Atman, Other-Emptiness, and other Buddhists

[ratikala]

Namaskaram :namaste

Yep. This whole discussion is about faith {atman} vs skepticism {anatta.}

From Great Doubt comes Great Awakening.

yes and from Faith verses scepticism back around to the original post the question of Emptiness and ''Other -Emptiness''

Salutations to Brethe for starting a good subject for discussion :namaste

sorry I have slightly lost the thread a little as it has managed to go zooming ahead so am reading back a bit .....

 

[atanu]

No one has said that the skandas are all there is. What's left is untraceable, that's all.

That is true, but with an addition. Untraceable from the view of the samsaric onlooker.

 

[DreadFish]

That is true, but with an addition. Untraceable from the view of the samsaric onlooker.

Is that the addition?

 

[atanu]

Is that the addition?

Reminder may be a better word, perhaps.)(

 

[atanu]

The Sanskrit word Nitya is Nicca in Pali, which means "constant, continuous, permanent." Anicca, one of the three marks of existence, means "not nicca," or impermanence.

Here's the entry for Nicca from the Pali Text Society's dictionary. I'll hide the entry to save space.

The Pali Text Society's Pali-English dictionary

Spoiler: Pali dictionary definition Nicca/Nitya

Nicca

Nicca (adj.) [Vedic nitya, adj. -- formation fr. ni, meaning "downward"=onward, on and on; according to Grassmann (Wtb. z. Rig Veda) originally "inwardly, homely"] constant, continuous, permanent D iii.31; S i.142; ii.109, 198; iv.24 sq., 45, 63; A ii.33, 52; v.210; Ps ii.80; Vbh 335, 426. In chain of synonyms: nicca dhuva sassata avipari&#7751;&#257;madhamma D i.21; S iii.144, 147; see below anicca, -- nt. adv. nicca&#331; perpetually, constantly, always (syn. sad&#257 M i.326; iii.271; Sn 69, 220, 336; Dh 23, 109, 206, 293; J i.290; iii.26, 190; Nd2 345 (=dhuvak&#257;la&#331; PvA 32, 55, 134. <-> Far more freq. as anicca (adj.; anicca&#331; nt. n.) unstable, impermanent, inconstant; (nt.) evanescence, inconstancy, impermanence. -- The emphatic assertion of impermanence (continuous change of condition) is a prominent axiom of the Dhamma, & the realization of the evanescent character of all things mental or material is one of the primary conditions of attaining right knowledge anicca -- sañña&#331; manasikaroti to ponder over the idea of impermanence S ii.47; iii.155; v.132; Ps ii.48 sq., 100; PvA 62 etc. -- k&#257;ye anicc' ânupassin realizing the impermanence of the body (together with vayânupassin & nirodha&#730 S iv.211; v.324, 345; Ps ii.37, 45 sq., 241 sq. See anupassan&#257. In this import anicca occurs in many combinations of similar terms, all characterising change, its consequences & its meaning, esp. in the famous triad "anicca&#331; dukkha&#331; anatt&#257;" (see dukkha ii.2), e. g. S iii.41, 67, 180; iv.28 (sabba&#331, 85 sq., 106 sq.; 133 sq. Thus anicca addhuva app&#257;yuka cavanadhamma D i.21. anicca+dukkha S ii.53 (yad anicca&#331; ta&#331; dukkha&#331; iv.28, 31, v.345; A iv.52 (anicce dukkhasaññ&#257; M i.500 (+roga etc.); Nd2 214 (id. cp. roga). anicca dukkha vipari&#7751;&#257;madhamma (of k&#257;m&#257 D i.36. aniccasaññ&#299; anattasaññ&#299; A iv.353; etc. <-> Opposed to this ever -- fluctuating impermanence is Nibb&#257;na (q. v.), which is therefore marked with the attributes of constancy & stableness (cp. dhuva, sassata amata, vipari&#7751;&#257;ma). -- See further for ref. S ii.244 sq. (sa&#7735;&#257;yatana&#331; a.), 248 (dh&#257;tuyo); iii.102 (r&#363;pa etc.); iv.131, 151; A ii.33, 52; v.187 sq., 343 sq.; Sn 805; Ps i.191; ii.28 sq., 80, 106; Vbh 12 (r&#363;pa etc.), 70 (dv&#257;dasâyatan&#257;ni), 319 (viññ&#257;&#7751;&#257, 324 (khandh&#257, 373; PvA 60 (=ittara).
-- k&#257;la&#331; (adv.) constantly Nd2 345; -- d&#257;na a perpetual gift D i.144 (cp. DA i.302); -- bhatta a continuous food-supply (for the bhikkhus) J i.178; VvA 92; PvA 54; -- bhattika one who enjoys a continuous supply of food (as charity) Vin ii.78; iii.237 (=dhuva -- bhattika); iv.271; -- saññ&#257; (& adj. saññin) the consciousness or idea of permanence (adj. having etc.) A ii.52; iii.79, 334; iv.13, 145 sq.; Nett 27; -- s&#299;la the uninterrupted observance of good conduct VvA 72; PvA 256.

