Atman, Other-Emptiness, and other Buddhists

[Ablaze]

If I quote several sutras and the zen tradition how am I distorting the teaching? And what teaching are you refering to?
I understand very well why you (for example) write like you do, but its a mystery why several posters cant see that what I write is part of the buddhist tradition.

Perhaps because it is not part of the Buddhist tradition, but rather a misrepresentation of words taken on face-value.

 

[Ablaze]

One of the cornerstones of Buddhism is anatta, as we are told over and over.

So, how do some Buddhists take the teachings of atman and other-emptiness, found in some interpretations of Buddhism? Particularly when they do not hold these beliefs which seem to be contradictory (at least, to some other people's understands understandings; those who affirm them would agree otherwise), to what is characterised and held as being effectively one of the essential doctrines of Buddhist philosophy?

My question is not over whether there is atman or other-emptiness in Buddhism. It is about how other Buddhists, who do not hold these views, feel about those who do.

It may be that such people are not who they think they are.

 

[Ablaze]

Buddhism is not the accepting of any one given doctrine , it is the exploration of doctrine it is the exploration of what we assume to be the self , and ultimately it is the realisation of the true nature of self , the true nature of all phenomena .

When one realizes that all that one assumes to be the self (including the self, itself) is not so, then one arrives at true understanding.

 

[Ablaze]

For one thing, almost all the Mahayana Sutras say that they are the highest teaching. This, in and of itself, says to me that they are all upaya. Next, most other Buddhist scriptures and schools would disagree with the Tathagatagarbha school that each person has an eternal, independent self, even if that is the Buddha nature. Like in Zen, the Buddha nature teachings are just positive language for sunyata.

Spot on.

:namaste

 

[von bek]

Pranams,

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

No, it wouldn't. The effect would be me giving you the same answer you don't like. To speak of existence independent of objects and ideas posited as existing is meaningless. The same goes for non-existence and every other quality I mentioned and didn't mention.

We must agree to disagree and leave it at that. If you really want to pursue the matter, start a thread in the debate forum. I will not participate; but, I bet you will find a taker or two.

 

[Elector]

I didn't start this discussion.

Pranams,

I wasn't referring to this particular discussion. In general - having looked at many of the posts in Buddhist DIR for quiet some time - there has been a constant misrepresentation of the Atman. How can you say "there is no Atman" without knowing the definition of the word "Atman"?
Anyway... to avoid another heated discussion, I think it is best to leave the Hinduism for the Hindus, and the Buddhism for the Buddhists.

 

[Ekanta]

Perhaps because it is not part of the Buddhist tradition, but rather a misrepresentation of words taken on face-value.

Of course, you have to deny the mahayana sutras in order to keep the disorder going. Keep up the good work, bravo!

 

[Ekanta]

None of this says anything whatsoever about ātman.

Atman means self and if everyting is one according to dogen then that is atman (duh).
I also demonstrated that dyanaprajna2011's little trick to try to prove that Dogen denied atman failed, since dogen was talking about the "innate eternal self ’ of the Shrenikans" which is the assumption that mind (skandhas) is self.

 

[Ablaze]

Of course, you have to deny the mahayana sutras in order to keep the disorder going. Keep up the good work, bravo!

Trolling does not help your case.

 

[Ablaze]

Atman means self and if everyting is one according to dogen then that is atman (duh).
I also demonstrated that dyanaprajna2011's little trick to try to prove that Dogen denied atman failed, since dogen was talking about the "innate eternal self ’ of the Shrenikans" which is the assumption that mind (skandhas) is self.

Your (il)logic does not compute.

 

[Ablaze]

The many and various schools of Hinduism have one thing in common, acceptance of the Vedas as supreme teaching, even if there are many differing interpretations on exactly what the Vedas say.

In Buddhism, certain ideas were held as the basic, fundamental aspects of the religion, such as the Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path, the Three Marks of Existence/Four Dharma Seals, and the Three Refuges and Five Precepts. Since the debate is about anatta, which is one of the Three Marks/Four Seals, it's important to note that it is one of the basic teachings of Buddhism, and trying to force it to say something it doesn't takes away from buddhadharma.

This is one of the reasons why syncretism is hard to do, especially when Buddhism is involved. Anatta is unique to Buddhism, to the best of my knowledge, and it doesn't really fit well with other religions. It's not an easy teaching to either accept or understand, but it is what it is. While I don't have a problem with those who want to practice Buddhism and another religion simultaneously, saying that Buddhism does not teach something that it does, based on nothing more than one's own ideas and beliefs, is disingenuous. It would be the same if I tried to make people believe that Advaita teaches atheism, or Bakhti teaches there is no god or soul. It simply doesn't work that way.

