Atman, Other-Emptiness, and other Buddhists

[Jainarayan]

This entire thread is about violated Anatta, isn't it?

First, anatta has to be defined and understood, which really hasn't been done. Did you see my post with the link http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3682294-post47.html ?

there does exist an eternal true self, which is in fact none other than the Buddha himself in his ultimate nirvanic nature. This is the "true self" in the self of each being, the ideal personality, attainable by all beings due to their inborn potential for enlightenment.

I was attempting to show that what I have been trying to say can be found in their arguments as well.

Which is, again, through a personal lens.

I'm not convinced that anyone is not bringing their own personal biases and interpretations to the table.

 

[crossfire]

Has anyone noticed how things get more "personal" whenever atman/anatta is brought up?

 

[Jainarayan]

I agree. That's why the four seals were adopted acrossed all of the different schools of Buddhism, long before I came around. It's not about me. It's about what Buddha taught.

I agree with you; I wasn't slamming you. I was countering an "appeal to authority".

 

[punkdbass]

Has anyone noticed how things get more "personal" whenever atman/anatta is brought up?

I wonder why

I'm sure you have a good idea why. I've touched upon this before, I think it's mainly because people are attached to various "ideas" they have of themselves and of life, and people don't like being told that ultimately these ideas they cling to are not substantial, independently existing things but are rather impermanent. It's quite simple: If I'm attached to the notion of "apples" and you tell me this notion of apples that I have is truly impermanent and does not inherently exist, I'm likely to react negatively.

 

[Jainarayan]

Has anyone noticed how things get more "personal" whenever atman/anatta is brought up?

Maybe that's one reason the Buddha said it should be one of the questions that should be put aside. It really leads to adharma, imo.

Anatta, sunyata, vegetarianism, among other subjects always elicit emotional responses. Few people are immune to feeling attacked for their beliefs, imo.

 

[crossfire]

Maybe that's one reason the Buddha said it should be one of the questions that should be put aside. It really leads to adharma, imo.

Anatta, sunyata, vegetarianism, among other subjects always elicit emotional responses. Few people are immune to feeling attacked for their beliefs, imo.

Agreed.

 

[Ekanta]

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?

Concerning atman (self) it can indicate one of 4 things and we have to define what we mean:
1. body
2. mind
3. eternal individual self
4. Buddha-nature

Buddha-nature has two aspects:
1. Manifest (impermanent phenomena)
2. Unmanifest (permanent, unborn... what we usually mean)

1. Anatta: the body is not your self, the mind is not your self and there is no eternal individual self... However, its not a denial that unmanifest Buddha-nature is your true self (atman).
2. interdependent origination: one karmic effect leads to another, this is the truth within the realm of phenomena
3. impermanence: again this is the truth within the realm of phenomena
4. vacuity: phenomena arise and vanish, hence they are empty of permanence in their manifest state (kind of obvious). But Buddha-nature in the unmanifest state is beyond interdependent origination & impermanence. The Word vacuity (emptiness) is used in two ways:

A: manifest phenomena (as such) are empty of permanence, i.e. impermanent.
B: the unmanifest is empty of impermanent phenomena, i.e. permanent.


And finally some quotes from nirvana sutra:

“The Buddha-dhatu of the Tathagata has two aspects: one is existence, and the second is non-existence. As regards existence, that is the 32 signs of a superman, the 10 powers, the 4 fearlessnesses, the three bases of recollection, Great Compassion and Loving-kindness, the countless samadhis, such as the vajra-like samadhi. As regards non-existence: that is the causal and resultant aspects of the Tathagata’s past wholesome, unwholesome and neutral karma, the klesas, the five skandhas, and the twelvefold dependent origination.”
Nirvana Sutra :: Appreciation of the "Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra"

"The essence of the Self [atman] is the subtle Tathagata-garbha ..."
"The Buddha-dhatu of beings inheres / abides within the five skandhas."
"The Buddha-dhatu is the True Self and, like a diamond, for example, it cannot be destroyed".
Nirvana Sutra :: Appreciation of the "Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra"

"As the Buddha-dhatu is eternal [nitya], it is not encompassed by/not subsumed within the Three Times ... all the Buddha-dharmas [Buddha-qualities] that the Buddha-dhatu has are eternal [nitya] and unchanging [aviparinama]."
Nirvana Sutra :: Appreciation of the "Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra"

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Has anyone noticed how things get more "personal" whenever atman/anatta is brought up?