Ma'am unfortunately I have sanskrit background.

Kindly check up SN 1.169 to SN 171 for the words atta and nitya.

(I know anatta-anitya-dukha are marks of bhAva, which is samsaric existence. I do not know why this point is parroted again and again without even considering to contemplate whether escape from samsara is again anitya?).

 

[crossfire]

Ma'am unfortunately I have sanskrit background.

Kindly check up SN 1.169 to SN 171 for the words atta and nitya.

(I know anatta-anitya-dukha are marks of bhAva, which is samsaric existence. I do not know why this point is parroted again and again without even considering to contemplate whether escape from samsara is again anitya?).

Thanks, I will. (I'm a westerner who has trouble even with English)

 

[atanu]

Answers in this thread are as if coming out of automatons. I know that not a minute will be devoted to contemplate on this post. I request reader to kindly read and sleep over it, before making a reply. This is a humble request.

The nihilism the Buddha refutes is specified by the Buddha himself. By nihilism, he is referring to the idea that the material elements are all that exist and that when the present body breaks apart, that is the ending of rebirth and the termination of karma. In other words, true materialism. I see nobody on this thread advocating the nihilist position. The Middle Way followed by Buddhists is neither eternalism nor nihilism.

And that is what you all are doing.

The Buddha is meticulous when making arguments breaking down the aggregates. I encourage you to understand in full context what he is saying. You are incorrect in saying the Buddha denied atman. He does so explicitly many times.

And, please remember what I said about Dogen. He uses words like "True Self", but look at context. True Self means Buddha-Nature means Mind means Emptiness. Impermanence is Buddha-Nature. Impermanence is True Self, which is no self at all. This is what Dogen is teaching. When Buddha speaks of Nibbana, he speaks of what Dogen is speaking of. Tathagatagarbha is impermanence, it is Mind, it is Emptiness.

You may disagree with this, and that is fine! You may disagree with what the Buddha and Dogen teach, but it is what they teach.

I see the point of confusion. Do you practice Mindfulness? When you watch mindfully an action/thought, what is watching what? Is impermanence watching impermanence?

Can impermanence keep record of the impermanence? For the impermanence to be known, you require an unchanging intellect. An approximate metaphor is a cinema screen on which characters play out their roles. The screen is not impermanent.

In this regard, I will humbly request you to read SN1.179 onwards.

'Impermanence is Buddha nature' and 'Buddha nature is impermanent' are entirely opposite.

Buddha, etymologically means Lord/Owner/Master of Buddhi (intellect). Our intellect goes to sleep again and again but Buddha being the master of the intellect is ever awake. Master of the intellect is the SELF (Atman in Vedanta).

Now, Master of intellect's first nature is unbroken prajnanam (which in your translations is called perfection of wisdom). From prajnanam takes birth the subject-object division and further the samsara.

The prajnanam and thereafter the dream and waking samsara states are the nature of Buddha. The prajnanam is not impermanent. But all aspects of the dream and waking is impermanent - anitya-anatta-dukkha.

So it is said that impermanence is Buddha nature. But Budha nature is eternal in all beings and oversees the impermanent happenings in unbroken awareness -- even in deep sleep.

Since Buddha's first primary nature is prajnanam (perfect wisdom), monks take resort to this for attaining Buddhahood.

.............

AUM

 

[atanu]

To say that three marks of samsara (existence) are anatta, anitya, and dukhya, is fine.

But to extend that and say that mark of Buddha (the owner of wisdom/intellect) is anitya, anatta, and dukkha.............

:shout:sleep:

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

When you watch mindfully an action/thought, what is watching what? Is impermanence watching impermanence?

You ask that as if you expect the answer to be no, or like it's rhetorical. Of course it's impermanence watching impermanence.

For the impermanence to be known, you require an unchanging intellect.

That's only an assumption.

'Impermanence is Buddha nature' and 'Buddha nature is impermanent' are entirely opposite.

If A=B, then it's a pretty safe bet and logical assumption that B=A.

Master of the intellect is the SELF (Atman in Vedanta).

We differ on this.

Now, Master of intellect's first nature is unbroken prajnanam (which in your translations is called perfection of wisdom). From prajnanam takes birth the subject-object division and further the samsara.

The prajnanam and thereafter the dream and waking samsara states are the nature of Buddha. The prajnanam is not impermanent. But all aspects of the dream and waking is impermanent - anitya-anatta-dukkha.

The Heart Sutra disagrees.

