Showing posts sorted by relevance for query not self. Sort by date Show all posts

Soh

Also see:

The Meaning of Nirvana
The Deathless in Buddhadharma?
What is Nirvana?

Update: The site has been taken down. But a copy of it is available on Box.com or Scribd here: https://app.box.com/s/nxby5606lbaei9oudiz6xsyrdasacqph / https://www.scribd.com/document/274168728/Measureless-Mind

When I discovered the site Measureless Mind, I thought, wow, what a great resource of Buddha's teachings! It is a very valuable resource for all practitioners. Very well formatted, well presented, all-rounded, well commented resource of Buddha's original teachings in the Pali canon by Geoff (online nick: jnana in dharmawheel, or nana in dhammawheel). Like Loppon Namdrol/Malcolm who I often quoted from, Geoff (whose practice background is more of Mahamudra and Theravada) is also a very knowledgeable Buddhist scholar-practitioner and I often read his posts with much interest.

I sent Thusness two of the many articles (I spent time to read the entire website from beginning to end and highly recommend others to do so) and Thusness also commented, "Both the articles are very well written. Put in the blog." and "that site is a great resource."

http://measurelessmind.ca/anattasanna.html

The Recognition of Selflessness (Anattasaññā)

Look at the world and see its emptiness Mogharāja, always mindful,
Eliminating the view of self, one goes beyond death.
One who views the world this way is not seen by the king of death.

— Sutta Nipāta 5.15, Mogharājamāṇavapucchā

The contemplation of selflessness is given in AN 10.60 Girimānanda Sutta:

Now what, Ānanda, is the recognition of selflessness? Here, Ānanda, a monk, gone to the wilderness, to the root of a tree, or to an empty place, discriminates thus: ‘The eye is not-self, forms are not-self; the ear is not-self, sounds are not-self; the nose is not-self, odors are not-self; the tongue is not-self, flavors are not-self; the body is not-self, tactual objects are not-self; the mind is not-self, phenomena are not-self.’ Thus he abides contemplating selflessness with regard to the six internal and external sensory spheres. This, Ānanda, is called the recognition of selflessness.

In practice, we need to be able to recognize this absence of self in our immediate experience: When seeing, there is the coming together of visible form, the eye, and visual consciousness. When hearing, there is the coming together of sound, the ear, and auditory consciousness. When touching, there is the coming together of tactual sensation, the body, and tactile consciousness. When thinking, there is the thought, the mind, and mental consciousness. These processes arise simply through ‘contact.’ When a sense faculty and a sensory object make contact, the corresponding sensory consciousness arises. This entire process occurs through specific conditionality (idappaccayatā). There is no independent, fully autonomous agent or self controlling any of this.
An independent, autonomous self would, by definition, be:

permanent
satisfactory
not prone to dis-ease
fully self-determining (be in complete autonomous control of itself)

Thus, what is being negated is a permanent, satisfactory self which is not prone to old age, sickness, and death. As SN 22.59 Pañcavaggiya Sutta (abridged) states:

Monks, form, feeling, recognition, fabrications, and consciousness are not-self. Were form, feeling, recognition, fabrications, or consciousness self, then this form, feeling, recognition, fabrications, and consciousness would not lead to dis-ease.

This criterion of dis-ease is the context for the following statement that:

None can have it of form, feeling, recognition, fabrications, or consciousness: ‘Let my form, feeling, recognition, fabrications, or consciousness be thus, let my form, feeling, recognition, fabrications, or consciousness be not thus.’

By engaging in sustained, dedicated contemplation we find only impermanent processes, conditionally arisen, and not fully self-determining. First we clearly see that all conditioned phenomena of body and mind are impermanent. Next we come to see that whatever is impermanent is unsatisfactory in that it can provide no lasting happiness. Then we realize that all impermanent, unsatisfactory phenomena of body and mind are not-self — they can’t be the basis for a self, which by definition would be permanent and (one would hope) satisfactory. This relationship between the recognition of impermanence, the recognition of unsatisfactoriness, and the recognition of selflessness is illustrated in the following diagram.

With the recognition of selflessness there is an emptying out of both the “subject” and “object” aspects of experience. We come to understand that “I-making” and “mine-making” with regard to the mind and body as well as all external representations is deluded. When the recognition of selflessness is fully developed there is no longer any reification of substantial referents to be experienced in relation to subjective grasping. Whatever is seen is merely the seen (diṭṭhamatta). Whatever is heard or sensed is merely the heard (sutamatta) and merely the sensed (mutamatta). Whatever is known is merely the known (viññātamatta). This is explained in Ud 1.10 Bāhiya Sutta:

‘The seen will be merely the seen, the heard will be merely the heard, the sensed will be merely the sensed, the known will be merely the known.’ This is how you should train, Bāhiya.

When, Bāhiya, for you the seen will be merely the seen, the heard will be merely the heard, the sensed will be merely the sensed, the known will be merely the known, then Bāhiya, you will not be that. When, Bāhiya, you are not that, then Bāhiya, you will not be there. When, Bāhiya, you are not there, then Bāhiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor between-the-two. Just this is the end of unsatisfactoriness.

When there is no self to be found one’s experience becomes very simple, direct, and uncluttered. When seeing, there is the coming together of visible form, the eye, and visual consciousness, that’s all. There is no separate “seer.” The seer is entirely dependent upon the seen. There can be no seer independent of the seen. There is no separate, independent subject or self.
This is also the case for the sensory object. The “seen” is entirely dependent upon the eye faculty and visual consciousness. There can be no object seen independent of the eye faculty and cognition. This is the case for all possible sensory objects. There is no separate, independent sensory object.
The same holds true for sensory consciousness as well. “Seeing” is entirely dependent upon the eye and visible form. There can be no seeing independent of the eye and cognition. This is the case for all possible sensory cognitions. There is no separate, independent sensory consciousness.
It’s important to understand this experientially. Let’s take the straightforward empirical experience of you looking at this screen right now as an example. Conventionally speaking, you could describe the experience as “I see the computer screen.” Another way of describing this is that there’s a “seer” who “sees” the “seen.” But look at the screen: are there really three independent and separate parts to your experience? Or are “seer,” “sees,” and “seen,” just three conceptual labels applied to this experience in which the three parts are entirely interdependent?
The “seer,” “seen,” and “seeing” are all empty and insubstantial. The eye faculty, visible form, and visual consciousness are all interdependent aspects of the same experience. You can’t peel one away and still have a sensory experience — there is no separation. AN 4.24 Kāḷakārāma Sutta:

Thus, monks, the Tathāgata does not conceive an [object] seen when seeing what is to be seen. He does not conceive an unseen. He does not conceive a to-be-seen. He does not conceive a seer.

He does not conceive an [object] heard when hearing what is to be heard. He does not conceive an unheard. He does not conceive a to-be-heard. He does not conceive a hearer.

He does not conceive an [object] sensed when sensing what is to be sensed. He does not conceive an unsensed. He does not conceive a to-be-sensed. He does not conceive a senser.

He does not conceive an [object] known when knowing what is to be known. He does not conceive an unknown. He does not conceive a to-be-known. He does not conceive a knower.

Sensory consciousness can’t be isolated as separate and independent. Nor can any of these other interdependent phenomena. Even the designations that we apply to these various phenomena are entirely conventional, dependent designations. But this doesn’t mean that we should now interpret our experience as being some sort of cosmic oneness or unity consciousness or whatever one may want to call it. That's just another empty, dependent label isn’t it? The whole point of this analysis is to see the emptiness of all referents, and thereby stop constructing and defining a “self.”
The purpose of correctly engaging in the contemplation of selflessness is stated in AN 7.49 Dutiyasaññā Sutta:

‘The recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, monks, when developed and cultivated, is of great fruit and benefit; it merges with the death-free, has the death-free as its end.’ Thus it was said. In reference to what was it said?

Monks, when a monk’s mind frequently remains acquainted with the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, his mind is rid of “I-making” and “mine-making” with regard to this conscious body and externally with regard to all representations, and has transcended conceit, is at peace, and is well liberated.

If, monks, when a monk’s mind frequently remains acquainted with the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, his mind is not rid of “I-making” and “mine-making” with regard to this conscious body and externally with regard to all representations, and has not transcended conceit, is not at peace, and is not well liberated, then he should know, ‘I have not developed the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, there is no stepwise distinction in me, I have not obtained the strength of development.’ In that way he is fully aware there. But if, monks, when a monk’s mind frequently remains acquainted with the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, his mind is rid of “I-making” and “mine-making” with regard to this conscious body and externally with regard to all representations, and has transcended conceit, is at peace, and is well liberated, then he should know, ‘I have developed the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, there is stepwise distinction in me, I have obtained the strength of development.’ In that way he is fully aware there.

‘The recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, monks, when developed and cultivated, is of great fruit and benefit; it merges with the death-free, has the death-free as its end.’ Thus it was said. And in reference to this it was said.

Here we get to the heart of the matter, which is one of the most subtle aspects of the Buddhadhamma. Simply stated: when ignorance ceases, belief in self simultaneously ceases. And when there is no self to be found, then there is no self to die or take birth. This right here is “death-free.” And it is precisely this that the Buddha is declaring when he says to Mogharāja:

Look at the world and see its emptiness Mogharāja, always mindful,
Eliminating the view of self, one goes beyond death.
One who views the world this way is not seen by the king of death.

