Atman, Other-Emptiness, and other Buddhists

[Ekanta]

Here's a middle way quote from Nirvana sutra:

“The buddha-nature [buddha-dhātu] is termed ‘ultimate emptiness’ [paramārtha-śūnyatā], and ultimate emptiness is termed ‘awareness/knowing’ [jñāna]… The wise perceive emptiness and non-emptiness… the self and the non-self. The empty is the totality of samsara and the non-empty is great nirvana… non-self is samsara, and the self is great nirvana. The middle way is termed ‘the buddha-nature’. The middle way is ‘ultimate emptiness’. This sees the non-eternal as non-eternal and the eternal as the eternal.”
Nirvana Sutra :: Appreciation of the "Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra"

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Here's a middle way quote from Nirvana sutra:

“The buddha-nature [buddha-dhātu] is termed ‘ultimate emptiness’ [paramārtha-śūnyatā], and ultimate emptiness is termed ‘awareness/knowing’ [jñāna]… The wise perceive emptiness and non-emptiness… the self and the non-self. The empty is the totality of samsara and the non-empty is great nirvana… non-self is samsara, and the self is great nirvana. The middle way is termed ‘the buddha-nature’. The middle way is ‘ultimate emptiness’. This sees the non-eternal as non-eternal and the eternal as the eternal.”
Nirvana Sutra :: Appreciation of the "Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra"

Just curious- are you familiar with any other Buddhist scriptures, or do you just find them a waste of time?

 

[Ekanta]

Just curious- are you familiar with any other Buddhist scriptures, or do you just find them a waste of time?

I've actually read much more tripitika than mahayana sutras. I will always be greatful to tripitika, thats what convinced me to seek the buddha way. At the moment however, Im more into mahayana sutras. But then again, I find the Shobogenzo even more intersting (since the details). But its so deep you get so fed up after just a few pages. Still even better is to speak with a living master. But the best is meditation... well you asked... how about yourself dyanaprajna2011?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I've actually read much more tripitika than mahayana sutras. I will always be greatful to tripitika, thats what convinced me to seek the buddha way. At the moment however, Im more into mahayana sutras. But then again, I find the Shobogenzo even more intersting (since the details). But its so deep you get so fed up after just a few pages. Still even better is to speak with a living master. But the best is meditation... well you asked... how about yourself dyanaprajna2011?

I'm more inclined toward the Tripitaka and the Prajnaparamita sutras. But the reason I asked is because you seem to be fixated on the Nirvana sutra, as if the Buddha taught nothing else. You can't simply attach to one sutra, and expect it to have all the teachings; you have to take the teachings as an organic whole, to fully understand buddhadharma.

 

[atanu]

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.​

Thank you.

Easier to understand will be "Ocean's nature is waves. Yet the ocean is not merely the coming and going of the waves."

 

[DreadFish]

Just as my little opinion here: I dont think that we can take the Mahayana sutras as something that the historical Buddha actually taught. The closest thing to things the historical Buddha actually said would be the Tripitaka, and even that is likely altered to a degree.

 

[Sees]

I'm more inclined toward the Tripitaka and the Prajnaparamita sutras. But the reasonI asked is because you seem to be fixated on the Nirvana sutra, as if the Buddha taught nothing else. You can't simply attach to one sutra, and expect it to have all the teachings; you hae to take the twachings as an organic qhole, to fully understand buddhadharma.

Ekanta was sent to bring balance to the Force.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Just as my little opinion here: I dont think that we can take the Mahayana sutras as something that the historical Buddha actually taught. The closest thing to things the historical Buddha actually said would be the Tripitaka, and even that is likely altered to a degree.

I completely agree here. I have great respect for Sutras and what is put forth ......

......"Thus have I heard......."

Comes a notation at the beginning.

Being as such, I regard the numerous written sutras as growing flowers of the dharma. Not exactly it's original seed, yet still reflective enough of which changes and blossoms, and of which at times, falls away as it ages.

 

[ratikala]

namaste :namaste

I completely agree here. I have great respect for Sutras and what is put forth ......

......"Thus have I heard......."

Comes a notation at the beginning.

Being as such, I regard the numerous written sutras as growing flowers of the dharma. Not exactly it's original seed, yet still reflective enough of which changes and blossoms, and of which at times, falls away as it ages.

I agree that all should be treated as ......"Thus have I heard......."

but what makes one turning if the wheel or one flowering of the dharma more valid or less valid than any other ?

therefore I stand in defence of the mahayana sutras

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

It seems what we have here is a debate on the authentic words of the Buddha. So here's my take on the sutras:

I believe that the authentic words of the Buddha are to be found in the tripitaka. The Mahayana sutras I view more as shastras, commentaries on the Buddha's teachings, but not authentic words of the Buddha. The Mahayana sutras are to be held in high regard, however, and should be a secondary source to the tripitaka. Not all Mahayana Buddhists hold all Mahayana sutras in the same light. To me, the Mahayana sutras I derive the most inspiration from are the Lankavatara sutra, the Prajnaparamita class of sutras, and the Lotus sutra. This doesn't mean I disregard all the other Mahayana sutras, only that I don't derive as much inspiration from them (with a possible exception of the Pure Land sutras).