 

[atanu]

Of course it's impermanence watching impermanence.

Okay. That is your view. And there will be no escape. prajnanam is not a skandha and that is the source of the mindful mind.

If A=B, then it's a pretty safe bet and logical assumption that B=A.

That again is your assumption, which contradicts the Two Truths view.

Ocean is all waves. But a wave is not equal to the ocean. Buddha and his nature are two aspects of non dual truth. Both these aspects are in us. The prajnanam aspect is non-dual and anitya. This perfect wisdom is used by monks. But the dream and waking state samsara are anitya and clinging to these two natures cause pain.

The Heart Sutra disagrees.

Explain please.

I am talking of:

"The Buddhas of the Past, Present and Future,
By Relying on Prajna Paramita
Have Attained Supreme Enlightenment."

the prajna paramita is within our consciousness and it is different from vijnanam consciousness that rises dependently and is associated with skandhas.

prajna paramita is not dependent on any thing. It is the first nature of Buddha.

(Again and again I request to distinguish between vijnanam and prajnanam -- both are termed consciousness but their natures are different. vijnanam is dependently risen. prajnanam is not dependently risen.)

 

[atanu]

Buddhist Scriptures: Heart Sutra

Commentaries on prajna in respect of the Heart Sutra may be read in the above link.

 

[atanu]

Buddhist Scriptures: Heart Sutra

The key point will emerge if one investigates the following:

"Therefore, in the Void There Are No Forms,
No Feelings, Perceptions, Volitions or Consciousness."

"No Eye, Ear, Nose, Tongue, Body or Mind;
No Form, Sound, Smell, Taste, Touch or Mind Object;
No Realm of the Eye,
Until We Come to No realm of Consciousness."

........

So, without the skandhas and without consciousness (vijnanam) how the void is discerned and by whom -- when there are no skandhas?

The Sutra states:

"The Buddhas of the Past, Present and Future,
By Relying on Prajna Paramita
Have Attained Supreme Enlightenment."

...............

Kindly do not say that the prajna paramita is not within our mind/consciousness/awareness/being or whatever you may wish to name yourself.

 

[von bek]

'Impermanence is Buddha nature' and 'Buddha nature is impermanent' are entirely opposite.

Many Buddhists, including Dogen, disagree with you on this. I understand you disagree; but, this is why you misinterpret what Dogen means when he uses words like "True Self". You will run into the same problem if you read what other Buddhist teachers are saying without understanding the interlocked context of what all is being taught. I suspect you fail to appreciate how different the teachings are from what you believe. Things like, Buddha-Nature equals Emptiness, are what many Buddhists believe.

Follow the path you wish; but, I ask that if you plan on studying Buddhist texts, it is best to do so while consulting traditional Buddhist commentary so you can understand in context the teachings contained therein. These things will allow you to understand, in a Buddhist context, what is meant by unborn, True Self, and Buddha-Nature.

I will not respond any further on this subject with you. I really don't want to argue. I am sure you are nice and you certainly come across as intelligent, you have your path and I have mine.

Namu Amida Butsu

 

[Poeticus]

'Impermanence is Buddha nature' and 'Buddha nature is impermanent' are entirely opposite.

If* x = y, then y = x.​

Therefore, both are not entirely
opposite. ​

____________
* Assuming, you meant to write
impermanence rather than "im-
permanent" in the second quoted
portion, which I self-emphasized.​

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram :namaste


sorry it is a little difficult to enter into this conversation , allthough the conversation has mooved on some interesting points are being raised .

please forgive me if the interjection is unwelcome

I see the point of confusion. Do you practice Mindfulness? When you watch mindfully an action/thought, what is watching what? Is impermanence watching impermanence?

Can impermanence keep record of the impermanence? For the impermanence to be known, you require an unchanging intellect. An approximate metaphor is a cinema screen on which characters play out their roles. The screen is not impermanent.

I would have to support the above , in mindfullness practice what is watching what ?

if we were to say that imperminance is watching imperminance , that would assume that we are watching the sences with the sences , watching ignorance with ignorance ?

however if we are truely mindfull it is our inate wisdom (buddha nature) watching our ignorance , our inteligent detatchment watching the attatched nature of the sences and the emotions grasping at the fleeting .

the hope is to rise above the the mundane and to realise the ''unchanging interlect''

which by its very nature is ever present , but due to the nature of ignorance we are blind to its presence .

'Impermanence is Buddha nature' and 'Buddha nature is impermanent' are entirely opposite.