When one completely abandons the underlying tendencies which give rise to mistaken apprehensions of a self — any and all notions of “I am” — then there is no self to die. This stilling of the “currents of conceiving” over one’s imagined self, and the resulting peace that is empty of birth, aging, and death, is straightforwardly presented in MN 140 Dhātuvibhaṅga Sutta:

‘He has been stilled where the currents of conceiving do not flow. And when the currents of conceiving do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.’ Thus was it said. With reference to what was it said?

Monk, “I am” is a conceiving. “I am this” is a conceiving. “I shall be” is a conceiving. “I shall not be” ... “I shall be possessed of form” ... “I shall be formless” ... “I shall be percipient” ... “I shall be non-percipient” ... “I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient” is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a cancer, conceiving is an arrow. By going beyond all conceiving, monk, he is said to be a sage at peace.

Furthermore, a sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die. He is unagitated, and is free from longing. He has nothing whereby he would be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not aging, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be agitated? Not being agitated, for what will he long?

So it was in reference to this that it was said, ‘He has been stilled where the currents of conceiving do not flow. And when the currents of conceiving do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.’

Truly, “a sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die.” In this way, when ignorance ceases, the entire complex of conditioned arising bound up with dissatisfaction also ceases. When all traces of “I-making” and “mine-making” are abandoned through the fully integrated threefold training of ethical conduct, meditation, and discernment, just this is dispassion (virāga). Just this is cessation (nirodha). Just this is extinguishment (nibbāna). Just this is without outflows (anāsava). Just this is not-born (ajāta), not-become (abhūta), not-made (akata), not-fabricated (asaṅkhata), endless (ananta), indestructible (apalokita), and yes, death-free (amata). It is freedom (mutti).

The Recognition of Selflessness and the Seven Factors of Awakening (Satta Bojjhaṅgā)

Sustained, dedicated practice of the recognition of selflessness will gradually create the optimal conditions for the arising of all seven factors of awakening. SN 46.73 Anatta Sutta (abridged):

Here monks, a monk develops the awakening factor of mindfulness accompanied by the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the awakening factor of dhamma-investigation accompanied by the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the awakening factor of energy accompanied by the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the awakening factor of joy accompanied by the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the awakening factor of tranquility accompanied by the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the awakening factor of meditative composure accompanied by the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the awakening factor of equanimity accompanied by the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go.

It is in this way that the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory is developed and cultivated so that it is of great fruit and benefit. It is in this way that the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory is developed and cultivated so that one of two fruits is to be expected: either final gnosis in this very life or, if there is a residue of clinging, the state of nonreturning. It is in this way that the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory is developed and cultivated so that it leads to great good. It is in this way that the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory is developed and cultivated so that it leads to great security from bondage. It is in this way that the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory is developed and cultivated so that it leads to a great sense of urgency. It is in this way that the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory is developed and cultivated so that it leads to dwelling in great comfort.

http://measurelessmind.ca/nirodhasanna.html

The Recognition of Cessation (Nirodhasaññā)

For whom there is neither a far shore,
Nor a near shore, nor both,
Who is free from distress, without ties,
Him I call a brāhmaṇa.

— Dhammapada 385

When the recognition of dispassion is fully developed and realized, and with no self to be found, nothing to be identified with, one realizes the gnosis and vision of liberation (vimuttiñāṇadassana). This is non-referential inner peace (ajjhattasanti). This is the full recognition of cessation. AN 10.60 Girimānanda Sutta:

Now what, Ānanda, is the recognition of cessation? Here, Ānanda, a monk, gone to the wilderness, to the root of a tree, or to an empty place, discriminates thus: ‘This is peace, this is excellent, that is: the calming of all fabrications, the release of all acquisitions, the elimination of craving, cessation, nibbāna.’ This, Ānanda, is called the recognition of cessation.

This is the complete absence of agitation (calita natthi). Ud 8.4 Nibbāna Sutta:

There being no agitation, there is tranquility. There being tranquility, there is no inclination. There being no inclination, there is no coming or going. There being no coming or going, there is no passing away or arising. There being no passing away or arising, there is neither a here nor a beyond nor a between-the-two. Just this is the end of unsatisfactoriness.

This is the calming of all specific fabrication and volitional intention. MN 140 Dhātuvibhaṅga Sutta:

One does not form any specific fabrication or volitional intention towards either existence or non-existence. Not forming any specific fabrication or volitional intention towards either existence or non-existence, he does not cling to anything in this world. Not clinging, he is not excited. Unexcited, he personally attains complete nibbāna. He discerns that, ‘Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, done is what had to be done, there is nothing further here.’

This is the freedom of absence which is revealed through the complete recognition of selflessness. Ud 1.10 Bāhiya Sutta:

‘The seen will be merely the seen, the heard will be merely the heard, the sensed will be merely the sensed, the known will be merely the known.’ This is how you should train, Bāhiya.

When, Bāhiya, for you the seen will be merely the seen, the heard will be merely the heard, the sensed will be merely the sensed, the known will be merely the known, then Bāhiya, you will not be that. When, Bāhiya, you are not that, then Bāhiya, you will not be there. When, Bāhiya, you are not there, then Bāhiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor between-the-two. Just this is the end of unsatisfactoriness.

This is noble liberation which is the elimination of craving and clinging. MN 106 Āneñjasappāya Sutta:

This is death-free, namely, the liberation of mind through not clinging.

This is the effortless clarity of consciousness which is non-abiding and not established (appatiṭṭha viññāṇa). SN 22.53 Upaya Sutta:

When that consciousness is not established, not increasing, not concocting, it is liberated. Being liberated, it is steady. Being steady, it is content. Being content, he is not excited. Unexcited, he personally attains complete nibbāna. He discerns that, ‘Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, done is what had to be done, there is nothing further here.’

There is no more seeking of any kind. There is no more personal agenda. There is no identifying with any phenomena or turning anything into a fixed reference point. There is no “here” nor “beyond” nor “between-the-two.”
The awakened mind is measureless (appamāṇacetasa), free from any sort of measuring (pamāṇa). In evocative terms, an awakened one is deep (gambhīra), boundless (appameyya), and fathomless (duppariyogāḷha). Utterly free from any reference to specifically fabricated consciousness (viññāṇasaṅkhayavimutta). “Gone” (atthaṅgata), the measureless mind is untraceable (ananuvejja) even here and now. It doesn’t abide in the head, or in the body, or anywhere else for that matter. It doesn’t have size or shape. It’s not an object or a subject.
Just as the sky is formless and non-illustrative, the measureless mind is non-illustrative and non-indicative (anidassana). This effortless clarity is unmediated by any specific fabrication or volitional intention. It is unaffected knowing: The seen is merely the seen (diṭṭhamatta). The heard is merely the heard (sutamatta). The sensed is merely the sensed (mutamatta). The known is merely the known (viññātamatta). But there is no you there. Of course, this liberating gnosis and vision can’t adequately be pointed out or indicated by words alone. It is to be individually experienced (paccatta veditabba).

The Recognition of Cessation and the Seven Factors of Awakening (Satta Bojjhaṅgā)

Sustained, dedicated practice of the recognition of cessation will gradually create the optimal conditions for the arising of all seven factors of awakening. SN 46.76 Nirodha Sutta (abridged):

Here monks, a monk develops the awakening factor of mindfulness accompanied by the recognition of cessation, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the awakening factor of dhamma-investigation accompanied by the recognition of cessation, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the awakening factor of energy accompanied by the recognition of cessation, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the awakening factor of joy accompanied by the recognition of cessation, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the awakening factor of tranquility accompanied by the recognition of cessation, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the awakening factor of meditative composure accompanied by the recognition of cessation, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the awakening factor of equanimity accompanied by the recognition of cessation, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go.

It is in this way that the recognition of cessation is developed and cultivated so that it is of great fruit and benefit. It is in this way that the recognition of cessation is developed and cultivated so that one of two fruits is to be expected: either final gnosis in this very life or, if there is a residue of clinging, the state of nonreturning. It is in this way that the recognition of cessation is developed and cultivated so that it leads to great good. It is in this way that the recognition of cessation is developed and cultivated so that it leads to great security from bondage. It is in this way that the recognition of cessation is developed and cultivated so that it leads to a great sense of urgency. It is in this way that the recognition of cessation is developed and cultivated so that it leads to dwelling in great comfort.

Labels: Anatta, Buddha, Dropping, Theravada 6 comments | |

The Anatta-lakkhaṇa Sutta

Soh

This is the second discourse of Buddha, that led to all of his first five disciples to attain Arahantship, liberation.

The Five (Brethren)
Pañca Sutta (SN 22:59)

NavigationSuttas/SN/22:59

This discourse is also known as the Anatta-lakkhaṇa Sutta, the Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic. According to Mv I, this was the first of the Buddha’s discourses during which his listeners became arahants.

