are wrong in looking for outside validation and approval*. Been there, done that.

* That is to say, looking for outside validation and approval doesn't speak well for a person's beliefs or convictions.

 

[LuisDantas]

Pretty much. If they want to convince me that there is a place for Atman in the Buddhadharma, they are certainly free to try.

But playing to my insecurities to demand that I must do so is simply not worth of respect. I'm fairly certain that it is not very Dharmic either.

 

[LuisDantas]

Does it count that several mahayana sutras state that buddha-nature is identical to atman and tathagata?

Like:
Mahaparinirvana Sutra Chapter Four, “Grief”
"The Self (ātman) is reality (tattva), the Self is permanent (nitya), the Self is virtue (guna), the Self is eternal (śāśvat&#257, the Self is stable (dhruva), the Self is peace (siva)."

Mahaparinirvana chapter entitled, “The Tathāgata-garbha”
"The True Self is the tathāgata-dhātu [Buddha-nature]. You should know that all beings do have it, but it is not apparent, since those beings are enveloped by immeasurable kleśas [defects]."

... and besides, these teachings Buddha himself names "highest teaching" so the claim that they are just upaya (pedagogy to attract people)... is kind of self defeating.

I encourage people to investigate this themselves...

Apparently it does not count, in the sense that this sample did not convince me.

In any case, I'm not one to trust scriptures alone anyway.

Do you think there is a place for Atman in the Buddhadharma?

How does that related to the teachings about Anatta and interdependent origination and impermanence and vacuity?

Can you tell me why with your own words?

 

[Jainarayan]

Pretty much. If they want to convince me that there is a place for Atman in the Buddhadharma, they are certainly free to try.

But playing to my insecurities to demand that I must do so is simply not worth of respect. I'm fairly certain that it is not very Dharmic either.

I do agree that it is not dharmic at all. I have beliefs I am fleshing out, and I may try to explain them, but I don't expect anyone to accept them as "gospel truth", to coin a phrase. In fact, in explaining or relating them, I may learn something from others.

 

[atanu]

This discussion will never end.

Does it not occur that while negating a self, it is more and more established, such as, "I know there is no me".

It is truly crazy. The absence of self and absence of Self are not the same thing. I cite the favourite Heart Sutra to ask a question on it.

So, in emptiness, there is no body,
no feeling, no thought,
no will, no consciousness.
There are no eyes, no ears,
no nose, no tongue,
no body, no mind.
There is no seeing, no hearing,
no smelling, no tasting,
no touching, no imagining.
There is nothing seen, nor heard,
nor smelled, nor tasted,
nor touched, nor imagined.

There is no ignorance,
and no end to ignorance.
There is no old age and death,
and no end to old age and death.
There is no suffering, no cause of suffering,
no end to suffering, no path to follow.
There is no attainment of wisdom,
and no wisdom to attain.

The Bodhisattvas rely on the Perfection of Wisdom,
and so with no delusions,
they feel no fear,
and have Nirvana here and now.

There is nothing seen or heard, smelled or tasted, known or unknown etc. etc.

But Bodhisattvas rely on perfect prajna and know the nirvana.

Who comes back to tell this story? How is nirvana known? And why the bodhisattva has a sattva in it?

Tell me honestly, has anyone experienced the Heart? If yes, then has anyone found any anitta about the Heart that Lord Avalokiteshvara teaches of?

opcorn:

 

[atanu]

-
Do you think there is a place for Atman in the Buddhadharma?

How does that related to the teachings about Anatta and interdependent origination and impermanence and vacuity?

Can you tell me why with your own words?

Luis I think eventually no other person can convince you or anyone. You got to experience the Heart without use of the mind-sense-skandhas and then be a bodhisattva.:yes:

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

'Being' is a conventional term, a relative term. The Buddha never denied that there is an existential existence, but only that what we perceive to be eternal and unchanging, like a soul or spirit, is not real. You quoted the Heart sutra, it makes my point clear: "form is emptiness; emptiness is form". You can't have karma, or the three marks, without an object for them to take shape in. Otherwise, we'd have nirvana at will, instantaneously.

 

[LuisDantas]

This discussion will never end.

Apparently.

Does it not occur that while negating a self, it is more and more established, such as, "I know there is no me".

Of course it does. That is why such a teaching is not that of Anatta.