From the historical point of view, as far as the Mahayana sutras go, the Prajnaparamita sutras are probably the earliest, being found amongst the teachings of the Mahasangikhas, one of the early eighteen schools, and forerunner to the Mahayana. The Tathagatagarbha class of sutras represent a much later addition to the Mahayana canon. Buddhism, especially Theravada and early Mahayana, was predominantly concerned with the teachings of anatta and sunyata. It wasn't until much later, when we first start to see the Tathagatagarbha sutras, that the idea of Buddha-nature, and something akin to (but not the same as) atman first appears. And even still, with the appearance of these sutras, such as the Nirvana sutra, many of the earlier Mahayana schools interpreted them in light of anatta/sunyata, if they didn't outright reject them. They seen the Buddha-nature teachings as the positive language aspect of anatta/sunyata, but still as sunyata. This is the predominant view, for instance, in the Zen school.

Maybe some historical background can help shed some light on some of these misconceptions.

 

[Twilight Hue]

namaste :namaste



I agree that all should be treated as ......"Thus have I heard......."

but what makes one turning if the wheel or one flowering of the dharma more valid or less valid than any other ?

therefore I stand in defence of the mahayana sutras

I don't engauge with squabbles over the veracity of any Sutra through the lens of trying to determine whats historically accurate, or even by it's popularity or acceptance in a givin tradition. I examine whats practical and what works each moment of which harmonizes with a givin sutra, and yes, there are those sutras that simply don't harmonize with practices and experiences and simply are set aside.

With some exception to direct instruction and observation outlined, it seems best to accept sutras provisionally, and of which adapt and discard accordingly to practice and experiences. It cannot be, nor can I see, how it could be beneficial to create "camps" soley on the basis of historical speculation and literal interpretations. Some sutras which might prove individually effective one instance may not apply in another at any givin point as each practices and experiences the dharma in a dynamic matter, so any primary need to engauge in undue pettyness over schematic issues will simply be facing dukkha.

 

[atanu]

... I examine whats practical and what works each moment of which harmonizes with a givin sutra, and yes, there are those sutras that simply don't harmonize with practices and experiences and simply are set aside. .....

Perception of 'Most practical', IMO, is dependent on wisdom .. wisdom and ability to assimilate the whole without one aspect contradicting another. This is my view only.

 

[atanu]

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.
...

Hello. No problem with Buddha-Nature equals Emptiness. None whatsoever.

However, why we do not acknowledge the point that the sunya has a sunya Seer. And the sunya also is able to sprout a teacher, who is the embodiment of compassion.

Experience of the prajnanam is sunya, and the Seer too is sunya, without any landing for the awareness. Buddha nature means that which pertains to knowledge material: such as prajnanam (pre-awareness -nondual), buddhi (intellect), and mind (dual).

 

[Ablaze]

However, why we do not acknowledge the point that the sunya has a sunya Seer.

Maybe in Hinduism, but not in Buddhism.

Experience of the prajnanam is sunya, and the Seer too is sunya, without any landing for the awareness.

This is Hindu Dharma, not Buddha Dharma.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram :namaste

I don't engauge with squabbles over the veracity of any Sutra through the lens of trying to determine whats historically accurate, or even by it's popularity or acceptance in a givin tradition. I examine whats practical and what works each moment of which harmonizes with a givin sutra, and yes, there are those sutras that simply don't harmonize with practices and experiences and simply are set aside.

each to there own as long as those who set aside sutras which are not within their present comprehension do not chalenge their validity to those who do find them to be practical and comprehensable :namaste

With some exception to direct instruction and observation outlined, it seems best to accept sutras provisionally, and of which adapt and discard accordingly to practice and experiences. It cannot be, nor can I see, how it could be beneficial to create "camps" soley on the basis of historical speculation and literal interpretations. Some sutras which might prove individually effective one instance may not apply in another at any givin point as each practices and experiences the dharma in a dynamic matter, so any primary need to engauge in undue pettyness over schematic issues will simply be facing dukkha.

it is wise and prudent to set aside what one is not able to comprehend at this or that monent , but it is unwise to reject .unfortunately the camps are merely inforced by those who choose to accept some but reject others .

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram atanu ji :namaste

However, why we do not acknowledge the point that the sunya has a sunya Seer. And the sunya also is able to sprout a teacher, who is the embodiment of compassion.

many teachers or munis of the past present and future :namaste and the individual boddhisattva aspects .....Arya Avalokitesvara :namaste

Experience of the prajnanam is sunya, and the Seer too is sunya,

as Shunya is only 'destitute' of blindness that percives no fullness and no bestower of wisdom
:namaste

Buddha nature means that which pertains to knowledge material: such as prajnanam (pre-awareness -nondual), buddhi (intellect), and mind (dual).

''which pertains to'' ....to knowledge and 'absence' of ignorance , 'void' of suffering , 'void' of incomprehension , ....purest bliss and eternal unwavering knowingness ,...Sattva , true pure essence .

 

[ratikala]

namaste :namaste

Experience of the prajnanam is sunya, and the Seer too is sunya, without any landing for the awareness.

This is Hindu Dharma, not Buddha Dharma.

How so ?

what to you is the fruit of the perfection of wisdom ?

 

[Ablaze]

namaste :namaste

How so ?

what to you is the fruit of the perfection of wisdom ?

For starters, the absence of identity-view (the reification of a "Seer" as referred to by atanu; otherwise known as sakkāya-diṭṭhi).

 

[ratikala]

namaste :namaste

For starters, the absence of identity-view (the reification of a "Seer" as referred to by atanu; otherwise known as sakkāya-diṭṭhi).

prehaps you missunderstand my question ?

what is the fruit ?

can the fruit just be absence ?

could absence of one thing not be fullness of another ?

 

[Ablaze]

namaste :namaste



prehaps you missunderstand my question ?

what is the fruit ?

can the fruit just be absence ?

could absence of one thing not be fullness of another ?

Perhaps you misunderstood the answer.

Emptiness of self is fullness of wisdom.

:namaste