* * *

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Vārāṇasī in the Deer Park at Isipatana. There he addressed the group of five monks:
“Form, monks, is not self. If form were the self, this form would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible (to say) with regard to form, ‘Let my form be thus. Let my form not be thus.’ But precisely because form is not self, this form lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible (to say) with regard to form, ‘Let my form be thus. Let my form not be thus.’
“Feeling is not self.…
“Perception is not self.…
“Fabrications are not self.…
“Consciousness is not self. If consciousness were the self, this consciousness would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible (to say) with regard to consciousness, ‘Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.’ But precisely because consciousness is not self, consciousness lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible (to say) with regard to consciousness, ‘Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.’
“What do you think, monks? Is form constant or inconstant?”
“Inconstant, lord.”
“And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?”
“Stressful, lord.”
“And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”
“No, lord.”
“… Is feeling constant or inconstant?” — “Inconstant, lord.” …
“… Is perception constant or inconstant?” — “Inconstant, lord.” …
“… Are fabrications constant or inconstant?” — “Inconstant, lord.” …
“What do you think, monks? Is consciousness constant or inconstant?”
“Inconstant, lord.”
“And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?”
“Stressful, lord.”
“And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”
“No, lord.”
“Thus, monks, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: Every1 form is to be seen with right discernment as it has come to be: ‘This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.’
“Any feeling whatsoever.…
“Any perception whatsoever.…
“Any fabrications whatsoever.…
“Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: Every1 consciousness is to be seen with right discernment as it has come to be: ‘This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.’
“Seeing thus, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is released. With release, there is the knowledge, ‘Released.’ He discerns that ‘Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.’”
That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the group of five monks delighted in the Blessed One’s words. And while this explanation was being given, the minds of the group of five monks, through lack of clinging/sustenance, were released from effluents.

Note

1. The word “every” here and in all parallel passages is sabba, which is the same as the word for “all.” On the range of meaning covered by the word “all,” see SN 35:23. DN 11, DN 15, MN 49, and AN 10:81 indicate that there is a type of consciousness that lies outside the range of “all,” and so would not fall under the aggregate of consciousness. This apparently corresponds to the dimension mentioned in SN 35:117 and Ud 8:1.

Update, 2024:

I recently wrote on reddit:

What Krodha said in this thread is right: "It is quite rare to attain stream entry, I’ve been involved with dharma for over a decade and can count those who are tried and true stream entrants on one hand. That said, contemplate the Bahiya and Kalakarama suttas and cultivate the first dhyāna."

I would add that many people have misunderstood what stream entry is. Maybe 99% on reddit. The only thread on the streamentry subreddit that correctly presents stream entry can be found in https://www.reddit.com/r/streamentry/comments/igored/insight_buddhism_a_reconsideration_of_the_meaning/ , it is a good read and highly recommended reading.

——

Glad you liked it. If that interests you, I think this should interest you too. On nondual awareness and its nature and the subtleties of insight:

🙏 :) p.s. I'm Soh, and Thusness (John Tan) is my mentor... I've been through similar stages in my journey

——

Self-view is well defined, for example, as I quoted in my article:

“The contemplation of neti neti, or dissociation, the separation of the witness from the witnessed, Self from not-self and so on, is done to 'support' a position of a true Self. So with regards to the phenomenal world of everchanging things, I reject as not me and mine, for I am the ultimate Witness that is perceiving all these.

This is the false View no. 4 described in Sabbasava Sutta: "...As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress." - the commentary of 'Middle Length Discourses' book explains, "of these six views, the first two represent the simple antinomy of eternalism and annihilationism; the view that ‘no self exists for me’ is not the non-self doctrine of the Buddha, but the materialist view that identifies the individual with the body and thus holds that there is no personal continuity beyond death. The next three views may be understood to arise out of the philosophically more sophisticated observation that experience has a built-in reflexive structure that allows for self-consciousness, the capacity of the mind to become cognizant of itself, its contents, and the body with which it is inter-connected. Engaged in a search for his 'true nature,' the untaught ordinary person will identify self either with both aspects of the experience (view 3), or with the observer alone (view 4), or with the observed alone (view 5). The last view is a full-blown version of eternalism in which all reservations have been discarded.”

• https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2011/10/anatta-not-self-or-no-self_1.html

The insight and realisation of anatman puts an end to all views of self.

——

Since self view is well defined by Buddha in several suttas, that is a very clear indication of when stream entry occurs. Most people however misunderstand that point and have a watered down version of “ending self view”.

So yes what you said is right it is not arbitrary

On a related note, i wrote an article about the different degrees of no self. Only the true anatman insight can end self view, not mere non doership, impersonality or even nondual: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2020/04/different-degress-of-no-self-non.html

….

A crucial criteria in Buddha's teachings on stream entry is the ending of self-view. This ending of self-view marks the attainment of stream entry.
Krodha/Kyle Dixon explained well what that entails: https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/15m6m36/explain_like_im_five_what_is_selfview_how_to/

krodha · 6 mo. ago

What's an easy way to identify self view in daily life?

Self-view is the nonconceptual feeling of being an inner subjective knower of external phenomena that feel separate from you. If you feel that you are the seer of sights, hearer of sounds, feeler of feelings, knower of the known, that is self-view.

Overcoming self-view looks like this:

With the recognition of selflessness there is an emptying out of both the “subject” and “object” aspects of experience. We come to understand that “I-making” and “mine-making” with regard to the mind and body as well as all external representations is deluded. When the recognition of selflessness is fully developed there is no longer any reification of substantial referents to be experienced in relation to subjective grasping. Whatever is seen is merely the seen (diṭṭhamatta). Whatever is heard or sensed is merely the heard (sutamatta) and merely the sensed (mutamatta). Whatever is known is merely the known (viññātamatta). This is explained in Ud 1.10 Bāhiya Sutta:

"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

When there is no self to be found one’s experience becomes very simple, direct, and uncluttered. When seeing, there is the coming together of visible form, the eye, and visual consciousness, that’s all. There is no separate “seer.” The seer is entirely dependent upon the seen. There can be no seer independent of the seen. There is no separate, independent subject or self.

This is also the case for the sensory object. The “seen” is entirely dependent upon the eye faculty and visual consciousness. There can be no object seen independent of the eye faculty and cognition. This is the case for all possible sensory objects. There is no separate, independent sensory object.

The same holds true for sensory consciousness as well. “Seeing” is entirely dependent upon the eye and visible form. There can be no seeing independent of the eye and cognition. This is the case for all possible sensory cognitions. There is no separate, independent sensory consciousness.

It’s important to understand this experientially. Let’s take the straightforward empirical experience of you looking at this screen right now as an example. Conventionally speaking, you could describe the experience as “I see the computer screen.” Another way of describing this is that there’s a “seer” who “sees” the “seen.” But look at the screen: are there really three independent and separate parts to your experience? Or are “seer,” “sees,” and “seen,” just three conceptual labels applied to this experience in which the three parts are entirely interdependent?

The “seer,” “seen,” and “seeing” are all empty and insubstantial. The eye faculty, visible form, and visual consciousness are all interdependent aspects of the same experience. You can’t peel one away and still have a sensory experience — there is no separation. AN 4.24 Kāḷakārāma Sutta:

Thus, monks, the Tathāgata does not conceive an [object] seen when seeing what is to be seen. He does not conceive an unseen. He does not conceive a to-be-seen. He does not conceive a seer.

He does not conceive an [object] heard when hearing what is to be heard. He does not conceive an unheard. He does not conceive a to-be-heard. He does not conceive a hearer.

He does not conceive an [object] sensed when sensing what is to be sensed. He does not conceive an unsensed. He does not conceive a to-be-sensed. He does not conceive a senser.

He does not conceive an [object] known when knowing what is to be known. He does not conceive an unknown. He does not conceive a to-be-known. He does not conceive a knower.

Sensory consciousness can’t be isolated as separate and independent. Nor can any of these other interdependent phenomena. Even the designations that we apply to these various phenomena are entirely conventional, dependent designations. But this doesn’t mean that we should now interpret our experience as being some sort of cosmic oneness or unity consciousness or whatever one may want to call it. That's just another empty, dependent label isn’t it? The whole point of this analysis is to see the emptiness of all referents, and thereby stop constructing and defining a “self.”

— Geoff/Jnana

(Note: The "15 Share" part from Reddit is omitted as it's interaction metadata)

Note by Soh: For the full chapter and article by Geoff/Jnana which is very highly recommended, "required reading", please read in full: Great Resource of Buddha's Teachings

Update, 2022:

Someone wrote:

>the first five looks fairly easy, even somebody trained in Adaita Vendanta could do most of them

Soh:

Actually what triggers stream entry would be a direct experiential realization of anatman and conditionality. This is different from the realization of atman-brahman in Hinduism or Advaita Vedanta.

Anatman could be summarised as the realization that in truth, always already, in seeing, there is just the seen, no seer, in hearing, there is just sound, no hearer, and so on. Read Bahiya Sutta and Kalaka Sutta for example. Also check out the chapters on selflessness and cessation in this well compiled PDF: https://app.box.com/s/nxby5606lbaei9oudiz6xsyrdasacqph

Also, you should read this well written article explaining what stream entry is, what the realization entails, for example: https://www.reddit.com/r/streamentry/comments/igored/insight_buddhism_a_reconsideration_of_the_meaning/

When the direct realization of anatman manifests and you attain stream entry, you instantly cut off the first three fetters all at once. You will no longer have skeptical doubt about the Buddhadharma because now you have direct experiential realization of it and have ascertained the Buddha's words to be true.