It won't let me frubal you yet. But interesting thought. I think the reason for that is that anatta has to be experienced, and no matter how much we talk about it, words simply won't suffice to explain it.

 

[crossfire]

I wonder why

I'm sure you have a good idea why. I've touched upon this before, I think it's mainly because people are attached to various "ideas" they have of themselves and of life, and people don't like being told that ultimately these ideas they cling to are not substantial, independently existing things but are rather impermanent. It's quite simple: If I'm attached to the notion of "apples" and you tell me this notion of apples that I have is truly impermanent and does not inherently exist, I'm likely to react negatively.

Sauce for the goose: a person's knowledge gained from right view can be said to be independent of others.

Kaccayanagotta Sutta: To Kaccayana Gotta (on Right View)

 

[crossfire]

I agree with you; I wasn't slamming you. I was countering an "appeal to authority".

The actual teachings of the Buddha constitutes an "appeal to authority" regarding the teachings of the Buddha?

 

[Jainarayan]

The actual teachings of the Buddha constitutes an "appeal to authority" regarding the teachings of the Buddha?

No, no... it was this: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3682348-post52.html Hence my response With all due respect to them, Crossfire and Luis are not the final arbiters of what constitutes Buddhism and what does not because they also see it through their own lenses, as does even HHDL.

And with that, I'll leave this discussion to my intellectual betters and go chant "I don't know but I've been told sentient beings ain't got no soul" (apologies to Page, Plant and Jones ).

 

[crossfire]

No, no... it was this: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3682348-post52.html Hence my response With all due respect to them, Crossfire and Luis are not the final arbiters of what constitutes Buddhism and what does not because they also see it through their own lenses, as does even HHDL.

And with that, I'll leave this discussion to my intellectual betters and go chant "I don't know but I've been told sentient beings ain't got no soul" (apologies to Page, Plant and Jones ).

Umm, the four seals are regarded as authentic teachings of the Buddha. Getting away from them is getting away from the Buddha's teachings.

The post you cited:

In short, Buddhism has steadfast values. Breaking them to become more inclusive to others can lead to all sorts of degradation.

As Luis and crossfire have detailed repeatedly.

The teachings of the Buddha is what makes Buddhism, no? You get away from the teachings of the Buddha, you get away from Buddhism, no?

 

[Jainarayan]

Umm, the four seals are regarded as authentic teachings of the Buddha. Getting away from them is getting away from the Buddha's teachings.

The post you cited:

The teachings of the Buddha is what makes Buddhism, no? You get away from the teachings of the Buddha, you get away from Buddhism, no?

Yes, I agree with you. I said earlier "I'd say the Four Seals, Three Jewels, Four Noble Truths, Eightfold Path, Six Perfections and Five Precepts are the core of Buddhism." I'm just not expressing myself very well today. That's why I said I'll bow out, lest I make myself look like more of an ******* than I already do.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram :namaste

Umm, the four seals are regarded as authentic teachings of the Buddha. Getting away from them is getting away from the Buddha's teachings.

we have had this debate /conversation so many times and allthough I acknowledge that the Buddha did teach on this subject it has been handed down through different trditions each time taking on different inferences , ... I chose one at random .....

1. All composed phenomena are impermanent. (All composite phenomena are transient.)
2. All composed phenomena are in the nature of dukkha. (All contaminated phenomena are unsatisfactory by nature.)
3. All phenomena lack a self, lack a substantial essence. (All phenomena are empty and selfless.)
4. Nirvana is peace.

However I canot help but feel that this one teaching is being grasped at because many feel it substantiates the graspers own veiw ....


frankly to identify as Buddhist one only needs faith in Buddha as the embodiment of Buddhi (Pure inteligence , knowledge and wisdom) and to contemplate this and other teachings ...



Buddhism by definition of its name deliniates that one pertains to Buddhi , and or , to the teachings of lord Buddha , ...one does not have to accept any one particular teaching untill one feels that he or she comfortably understands it , infact lord Buddha specificaly advised that we do not except on faith alone but that we 'examine' every single teaching ....

The teachings of the Buddha is what makes Buddhism, no? You get away from the teachings of the Buddha, you get away from Buddhism, no?

but not to one text alone .....

may I quote you a small portion of the Dharmapada .....

''He who goes for refuge to Buddha , to Truth and to those whom he taught , He indeed goes to a great refuge . Then he sees the Four Great Truths .