 

[LuisDantas]

Luis I think eventually no other person can convince you or anyone. You got to experience the Heart without use of the mind-sense-skandhas and then be a bodhisattva.:yes:

In that case, what is your motivation in posting here in this thread, Atanu?

Are you attempting to hint that you believe that a boddhisatva would know better than to believe in Anatta and/or to deny Atman?

If so, then please stop. It is not a very worthy effort IMO.

 

[atanu]

In that case, what is your motivation in posting here in this thread, Atanu?
.

Luis, the motivation is not evil, surely.

But as you dislike my pointing a finger at the common thread running through the dharma, I will stop conversing .. at least with you. Still, I will for the last time request you to consider the purport of sattva in bodhisattva.

 

[LuisDantas]

Luis, the motivation is not evil, surely.

But as you dislike my pointing a finger at the common thread running through the dharma, I will stop conversing .. at least with you. Still, I will for the last time request you to consider the purport of sattva in bodhisattva.

For the record, I dislike the unsupported statement that there is such a common thread as well. Are you purposefully misrepresenting the Buddhadharma?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Remember, bodhisattvas are beings who have yet to attain the final goal, as such, they still have a "being" to talk about. They have yet to experience final release. They put off such to remain in samsara, the relative realm of being, in order to save others. The sattva in bodhisattva is not the same as the atman.

 

[atanu]

'Being' is a conventional term, a relative term. The Buddha never denied that there is an existential existence, but only that what we perceive to be eternal and unchanging, like a soul or spirit, is not real. You quoted the Heart sutra, it makes my point clear: "form is emptiness; emptiness is form". You can't have karma, or the three marks, without an object for them to take shape in. Otherwise, we'd have nirvana at will, instantaneously.

Granted that 'Being' is a conventional term. So is all other words.

My questions were: does Bodhisattva experience annitta in Nirvana here and now? What is meant by 'Perfect wisdom' in absence of mind-sense-skandha? And what is the sattva in bodhisattva.

 

[atanu]

For the record, I dislike the unsupported statement that there is such a common thread as well. Are you purposefully misrepresenting the Buddhadharma?

Calm down man. The communication is a thread, for example. If there were no common thread there would be no understanding of each other. No understanding of Buddha also.

 

[Twilight Hue]

This discussion will never end.

Does it not occur that while negating a self, it is more and more established, such as, "I know there is no me".

It is truly crazy. The absence of self and absence of Self are not the same thing. I cite the favourite Heart Sutra to ask a question on it.



There is nothing seen or heard, smelled or tasted, known or unknown etc. etc.

But Bodhisattvas rely on perfect prajna and know the nirvana.

Who comes back to tell this story? How is nirvana known? And why the bodhisattva has a sattva in it?

Tell me honestly, has anyone experienced the Heart? If yes, then has anyone found any anitta about the Heart that Lord Avalokiteshvara teaches of?

opcorn:

What is called atman in Buddhism references emptiness of which the dynamics are essentially "permanent". It's not really there, yet it is.

Anyone who has heard a bell has fully experienced the sutra.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Granted that 'Being' is a conventional term. So is all other words.

My questions were: does Bodhisattva experience annitta in Nirvana here and now? What is meant by 'Perfect wisdom' in absence of mind-sense-skandha? And what is the sattva in bodhisattva.

I'll try to answer your questions, but understand that there are many aspects of Buddhism that human language and knowledge can't convey, some things simply have to be experienced.

does Bodhisattva experience annitta in Nirvana here and now?

The realization of anatta, if I'm not mistaken, would be one of the last realizations before nirvana. Both can be experienced in the here and now, and one doesn't need to be a bodhisattva in order to do so. Remember, these are attainments on the arhat path as well.

What is meant by 'Perfect wisdom' in absence of mind-sense-skandha?

Prajna paramita is the experience/attainment of sunyata. Mind sense skandha, like the others, disappear with sunyata. So perfect wisdom is the absence of the skandhas.

And what is the sattva in bodhisattva.

Sattva means being. It's meant to differentiate bodhisattvas from ordinary beings. Bodhisattvas are beings bound for enlightenment, but who hold off in order to lead other beings to the other shore (the actual meaning of paramita).

Hopefully this helps some. And remember, I could be way off.