Edit and update on my first point: When you experience impersonality and even nondual even in Advaita Vedanta, it is certainly not the overcoming of self view of the first fetter. There can still be the view of an unchanging self or awareness like vedanta. It is very clear by reading all the suttas that overcoming of self view covers even eternal witness and substantialist nondual views, so impersonality and nondual does not reach the elimination of self view that a stream enterer has attained.

I wrote an article before with citations from Buddha on how all these self views are refuted, including an eternal witness or an unchanging infinite consciousness as self and so on http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2011/10/anatta-not-self-or-no-self_1.html — stream entry realization covers the dissolution of all these subtle views of self and inherent existence.

Further Reading & Resources

Also see

Labels: Myriad Objects, Nirvana, Stages of Enlightenment, Stream Entry, Theravada 0 comments | |

Falling Away of Self

Soh

Adyashanti:

https://marillesblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/experiencing-no-self_qanda.pdf

“Oneness is experienced at the level that I call the heart. While the experience of oneness is transformational and profound, it is not itself the experience of no-self, it is the experience of unified, or universal self—self as everything and everyone. The falling away of self is a falling away of even oneness into what is prior to unity. The trajectory is from self experiencing itself as ego, to self experiencing itself as oneness, to self dropping away altogether. What is left cannot be described, because all descriptions are only relevant in terms of their opposites. And beyond self there is no opposite, not even unity or oneness, silence or presence. There is nothing that can be said about it, not even that it is freedom. Where all words fail, that’s where it exists. It is the Pearl beyond price, and it is the only thing that is ever happening or ever could happen. I am not being purposely obscure, I am actually being as direct and concrete as I can.”

“The falling away of self means both the falling away of self and Self, as in True Self. It is beyond both individual self and universal self. And yes, it is beyond all distinctions, categorizations, and descriptions. One cannot open the door to no-self by any means, but one can stop holding the door closed. That is all that is required.”

“It probably sounds pretty bad to have the divine state fall away, and it can be experienced as quite a profound loss. But such a loss is necessary in order for self to fall away and what is beyond self to reveal itself. The problem with the word “self ” is that it is often associated with ego, which it is not. Self as I am using the term is not the ego at all. Self is what enables you to experience the ego state, and the non-ego state alike—as well as divinity, inwardness, outwardness, separation, and unity. All of these experiences happen within, to, and because of self. Self can go from being experienced as profound separation to being experienced as the universal “I am.” It can experience itself as either a separate ego or as God. So self is quite an amazing function. But self does have its limits and it does come to an end. What comes after self is what I am attempting to clarify through this course. Not in order to set up something more to chase, but because more people will be going through this transition in the near future. No-self is not simply an insight after all, and my hope is that this course will be a helpful companion along the way.”

“Self-consciousness is the last form of identity to go, and what goes with it is all the spiritual states of consciousness as well. One of the main reasons why so few people fully make this transition is that they will not let go of all forms of self consciousness and the wonderful forms of expanded experience and identity that go with them. When the “divine within” falls away forever, the movement toward the permanent falling away of self has begun. We only let go completely when we are completely ready to, with no qualifications”

“The question here for you is, what exists in the absence of self ? Not simply in the conceptual absence, as we hear so much silly talk about in modern spirituality, but in the actual lived absence. The absence or emptiness of literally everything reveals the true nature of everything. And the true nature of everything is not only its emptiness but also the true nature of its form, of its existence. From eternity’s point of view, everything is itself; nothing is perceived as either emptiness or form, as existing or not existing. Each moment IS eternity, each thing IS eternity. From the human point of view, this may sound nice but it can in fact be quite stark and shocking. But seen from eternity’s eyes, it all looks quite different.”

Labels: Adyashanti 0 comments | |

Is all self-inquiry safe for starters?

Soh

xabir = Soh

Conversation took place in https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/wwe476/is_all_selfinquiry_safe_for_starters/

Posted by
u/perter_bu7847
7 hours ago
Is all self-inquiry safe for starters?
Practice

Hello,

if someone starts out with meditation is any self inquiry safe for the practioner?

I know the following self-inquiries:

    In the thinking there is only the thought, no thinker. In the seen there is only the seen, no seer. etc.

    Asking oneself where does one's perception of an object end and where does the object start.

    Contemplating on where one's mind is.

    And contemplating on who one was before birth or straight after birth.

Personally I did not start out with self-inquiry or focused on it, so I do not know. Also, if you know other self-inquiries, I would appreciate if you could also comment them down.

Thank you.

PS: I found self-inquiry on #1 to be quite tumultuous after the realization, so I was happy to be already very grounded and healthy and fear that it could be dangerous for someone who isn't.
23 Comments

level 1
xabir
·
2 hr. ago
·edited 1 hr. ago

u/perter_bu7847 You should be aware that the above enquiries 1 to 4 all leads to different realizations.

Number 1 is about anatta and is more of a Buddhist insight. Number 2 is nondual (more precisely -- where does awareness end and manifestation begin, is there any border or division between awareness and manifestation), can lead to substantialist nondual or one mind (like nondual Brahman of Advaita Vedanta) because one starts to realize the nondual nature of awareness and manifestation but this is insufficient to breakthrough the view of 'inherent existence' pertaining to awareness. 4 is more for the initial breakthrough into what Mind is. If one simply realises luminous Mind, or what many non-Buddhists call the "I AM", without contemplating into the nondual aspect (the nondual relationship between mind and phenomena), it will remain as something like an "eternal witness" of the dualist Hindu Samkhya school.

All these enquiries can be found in various Buddhist traditions (even the koan on what is your original face before your parents were born, and other similar self enquiries -- many Buddhist traditions also lead to an initial realization of the luminous Mind first before proceeding into subtler insights like the nondual and anatta and emptiness nature) but you must be aware of the purposes. Having a good teacher is recommended.
3
User avatar
level 2
perter_bu7847
OP·
58 min. ago
·edited 52 min. ago

Thank you. Because of your website and this comment perter_bu knows now.

Do you agree that doing the self-inquiries without any other practice would not work or would even be dangerous?
1
level 3
xabir
·
35 min. ago
·edited 15 min. ago

These inquiries are not necessarily dangerous IMO. But it must be complemented with shamatha, if not at first then later [after the insights]. But it is good and important to have a consistent and disciplined meditation practice from the start. If one has an insight or realization, it will later be followed up or complemented with cultivation of calm abiding. There are some people who had a spontaneous realization or insight from contemplation, but it must later be complemented with meditation training. The insight must also be refined and get deeper, otherwise many people will get stuck at earlier phases of insight such as the "I AM". Many non-Buddhist practitioners, and unfortunately many Buddhist practitioners too, just get stuck at the I AM phase and then they keep training samadhi and prolonging their samadhi into a state of nirvikalpa samadhi no different from the Hindus and non-Buddhists (such as Ramana Maharshi and Eckhart Tolle). These people spent years sitting in meditative absorptions without a care for the world in caves, parks, etc. Training samadhi is a good thing but it is not the be all and end all.

So practice must not be skewed towards samadhi only, nor must it be skewed towards wisdom only without samadhi (like the neo advaitins, but not traditional Advaitins, as the neo advaitins eschew all notions of meditation practice and samadhi). And also the 'wisdom' must be deep, many non-Buddhist mystics get into nondual territories but do not have the correct realization of emptiness, freedom from extremes, emptiness of inherent existence. So they get fixated on substantialist views of a Self or ultimate reality. There is realization of the luminous clarity or even the nondual aspect of Mind, but not its ultimate empty nature, and this will not be sufficient to free us from all fixations and the root of suffering, because any ignorance and view or trace or sense of self/Self, inherent existence and duality is in fact the root of suffering. Only the wisdom of one's nature as inseparable clarity and emptiness liberates.

For liberation in Buddhadharma, there must be both wisdom and samadhi, and both must be clear and deep, when both qualities are present, deep and fine-tuned, there can then be liberation of one's afflictions, or kleshas, the root of samsaric rebirth. But from the perspective of Buddhadharma, on the insight front you will need to gain realization of anatman and dependent origination at least. Otherwise it is not sufficient basis for liberation from samsara. (Simply abiding in the earlier realizations like I AM can lead to fixation in formless realms like the arupajhanas) Other religions may see otherwise or treat those states as finality.

Buddha's teachings:

In Tandem

Yuganaddha Sutta (AN 4:170)

NavigationSuttas/AN/4:170

On one occasion Ven. Ānanda was staying in Kosambī at Ghosita’s monastery. There he addressed the monks, “Friends!”

“Yes, friend,” the monks responded to him.

Ven. Ānanda said: “Friends, whoever—monk or nun—declares the attainment of arahantship in my presence, they all do it by means of one or another of four paths. Which four?