Buddha, etymologically means Lord/Owner/Master of Buddhi (intellect). Our intellect goes to sleep again and again but Buddha being the master of the intellect is ever awake. Master of the intellect is the SELF (Atman in Vedanta).

these riddles do my head in it , is simply playing with words .....Buddha nature is complete , perfect , ....a Buddha is one who has atained perfection of wisdom , but Buddha nature has never been anything but perfect as it has never been incomplete ,

therefore I must agree the interlect of Bhuddi is ever awake , never in ignorance and un afected by illusion , therefore it is in a 'Perminant state ' it is non fluctuating , therefore it never diminishes it remains eternaly inteligent , all knowing !

Now, Master of intellect's first nature is unbroken prajnanam (which in your translations is called perfection of wisdom). From prajnanam takes birth the subject-object division and further the samsara.

Prajaparamita , allthough translated the perfection of wisdom is for our benifit is merely pointing at the primordial wisdom which it self is unchanging , thus agreed it is unbroken , therefore it is perfection as it canot be found to be lacking it is in full knowledge eternaly .

The prajnanam and thereafter the dream and waking samsara states are the nature of Buddha. The prajnanam is not impermanent. But all aspects of the dream and waking is impermanent - anitya-anatta-dukkha.

So it is said that impermanence is Buddha nature. But Budha nature is eternal in all beings and oversees the impermanent happenings in unbroken awareness -- even in deep sleep.

so yes to rephrase , or render it understandable (to me )....

ultimately Buddha nature being eternal pervades all even imperminance ,

but imperminance having no true nature canot pervade Buddha nature as it is complete and unchanging .

yes , they are entirely opposite :namaste

Since Buddha's first primary nature is prajnanam (perfect wisdom), monks take resort to this for attaining Buddhahood.

.............

AUM

buddham saranam gacchami:namaste

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram MV ji :namaste

'Impermanence is Buddha nature' and 'Buddha nature is impermanent' are entirely opposite.

If* x = y, then y = x.​

Therefore, both are not entirely
opposite. ​

____________
* Assuming, you meant to write
impermanence rather than "im-
permanent" in the second quoted
portion, which I self-emphasized.​

I understand the confusion that x=y y=x

I can only explain by the analogy of likening Buddha nature to the vast unlimited nature of the sky , and impermanence as the clouds which come and go , sky or space will exist eternaly with or without clouds , clouds canot even temporarily exist without space , therefore they can never be equal as one is dependant on the other , but the other not dependant on the one .


but you are right , ..impermanence , impermanent

 

[ratikala]

namaste von bec ji :namaste

Many Buddhists, including Dogen, disagree with you on this. I understand you disagree; but, this is why you misinterpret what Dogen means when he uses words like "True Self". You will run into the same problem if you read what other Buddhist teachers are saying without understanding the interlocked context of what all is being taught. I suspect you fail to appreciate how different the teachings are from what you believe. Things like, Buddha-Nature equals Emptiness, are what many Buddhists believe.

before we can even discuss whether Buddha Nature equals emptiness or not we have to come to an understanding of emptiness , which with all due respects is why we are here , it is not an easy subject so please we should all be tolerant with oneanother .

Follow the path you wish; but, I ask that if you plan on studying Buddhist texts, it is best to do so while consulting traditional Buddhist commentary so you can understand in context the teachings contained therein. These things will allow you to understand, in a Buddhist context, what is meant by unborn, True Self, and Buddha-Nature.

even within Buddhism the traditions differ on inturpretations , however that should not stop us discussing ,

I will not respond any further on this subject with you. I really don't want to argue. I am sure you are nice and you certainly come across as intelligent, you have your path and I have mine.

please please do not feel that it is an arguement , it is important that we examine these things as friends , and not be worried about dissagreement .

Namu Amida Butsu

Namu Amida Butsu :namaste

 

[Twilight Hue]

these riddles do my head in it , is simply playing with words .....Buddha nature is complete , perfect , ....a Buddha is one who has atained perfection of wisdom , but Buddha nature has never been anything but perfect as it has never been incomplete ,*therefore I must agree the interlect of Bhuddi is ever awake , never in ignorance and un afected by illusion , therefore it is in a 'Perminant state ' it is non fluctuating , therefore it never diminishes it remains eternaly inteligent , all knowing ! -ratikala-

Buddha nature, of which remains original face, yet harbors no original face. It remains permanent of which permanency by way of perpetuity remains empty.

There are no parents.

 

[Ekanta]

Buddha nature, of which remains original face, yet harbors no original face. It remains permanent of which permanency by way of perpetuity remains empty.

I dont think even buddha would understand that.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I dont think even buddha would understand that.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Heraclitus of Ephesus might. ;0)

Treat it like a hideously drawn out koan or, if you prefer in spirit of philosophy, the saying that you simply cannot step twice on the same piece of water.
In the same vernacular, You can't describe Buddha nature the same way as one attributes permanence nor even impermenence to what gives rise to what we happen to call Buddha nature. That would mean essentially a middle path. Exactly what the Buddha is said to have expressed and taught.