Agreed.

Seconded. :yes:

 

[Ablaze]

The three fetters Stream-Entrant eradicates are views of self, doubt of the dhamma as they have tested it for themselves and found it to be true, and the clinging to rites and rituals.

That these three fetters are eradicated in one fell swoop is telling. Many thanks for this reminder.

:namaste

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram :namaste

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

it is no coincidence , but it is also missleading (whoever said it ) to say that Buddhism ''adopted'' any of these things , ......lord Buddha realised these things to be true , thus he taught upon them , which makes buddhism a confirmation or continuation of pre existing principles , but the Buddhist teachings them selves are a refinment , as it is said that the Brahmin preists of that date had become absorbed in malpractices therefore a revision was needed , this is no slur on Brahminism or the vedas as a whole , just a simple fact that the teachings and associated practices of vedic origin had become corrupted (maybe only in the Buddha's reigion of india ? we do not entirely know ) ..likewise it is also fortold that Buddhism will suffer the same fate after a certain period of time the teachings will become lost or debased . then a revision will again be needed .


and as for the useage of terminology ? terminology only acts as a tool to explain a principle , the simple fact that lord Buddha contionued to use the same terminology for the same principles clearly demonstrates that he only rejected the Brahminism of the day and not that he rejected the principles of Sanatana Dharma .

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram :namaste

Oh yes.

Agreed.

Very much agreed.

jai jai we are getting somewhere :namaste

Quote:
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.

Agreed '' forcing Unity dosent work '' .... but truth being what it is, is unchanging and eternal it will eventualy be realised by many if not all ... eventualy

personaly I see no harm in accepting the common truths held between Buddhism and Hinduism , allthough I find it better expressed in Sanatana Dharma , we need not be scared of common realisations , more that we should rejoice in them .

neither should we fear that it might dilute our own Dharma , there is no reason that it should not remain distinct . none the less there is room for an exchange of thought and of mutual appreciation .

Again, agreed.

what a plesant word , I like this word , now I am happy in a very Buddhistly way ...meaning neither elated nor depressed ... ..... opps that is a quote from the gita .. .... just goes to show that realisation and good advice the same whichever source it comes from .

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram :namaste

Originally Posted by ratikala
Buddhism is not the accepting of any one given doctrine , it is the exploration of doctrine , it is the exploration of what we assume to be the self , and ultimately it is the realisation of the true nature of self , the true nature of all phenomena .

When one realizes that all that one assumes to be the self (including the self, itself) is not so, then one arrives at true understanding.

thus I had said when we ''explore'' or 'examine' the self and find it to be empty of all that we mistakenly assumed the self to be , we find the fullness of its true nature along of course with the true nature of all phenomena

 

[DreadFish]

Talking about realizing the true nature of self through realizing everything that isn't self makes me remember what Chogyal Trungpa said that really put it into perspective for me.

I think he was talking about the higher jhanas and he talked about how you get to the point where you feel that you encompass everything, but then you realize that to identify anything as you is to limit things and so you simply cease identifying altogether.

I can't find it anywhere, but it was part of Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism.

Anyway, if there is a true self, in some way, we dont have to think that there is because any idea about it isn't going to affect whether it exists or not. So why not stop contriving ideas about it and let whatever is the case be the case?

Contriving is mental fermentations which cause stress and discontentment.

 

[DreadFish]

Atman means self and if everyting is one according to dogen then that is atman (duh).

This logic does not compute. Why does total oneness equal self?

I also demonstrated that dyanaprajna2011's little trick to try to prove that Dogen denied atman failed, since dogen was talking about the "innate eternal self ’ of the Shrenikans" which is the assumption that mind (skandhas) is self.

Sorry if someone has already asked this but, if "everything is one" = atman, self, what, in your opinion, did Dogen mean in Genjokoan when he said "To study the Buddha way is to study the self, to study the self is to forget the self, to forget the self is to be actualized by the myriad things"?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

How about this: let's just assume that the Buddhists who practice Buddhism and live Buddhism know what they're talking about when it comes to Buddhism, and all those who aren't Buddhist or try to combine Buddhism with something else just admit that they just might have some presuppositional biases, hm?

 

[atanu]

From Chapter 21 of the Shobogenzo:

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.

Yes. I hope, you have assimilated the part ".... 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........"

 

[atanu]

If existence lacks inherent existence as a question is nonsensical.

Does a dog lack the characteristics of a dog?

It's not in the context. The context is that an abiding connection amongst the objects is denied, despite the teaching of unborn Nirvana.