“There is the case where a monk has developed insight preceded by tranquility. As he develops insight preceded by tranquility, the path is born. He follows that path, develops it, pursues it. As he follows the path, developing it & pursuing it—his fetters are abandoned, his obsessions destroyed.

“Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquility preceded by insight. As he develops tranquility preceded by insight, the path is born. He follows that path, develops it, pursues it. As he follows the path, developing it & pursuing it—his fetters are abandoned, his obsessions destroyed.

“Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquility in tandem with insight. As he develops tranquility in tandem with insight, the path is born. He follows that path, develops it, pursues it. As he follows the path, developing it & pursuing it—his fetters are abandoned, his obsessions destroyed.

“Then there is the case where a monk’s mind has its restlessness concerning the Dhamma [Comm: the corruptions of insight] well under control. There comes a time when his mind grows steady inwardly, settles down, and becomes unified & concentrated. In him the path is born. He follows that path, develops it, pursues it. As he follows the path, developing it & pursuing it—his fetters are abandoned, his obsessions destroyed.

“Whoever—monk or nun—declares the attainment of arahantship in my presence, they all do it by means of one or another of these four paths.”

See also: MN 149; SN 35:204; AN 2:29; AN 4:94; AN 10:71
2
User avatar
level 4
perter_bu7847
OP·
16 min. ago

At some point I may have to need to give you money for this.

But for now just one more question. Is it more like not-self teachings, or is it really a no-self? Because no-self always hurts so much and not-self is what I read out of the suttas I came across. And after all we do exist in some way, don't we?
Vote
level 5
xabir
·
2 min. ago

I don't accept money, thank you though. It will be better if you make offerings to actual dharma teachers, be they lay or monastic, and also give offerings to monastic sanghas consisting of monks and nuns, those who do dharma teaching and/or devote their lives to spirituality full time. I have a full time job already.

Also, I wrote this article before which I recommend reading: Anatta: Not-Self or No-Self? http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2011/10/anatta-not-self-or-no-self_1.html

Geoff's article also clarifies anatta and nirvana very well: http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2012/09/great-resource-of-buddha-teachings.html

Also, conventional self is not denied, so we are not nihilists that denies or rejects conventions. But self is ultimately empty when subjected to analysis, just as all other conventions are also found to be empty of real existence when subjected to analysis.

“Buddha never used the term "self" to refer to an unconditioned, permanent, ultimate entity. He also never asserted that there was no conventional "self," the subject of transactional discourse. So, it is very clear in the sutras that the Buddha negated an ultimate self and did not negate a conventional self.” – Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith, 2020

“Anatman is the negation of an unconditioned, permanent, ultimate entity that moves from one temporary body to another. It is not the negation of "Sam," "Fred," or "Jane" used as a conventional designation for a collection of aggregates. Since the Buddha clearly states in many Mahāyāna sūtras, "all phenomena" are not self, and since everything is included there, including buddhahood, therefore, there are no phenomena that can be called a self, and since there are nothing outside of all phenomena, a "self," other than an arbitrary designation, does not exist.”

- Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith

On the not-self or no-self subject, I have to agree with Krodha https://www.reddit.com/user/krodha/ on these points:

krodha

7 points

·

5 days ago

The Buddhist view is that there is no actual seer of sights, no hearer of sounds, no feeler of feelings, no knower of known. When this is experientially recognized in a nonconceptual way, that is “awakening.”

.....

Someone wrote: The Buddha says ‘There is no self to be found in any PHENOMENA.’ Phenomena being that reality that is accessible through the sense gates, i.e. that reality which is fabricated. Of that which is unfabricated, of a noumenal reality, of Nirvana - the Buddha never said there was no self to be found there.

Krodha replied: This is incorrect, and exactly the mistake I’m pointing out that Thanissaro’s adherents fall headlong into. Sabbe dhamma anatta means all dhammas both conditioned and unconditioned are devoid of a self.

The tilakkhaṇa goes:

Sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā

sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā

sabbe dhammā anattā

Which is: all conditioned phenomena are impermanent, all conditioned phenomena are suffering, all phenomena are without a self.

This is very intentional.

The first two lines only address saṅkhārās, or compounded and conditioned phenomena. However the last line changes to say dhamma, and why is that? In Buddhist teachings there are both conditioned and unconditioned dhammas. Therefore this line’s entire purpose is to ensure that the practitioner understands that it is not only saṅkhārās that are selfless, but all phenomena both conditioned and unconditioned. In the Pāli literature there is only one unconditioned dhamma, nibbana. As such the Buddha is stating that not only are all conditioned phenomena devoid of self, but so is nirvana.

This is appropriate because nirvana is not a noumenal principle, but rather it is a species of cessation. The cessation of what? The total cessation of cause for rebirth in the three realms, aka samsara.

....

krodha

1 point · 4 months ago

The point is that anātman is not intended to be a sort of apophatic exercise as Thanissaro suggests. Rather it is the lack of a svabhāva or inherent self in the mind. The prevailing issue with Thanissaro’s approach is that you have people who wrongly assert that the Buddha never said there is no self, which is an absurd misconception. The Buddha clearly and routinely says there is no self to be found in any phenomena anywhere.

Now, does this negate the action of “taking out the trash” as you mention, no, because that is a conventional action performed by a conventional self. We as Buddhists, do not negate the validity of conventional activities and entities as these things appear, we simply state that all conventional designations are ultimately only nominal in nature. Nominal, meaning inferential in the sense that the associated imputation suggests the validity of an entity, however if we investigate the basis of said imputation, the entity cannot actually be found because it is merely an abstraction. A useful abstraction, but not actually established or real.

In this way you can be a conventional individual who takes out the trash and performs many activities, but like an image of a tiger in a dream, there is no actual tiger present. The same goes for the appearance of you as a conventional individual taking the trash out, there is not actually an individual there when the imputed self is keenly scrutinized.
1
User avatar
level 2
perter_bu7847
OP·
57 min. ago
·edited 38 min. ago

Plus, do you also know for what number 3 is for?
1
level 3
xabir
·
29 min. ago

That depends on how the teacher guides the student. I personally never asked "where one's mind is."

If the teacher is telling the student to ask "where one's mind is" with the emphasis on discovering the unfindability or emptiness of mind (much like Shurangama Sutra's questioning on the 7 locations of mind with the conclusion that mind is unfindable), that is more on anatman or emptiness.

If the teacher is telling the student to ask "where one's mind is" with the emphasis on discovering the pure luminous Presence or sheer pristine Existence/Consciousness of Mind, that is more on the luminous clarity aspect of mind.
2
User avatar
level 4
perter_bu7847
OP·
11 min. ago

Thank you.
Vote

0 comments | |

How should we understand Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra?

Soh

Someone wrote:

"Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra is one of the most famous text of Mahāyāna Buddhism devoted to the positive affirmation of the eternal Self (or True Self) as opposed to impermanent nonself.

Buddha gives the following characteristics to the notion of Self:
“The Self (ātman) is reality (tattva),
the Self is permanent (nitya),
the Self is virtue (guna),
the Self is eternal (śāśvatā),
the Self is stable (dhruva),
the Self is peace (siva)”"

I replied:

"Did the historical Buddha teach the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra? Certainly not. It developed several hundred years after the first suttas appeared. But Buddhism as a whole is clearly an evolutionary/evolving thing, in the same way as everything in the world - biology, religion, worldviews, politics, economy, art, culture, you name it, it has grown and evolved over time. Something that is alive and living is evolving and growing and progressing, otherwise it's dead. From the Pali suttas, to the Abdhidharma, to Mahayana - Tathagatagarbha, Prajnaparamita, Yogacara, Madhyamika, etc... from Theravada, to Mahayana, to Vajrayana, (and even within Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana, there were many evolutionary offshoots) etc.

Mahaparinirvana Sutra should be seen in that light. It arose as an evolutionary reaction to the environment, the times. In particular as a reaction to the growing influence of Hinduism. But something evolutionary would by definition include its preceding doctrines, but 'transcend' it by adding 'new features' or a 'new presentation' of it. However, it cannot be something that fundamentally contradicts the preceding teachings by completely replacing it with something else (then that would not be 'transcend and include'), such as replacing the non-substantialist Prajnaparamita tenets with a diametrically contradicting tenet such as a substantialist/essentialist or Vedantic vision of reality.

So we cannot understand Tathagatagarbha Sutra without first understanding the fundamental teachings of Prajnaparamita, Abhidharma, and Pali Suttas, since the evolutionary edge always includes but transcends its predecessors.

And we know this from the Mahayana sutras that dealt with the Tathagatagarbha doctrines. We know that Nirvana Sutra "transcends and includes" its preceding doctrines.

Nirvana Sutra: "If selflessness is demonstrated, the immature grasp to the explanation thinking there is no self. The intelligent on the other hand think "The [self] exists conventionally, there is no doubt."

-- The conventional nature of self is taught even in the Pali Suttas, such as Vajira Sutta.

Nirvana Sutra: "One must know that the teaching of the Buddha is "this is the middle way." The Bhagavān Buddha teaches the path as the middle way that is free from the extremes of permanence and annihilation. Some fools however, confused about the Buddha's teaching, like those with weak digestive heat who consume butter, quickly come to have views about the two extremes. Though existence is not established, also nonexistence is not established."