Sorrow , the cause of Sorrow , the end of Sorrow and the path of eight stages which lead to the end of Sorrow .

That is the safe refuge , that is the refuge supreme .''

another version reads ....

''He who goes for refuge in the Buddha , the Law and The Order , who clearly sees the Four Noble truths ,

Suffering , the cause of suffering , the ceasation of suffering and the noble eight fold path which leads to the ceasation of suffering ,

Will find refuge here and be delivered from suffering , '' 190...192...

as I have suggested before rather than the acceptance of texts it is refuge that makes the Buddhist .
it is refuge in truth , a desire to follow the path which leads to enlightenment , to Bhuddi .

The teachings of the Buddha is what makes Buddhism, no? You get away from the teachings of the Buddha, you get away from Buddhism, no?

conventionaly this is true in that lord Buddha was the Buddha of this age , but ultimately his teachings are simply that which is in accordance with Budddhi , the wisdom of all of the Buddhas through out time .

also the practice of Buddhism is that of the body the speach and the mind therefore it is more than the teachngs alone .
ones actions , thoughts and aspirations also entitle one class oneself as Buddhist as even without knowledge of the texts one follows the actions of the noble ones .
Consider please the countrys where Buddhism has thrived , for over two centuries the majority of the lay comunity have been iliterate , none the less they follow the principles that have been handed down from gereration to generation , interlectual learning was for the monastic comunities alone , the majority of the layity having no education received their teachings from the likes of the jatakas which contain none of the teachings of Sakyamuni Buddha but which pertain to the live of the previous incarnations fo the Buddha but in which the same teachings are contained in the form of ethical and moral tales .

Are we to say that these people are any less Buddhist even though they have learnt their morality by different means ?

We are the vainglorious fools if we beleive we are Buddhist simply on account of accepting what we consider to be ''corner stone ' or 'foundational' texts , ....we are even more foolish if we argue on the strength of interlectual learning alone , when everything we need is encapsulated in the Four Noble Truths alone ....but in truth what makes a Buddhist is the practice of the eight fold path no matter to which school of thought he belongs .

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I'll agree that everyone views the teachings of Buddhism based on where they are on the path, even if it differs from others. I'll also admit that the teachings and scriptures are just fingers pointing at the moon. But I can't figure how, if all we regard as the Buddha's teaching is just our own point of view, we can honestly call anything Buddhism, or why we don't just call everything Buddhism. Anatta is explained succinctly in the Pali canon, an is a cornerstone teaching of Buddhism. While it may be hard to understand outside of one's experience of it, we do have basic guidelines to follow regarding it, and to deny it is to deny the buddhadharma.

 

[crossfire]

I'll agree that everyone views the teachings of Buddhism based on where they are on the path, even if it differs from others. I'll also admit that the teachings and scriptures are just fingers pointing at the moon. But I can't figure how, if all we regard as the Buddha's teaching is just our own point of view, we can honestly call anything Buddhism, or why we don't just call everything Buddhism. Anatta is explained succinctly in the Pali canon, an is a cornerstone teaching of Buddhism. While it may be hard to understand outside of one's experience of it, we do have basic guidelines to follow regarding it, and to deny it is to deny the buddhadharma.

I can't frubal you again yet. :/

 

[atanu]

Has anyone noticed how things get more "personal" whenever atman/anatta is brought up?

I have noticed. Someone became angry.

 

[atanu]

Lady Lord Word smiles while we argue, clinging to some particular word/s. Where is the perfect wisdom that is beyond the dualistic Word?


What is an awakened monk when that one experiences the shunya? Is the shunya devoid of the awakened monk?

 

[crossfire]

Lady Lord Word smiles while we argue, clinging to some particular word/s. Where is the perfect wisdom that is beyond the dualistic Word?


What is an awakened monk when that one experiences the shunya? Is the shunya devoid of the awakened monk?

The awakened monk sees that the mental absorption of emptiness has a beginning, an ending, and is constantly changing.

 

[atanu]

The awakened monk sees that the mental absorption of emptiness has a beginning, an ending, and is constantly changing.

Ya. The awakened one Sees the beginning, ending, and the constant change. Further, without the skandhas, there is cessation of rising .. the awakened man Sees this also. But is the Seeing devoid of the awakened one? If the Seeing is devoid of the awakened one, then there would be no tathAgata.

(But surely we must first get established in the knowledge/experience of impermanence of things, before we may even approach the cessation.)