Krodha wrote: "This is how tathāgatagarbha is defined. As a potential. The Mahāparinirvāṇa sūtra:

That is called “Buddha-nature” because all sentient beings are to be unsurpassedly, perfectly, completely enlightened at a future time. Because afflictions exist in all sentient beings at present, because of that, the thirty two perfect marks and the eighty excellent exemplary signs do not exist.
Child of the lineage, I have said that “curd exists in milk,” because curd is produced from milk, it is called “curd.” Child of lineage, at the time of milk, there is no curd, also there is no butter, ghee or manda, because the curd arises from milk with the conditions of heat, impurities, etc., milk is said to have the “curd-nature.""

"Tathagatagarbha is a potentiality, the idea that everyone has the capacity to actualize oneself to Buddhahood. Invented as part of a reaction towards the strong movement of Hindu culture. Hinduism is basically based on Brahman and Atman - the eternal Self, and Buddhism's anatta is a direct contradiction against that. It is for this reason that Mahayana developed. In all the four tenets, the middle way, the yogacara, the sutra school and Vaibhashika, all are based on the fundamental understand of the three universal characteristics." - John Tan, 2015, What is an Authentic Buddhist Teaching?

Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith:

This passage merely indicates that sometimes Buddha taught there is no self, other times he taught there was a self, as an antidote to different extremes. It is not the case however that this passage is claiming there is an actual self that is real, permanent, and so on. The Nirvana sutra states, as mentioned before:

When it is explained that the tathāgatgarbha is empty, the immature cultivate an incorrect fear; the intelligent know permanence, stability and immutability to be illusory.

Also the idea that tathāgatagarbha is full-fledged buddhahood is contradicted by this passage:

The seed existing in oneself that turns into buddhahood is called "tathāgatgarbha," the buddhahood which one will obtain.

Or:

When the Tathāgata explains to the bhikṣus and bhikṣunis that his body is afflicted with a limitless great illness, at that time it should be understood that absence of self is being explained, and one should cultivate the meditation of selflessness. When the Tathāgata explains liberation is signless, empty and nothing at all, at that time one should understand the explanation that liberation is free from the 25 existences, and therefore it is called emptiness. Why?, since there is no suffering, there isn't any suffering at all, it is supreme bliss and signless. Why?, since that [suffering] is not permanent, not stable and not immutable, and because the nature of peace is not nonexistent, therefore, liberation is permanent, stable, immutable and peaceful, that is the Tathāgata. When the Tathāgata explains that the tathāgatagarbha exists sentient beings, at that time, one must correctly cultivate the meditation of permanence.

So really, it is not necessary reify liberation as a self, though some people may find it temporarily useful. But in the above statement there is no reason to reify an entity. Being free from the 25 or three realms does not mean that there is some entity outside of or apart from the three realms. A self either a) exists in the three realms, b) or it does not exist at all, or c) is just a philosophical abstraction used to describe the permanence of liberation when it is attained, and the permanent potential one has to be liberated.
http://www.atikosha.org

Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith:

Here, the Nirvana sutra clearly and precisely states that buddha-svabhaava, the "nature of a Buddha" refers not to an actual nature but a potential. Why, it continues:

"Child of the lineage, I have said that ‘curd exists in milk’, because curd is produced from milk, it is called ‘curd’.

Child of lineage, at the time of milk, there is no curd, also there is no butter, ghee or ma.n.da, because the curd arises from milk with the conditions of heat, impurities, etc., milk is said to have the ‘curd-nature’."

So one must be quite careful not to make an error. The Lanka states unequivocably that the tathagatagarbha doctrine is merely a device to lead those who grasp at a true self the inner meaning of the Dharma, non-arising, the two selflessnesses and so on, and explains the meaning of the literal examples some people constantly err about:

"Similarly, that tathaagatagarbha taught in the suutras spoken by the Bhagavan, since the completely pure luminous clear nature is completely pure from the beginning, possessing the thirty two marks, the Bhagavan said it exists inside of the bodies of sentient beings.

When the Bhagavan described that– like an extremely valuable jewel thoroughly wrapped in a soiled cloth, is thoroughly wrapped by cloth of the aggregates, aayatanas and elements, becoming impure by the conceptuality of the thorough conceptuality suppressed by the passion, anger and ignorance – as permanent, stable and eternal, how is the Bhagavan’s teaching this as the tathaagatagarbha is not similar with as the assertion of self of the non-Buddhists?

Bhagavan, the non-Buddhists make assertion a Self as “A permanent creator, without qualities, pervasive and imperishable”.

The Bhagavan replied:

“Mahaamati, my teaching of tathaagatagarbha is not equivalent with the assertion of the Self of the non-Buddhists.

Mahaamati, the Tathaagata, Arhat, Samyak Sambuddhas, having demonstrated the meaning of the words "emptiness, reality limit, nirvana, non-arisen, signless", etc. as tathaagatagarbha for the purpose of the immature complete forsaking the perishable abodes, demonstrate the expertiential range of the non-appearing abode of complete non-conceptuality by demonstrating the door of tathaagatagarbha.

Mahaamati, a self should not be perceived as real by Bodhisattva Mahaasattvas enlightened in the future or presently.

Mahaamati, for example, a potter, makes one mass of atoms of clay into various kinds containers from his hands, craft, a stick, thread and effort.

Mahaamati, similarly, although Tathaagatas avoid the nature of conceptual selflessness in dharmas, they also appropriately demonstrate tathaagatagarbha or demonstrate emptiness by various kinds [of demonstrations] possessing prajñaa and skillful means; like a potter, they demonstrate with various enumerations of words and letters. As such, because of that,

Mahaamati, the demonstration of Tathaagatagarbha is not similar with the Self demonstrated by the non-Buddhists.

Mahaamati, the Tathaagatas as such, in order to guide those grasping to assertions of the Self of the Non-Buddhists, will demonstrate tathaagatagarbha with the demonstration of tathaagatagarbha. How else will the sentient beings who have fallen into a conceptual view of a True Self, possess the thought to abide in the three liberations and quickly attain the complete manifestation of Buddha in unsurpassed perfect, complete enlightenment?"

Thus, the Lanka says:

All yaanas are included
in five dharmas, three natures,
eight consciousnesses,
and two selflessnesses

It does not add anything about a true self and so on.

If one accepts that tathaagatagarbha is the aalayavij~naana, and one must since it is identified as such, then one is accepting that it is conditioned and afflicted and evolves, thus the Lanka states:

Tathaagatagarbha, known as ‘the all-base consciousness’, is to be completely purified.

Mahaamati, if what is called the all-base consciousness were (37/a) not connected to the tathaagatagarbha, because the tathaagatagarbha would not be ‘the all-base consciousness’, although it would be not be engaged, it also would not evolve; Mahaamati, it is engaged by both the childish and Aaryas, that also evolves.

Because great yogins, the ones not abandoning effort, abide with blissful conduct in this at the time of personally knowing for themselves…the tathaagatagarbha-all basis consciousness is the sphere of the Tathaagatas; it is the object which also is the sphere of teachers, [those] of detailed and learned inclinations like you, and Bodhisattva Mahaasattvas of analytic intellect.

And:

Although tathaagatagarbha
possesses seven consciousnesses;
always engaged with dualistic apprehensions
[it] will evolve with thorough understanding.

If one accepts that the tathaagatagarbha is unconditioned and so on, and one must, since it is identified as such other sutras state:

"`Saariputra, the element of sentient beings denotes the word tathaagatagarbha.
`Saariputra, that word ‘tathaagatagarbha’ denotes Dharmakaaya.

And:

`Saariputra, because of that, also the element of sentient beings is not one thing and the Dharmakaaya another; the element of sentient beings itself is Dharmakaaya; Dharmakaaya itself is the element of sentient beings.

Then one cannot accept it as the aalayavij~naana-- or worse, one must somehow imagine that something conditioned somehow becomes conditioned.

Other sutras state that tathaagatagarbha is the citta, as the Angulimaala suutra does here:

"Although in the `Sraavakayaana it is shown as ‘mind’, the meaning of the teaching is ‘tathaagatagarbha’; whatever mind is naturally pure, that is called ‘tathaagatagarbha’.

So, one must understand that these sutras are provisional and definitive, each giving different accounts of the tathaagatagarbha for different students, but they are not defintive. Understood improperly, they lead one into a non-Buddhist extremes. Understood and explained properly, they lead those afraid of the profound Praj~naapaaramitaa to understanding it's sublime truth. In other words, the Buddha nature teaching is just a skillful means as the Nirvana sutra states

"Child of the lineage, buddha-nature is like this; although the ten powers and the four fearlessnesses, compassion, and the three foundations of mindfulness are the three aspects existing in sentient beings; [those] will be newly seen when defilements are thoroughly conquered. The possessors of perversion will newly attain the ten powers (44/b) and four fearlessness, great compassion and three foundations of mindfulness having thoroughly conquered perversion.

Because that is the purpose as such, I teach buddha-nature always exists in all sentient beings.

When one can compare and contrast all of these citations, and many more side by side, with the proper reading of the Uttataratantra, one will see the propositions about these doctrines by the Dark Zen fools and others of their ilk are dimmed like stars at noon.

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

Laṅkāvatāra Sutra:

"Similarly, that tathagatagarbha taught in the sutras spoken by the Bhagavan, since the completely pure luminous clear nature is completely pure from the beginning, possessing the thirty two marks, the Bhagavan said it exists inside of the bodies of sentient beings. When the Bhagavan described that– like an extremely valuable jewel thoroughly wrapped in a soiled cloth, is thoroughly wrapped by cloth of the aggregates, ayatanas and elements, becoming impure by the conceptuality of the thorough conceptuality suppressed by the passion, anger and ignorance – as permanent, stable and eternal, how is the Bhagavan’s teaching this as the tathagatagarbha is not similar with as the assertion of self of the non-Buddhists?
Bhagavan, the non-Buddhists make assertion a Self as 'A permanent creator, without qualities, pervasive and imperishable.'

The Bhagavan replied:

'Mahamati, my teaching of tathagatagarbha is not equivalent with the assertion of the Self of the non-Buddhists. Mahamati, the Tathagata, Arhat, Samyaksambuddhas, having demonstrated the meaning of the words "emptiness, reality limit, nirvana, non-arisen, signless", etc. as tathagatagarbha for the purpose of the immature complete forsaking the perishable abodes, demonstrate the expertiential range of the non-appearing abode of complete non-conceptuality by demonstrating the door of tathagatagarbha. Mahamati, a self should not be perceived as real by Bodhisattva Mahasattvas enlightened in the future or presently. Mahamati, for example, a potter, makes one mass of atoms of clay into various kinds containers from his hands, craft, a stick, thread and effort. Mahamati, similarly, although Tathagatas avoid the nature of conceptual selflessness in dharmas, they also appropriately demonstrate tathagatagarbha or demonstrate emptiness by various kinds [of demonstrations] possessing prajña and skillful means; like a potter, they demonstrate with various enumerations of words and letters. As such, because of that, Mahamati, the demonstration of Tathagatagarbha is not similar with the Self demonstrated by the non-Buddhists. Mahamati, the Tathagatas as such, in order to guide those grasping to assertions of the Self of the Non-Buddhists, will demonstrate tathagatagarbha with the demonstration of tathagatagarbha. How else will the sentient beings who have fallen into a conceptual view of a Self, possess the thought to abide in the three liberations and quickly attain the complete manifestation of Buddha in unsurpassed perfect, complete enlightenment?"

The Laṅkāvatāra also states:

"O Mahāmati, with a view to casting aside the heterodox theory, you must treat the tathāgatagarbha as not self [anātman]."

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

Also here is how definitive Mahayana sutras are defined:

Excerpt from http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../sutra-of-definitive...

Sūtra of Definitive Meaning vs Sūtra of Provisional Meaning

Quoted from Kyle:

The Āryākṣayamatinirdeśa-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra sets out the criteria for a sūtra of definitive meaning:

'Any sūtrānta which explains in a variety of different terms a self, a sentient being, a living being, a personality, a person, an individual, one born from a human, a human, an agent, an experiencer — teaching an owner in what is ownerless — those sutras are called "of provisional meaning". Any sūtrānta which teaches emptiness, the signless, the wishless, the unconditioned, the non-arisen, the unproduced, the insubstantial, the non-existence of self, the non-existence of sentient beings, the non-existence of living beings, the non-existence of individuals, the non-existence of an owner up to the doors of liberation, those are called "definitive meaning". This is taught in the sūtrāntas of of definitive meaning but is not taught in the sūtrāntas of the provisional meaning.'

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

Acarya Malcolm Smith comments:

Nirvana Sutra: The Self is true [satya], real [tattva], eternal [nitya], sovereign/ autonomous/ self-governing [aisvarya], and whose ground/ foundation is unchanging [asraya-aviparinama], is termed ‘the Self’ [atman]. This is as in the case of the great Doctor who well understands the milk medicine. The same is the case with the Tathagata. For the sake of beings, he says “there is the Self in all things” O you the four classes! Learn Dharma thus!”

When it is explained that the tathāgatgarbha is empty, the immature cultivate an incorrect fear; the intelligent know permanence, stability and immutability to be illusory.

Also the idea that tathāgatagarbha is full-fledged buddhahood is contradicted by this passage:

The seed existing in oneself that turns into buddhahood is called "tathāgatgarbha," the buddhahood which one will obtain.

Or:

When the Tathāgata explains to the bhikṣus and bhikṣunis that his body is afflicted with a limitless great illness, at that time it should be understood that absence of self is being explained, and one should cultivate the meditation of selflessness. When the Tathāgata explains liberation is signless, empty and nothing at all, at that time one should understand the explanation that liberation is free from the 25 existences, and therefore it is called emptiness. Why?, since there is no suffering, there isn't any suffering at all, it is supreme bliss and signless. Why?, since that [suffering] is not permanent, not stable and not immutable, and because the nature of peace is not nonexistent, therefore, liberation is permanent, stable, immutable and peaceful, that is the Tathāgata. When the Tathāgata explains that the tathāgatagarbha exists sentient beings, at that time, one must correctly cultivate the meditation of permanence.

So really, it is not necessary reify liberation as a self, though some people may find it temporarily useful. But in the above statement there is no reason to reify an entity. Being free from the 25 or three realms does not mean that there is some entity outside of or apart from the three realms. A self either a) exists in the three realms, b) or it does not exist at all, or c) is just a philosophical abstraction used to describe the permanence of liberation when it is attained, and the permanent potential one has to be liberated.

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

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=97&t=19453&start=80

Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith:

The Uttaratantra states:

Unconditioned, effortless,
not realized through other conditions,
endowed with wisdom, compassion and power,
buddhahood is endowed with two benefits.

But what does this really all mean?

When we examine Asanga's comments on this, he states:

When these are summarized, buddhahood is described with eight qualties. If it is asked what those eight qualities are, they are unconditioned, effortless, not realized through other conditions, wisdom, compassion, power, the abundance of one's own benefit and the abundance of others' benefit. [Buddhahood] is unconditioned because it is the nature of lacking a beginning, middle and end. It is called "effortless" because peace is endowed with the dharmakāya. It is not realized through other conditions because each person must realize it for themselves. It is wisdom because those three things are realized. [Buddhahood] is compassionate because [the Buddha] shows the path. It is powerful because it is free from suffering and affliction. The former three [unconditioned, effortless and not realized through other conditions] are for one's own benefit; the latter three [wisdom, compassion and power] are for others' benefit.

In that regard, the conditioned is fully understood as arising somewhere, and also understood as abiding and perishing. Because those do not exist [arising, abiding and perishing], buddhahood itself is unconditioned without a beginning, middle and an end. This is seen as a differentiation made through the dharmakāya. Because all proliferation and concepts are pacified, [buddhahood] is effortless [lhun gyis grub]. Buddhahood is not realized through other conditions because it is realized through wisdom oneself produced. Here, udayo [to produce] is not the arising of a desire for realization. As such, the tathāgata is unconditioned due to the truth, out of the characteristics of non-engagement, all the activities of the buddha effortlessly engaged in without impediment and without interruption for as long as samsara exists

So let us parse this out a little bit.

Asanga states in his commentary on the Uttaratantra:

...the conditioned is understood as arising somewhere, and also understood as abiding and perishing. Because those do not exist [arising, abiding and perishing], buddhahood itself is unconditioned without a beginning, middle and an end.

Buddhahood is unconditioned because the trio of arising, abiding and perishing are false. Not because in contrast to things that arise, abide and perish, buddhahood does not arise, abide and perish.

Buddhahood however has a cause, as he writes:

Buddhahood is not realized through other conditions because it is realized through wisdom oneself produced.

Buddhahood is also effortless, because, as he writes:

...all proliferation and concepts are pacified, [buddhahood] is effortless [lhun gyis grub]...As such, the tathāgata is unconditioned due to the truth; and from the characteristics of non-engagement, all the activities of the buddha are engaged in effortlessly [lhun grub], without impediment and without interruption for as long as samsara exists

As for tathāgatagarbha always existing in the continuums of sentient beings; if you think somehow tathāgatagarba is something other than or different than a sentient beings mind, there there is a fallacy of the tathāgatagarbha being something like an atman. But there is no atman in the tathāgatagarbha theory, not really. the supreme self, (paramātma) is explained very clearly in the Uttaratantra:

The supreme self is the pacification of the proliferations of self and and nonself.

But what does this mean? Asanga adds:

The perfection of self (ātmapāramitā) is known through two reasons: due to being free from proliferation of a self because of being free from the extreme of the non-buddhists and due to being free from the proliferation of nonself because of giving up the extreme of the śrāvakas.

He explains further:

From cultivating prajñāpāramita in order to turn away from seeing the five addictive aggregates as self, the non-existent self in which the others, the nonbuddhists, delight, one attains the result, the perfection of self. In this way all the others, the nonbuddhists, accept natureless things such as matter and so on as a self due to their being deceived by a characteristic of a self according to how those things are being apprehended, but that self never existed.

The Tathāgata, on the other hand, has attained the supreme perfection of the selflessness of all phenomena through the wisdom that is in accord with just how things truly are, and though there is no self according to how he sees things, he asserts a self all the time because he is never deceived by the characteristic of a self that does not exist. Making the selfless into a self is like saying "abiding through the mode of nonabiding.

There are some people who, ignoring the Nirvana Sutra's admonition to rely on the meaning rather than on the words, fall headlong into eternalism, unable to parse the Buddha's profound meaning through addiction to naive literalism.

Tathagatagarbha is just a potential to become a buddha. When we say it is has infinite qualities, this is nothing more nor less than when the Vajrapañjara praises the so called "jewel-like mind":

The jewel-like mind is tainted with
evil conceptual imputations;
but when the mind is purified it becomes pure.
Just as space cannot be destroyed,
just as is space, so too is the mind.
By activating the jewel-like mind
and meditating on the mind itself, there is the stage of buddhahood,
and in this life there will be sublime buddhahood.
There is no buddha nor a person
outside of the jewel-like mind,
the abode of consciousness is ultimate,
outside of which there isn't the slightest thing.
All buddhahood is through the mind...
Matter, sensation, perception
formations and consciousness
these all arise from the mind,
these [five] munis are not anything else.
Like a great wishfulfilling gem,
granting the results of desires and goals,
the pure original nature of the true state of the mind
bestows the result, Buddha's awakening

There is no other basis apart from this natural purity of the mind that is inseparable clarity and emptiness. We can call it whatever we want, but still this fact remains. The Lankāvatara rightly observes that tathāgatagarbha is just a name for emptiness and the ālayavijñāna for those afraid of emptiness. Jayānanda writes that ālayavijñāna is the mind that comprehends the basis, i.e. emptiness. How else can the mind be purified of evil conceptual imputations other than by realizing emptiness? Emptiness free from all extremes is the pure original nature of the true state of the mind, so why bother confusing oneself with all kinds of rhetoric? The mind itself has two aspects, emptiness and clarity, ka dag and lhun grub, and these are inseparable. This inseparable clarity and emptiness is call the ālaya in gsar ma and the basis in Nyingma. This also known as tathagatagarbha when it encased in afflictions, the dharmadhātu from its ultimate side, the ālayavijñāna from its relative side and so on. It really is not that complicated.

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

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=35741&hilit=mahaparinirvana+sutra

Malcolm on Tathatagatagarbha:

According to the Lanka, it is a doctrine for those afraid of emptiness, therefore provisional.

Seeker12:

According to Longchenpa, the TTG Sutras are the definitive ones. FWIW. I'm sure you know that.

Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith:

They are for Gorampa as well, providing tathāgatagarbha is properly understood. But if for example the nine examples are not correctly understood, he states the TTG sūtras are provisional.

Also, the reason Longchenpa claims the TTG sūtras are definitive has to do with how he understands them in relation to Dzogchen. He also defines Prasanga Madhyamaka as the definitive view.

In general, however, the Buddha himself declares the tathāgatagarbha doctrine provisional, that is interpretable, in the Lanka Sūtra.

.....

It is well known through the Dharma of the tantras, agamas and upadeśas of the Great Perfection, the teachings of Omniscient Longchenpa up to the lineage of gurus of Kama and Terma of the present day that unconditioned vidyā is introduced as the dharmatā of the union of clarity and emptiness.

......

You mean rig pa. Rig pa is also empty, baseless, and not established in anyway at all. The Dzogchen tantras and Longchenpa declare this univocally.

Retinue of nonexistent superficial appearances, listen!

There is no separate object in me, the view of self-originated pristine consciousness. Passing away in the past does not exist. Arising in

the future does not exist. Appearing in the present does not exist in any way. Karma does not exist. Traces do not exist. Ignorance does not exist. Mind does not exist. Intellect does not exist. Wisdom does not exist. Saṃsāra does not exist. Nirvāṇa does not exist. Not even vidyā (rig pa) itself exists. Not even the appearances of pristine consciousness exist. All those arose from a nonexistent apprehender.

-- Tantra Without Syllables.

This "nonexistent apprehender," indicates the union of the two truths. Even rig pa is something relative, that is why it is a path dharma, not a result dharma. It vanishes at the time of the result.

......

No, Yogacāra really is a realist school, despite the attempts of some traditional Tibetan and Chinese scholars, and modern scholars like Dan Lusthaus, to revision it in nonrealist terms.

.....

You can just use Nāgārjuna as a source: emptiness incorrectly seen is like grasping a viper by the tail or incorrect reciting a vidyāmantra. Nevertheless, the Lanka's perspective on tathāgatagarbha is pretty clear.

....

shankara wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 9:31 pm I just last night read something of Taranatha on this subject. A short treatise you can find here: https://dzokden.org/read/library/study/ ... mentaries/.

What he says about the Rangtong treating the second turning of the wheel of Dharma as definitive and the third (as well as the first) as provisional is very interesting. Firstly, I would like to know if this is true? If so, it strikes me as problematic.

Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith:

The whole theory of the three turnings of the wheel is problematic, actually. There isn't any agreement which sutras are "third turning."

The Indian masters paid no attention to the three turnings at all. As a doctrine it finds no place in Dzogchen teachings at all until after the thirteenth century. The Sakyapas largely ignore it.

The Gelukpas treat the second turning as definitive.

Some teachers include the tathāgatagarbha sūtras in this category (though the Indian Yogacāra master themselves were skeptical of tathāgatagarbha theory, since they advocated the theory of the icchantika, Madhyāmikas were actually more open to it than Yogacārins).

This is mostly a Tibetan trip, based on the commentary of the Korean Master Wongchuk on the Samdhinirmocana Sūtra, translated during the imperial period.

shankara wrote: The "Mahaparinirvana Sutra" is apparently of the third turning, and personally I think it is the most definitive of all Sutras (excepting perhaps the Lotus) due to it being the last preached before the death of Shakyamuni. Does the Rangtong school really regard this Sutra as provisional?

Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith:

There is no such thing as a "rang stong school," except in the eyes of gzhan stong pas.

Generally speaking, everyone in India, including the Yogacāra masters, regarded the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras as definitive in meaning. We know this for example because Virupa, who had been a Yogacāra master prior to his awakening, carried a copy of the PP in 8000 lines with him everywhere he travelled.

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

As for what is the definitive meaning of Buddha-Nature, the Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith wrote:

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=15368&hilit=definitive+clarity+empty&start=120

The term bdag nyid, atman, just means, in this case, "nature", i.e. referring to the nature of reality free from extremes as being permanent, blissful, pure and self. The luminosity of the mind is understood to be this.

There are various ways to interpret the Uttaratantra and tathāgatagarbha doctrine, one way is definitive in meaning, the other is provisional, according to Gorampa Sonam Senge, thus the tathāgatagarbha sutras become definitive or provisional depending on how they are understood. He states:

In the context of showing the faults of a literal [interpretation] – it's equivalence with the Non-Buddhist Self is that the assertion of unique eternal all pervading cognizing awareness of the Saṃkhya, the unique eternal pristine clarity of the Pashupattis, the unique all pervading intellect of the Vaiśnavas, the impermanent condition, the measure of one’s body, in the permanent self-nature of the Jains, and the white, brilliant, shining pellet the size of an atom, existing in each individual’s heart of the Vedantins are the same.

The definitive interpretation he renders as follows:

Therefor, the Sugatagarbha is defined as the union of clarity and emptiness but not simply emptiness without clarity, because that [kind of emptiness] is not suitable to be a basis for bondage and liberation. Also it is not simple clarity without emptiness, that is the conditioned part, because the Sugatagarbha is taught as unconditioned.

Khyentse Wangpo, often cited as a gzhan stong pa, basically says that the treatises of Maitreya elucidate the luminosity of the mind, i.e. its purity, whereas Nāgarjuna's treatises illustrate the empty nature of the mind, and that these two together, luminosity and emptiness free from extremes are to be understood as noncontradictory, which we can understand from the famous Prajñāpāramita citation "There is no mind in the mind, the nature of the mind is luminosity".

......

So, the definitive meaning of buddha-nature is the union of clarity and emptiness.

This is why clarity is not being negated but realised to be empty of inherent existence -- http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2019/01/no-awareness-does-not-mean-non.html

Not just John Tan, Malcolm, Archarya Shridhar Rana Rinpoche, etc etc, even the current Dalai Lama has explained in his talks multiple times that the Hindus and Buddhists both share similar realisation on the Clarity aspect of Buddha-Nature, but what is unique about Buddhism is the insights into its empty nature.

As John Tan/Thusness wrote way back even in 2004:

“Buddhism is nothing but replacing the 'Self' in Hinduism with Condition Arising. Keep the clarity, the presence, the luminosity and eliminate the ultimate 'Self', the controller, the supreme. Still you must taste, sense, eat, hear and see Pure Awareness in every authentication. And every authentication is Bliss.” - John Tan, 2004

“Understand immense intelligence not as if someone is there to act and direct, rather as total exertion of the universe to make this moment possible; then all appearances are miraculous and marvelous.” - John Tan, 2012

“The Pristine awareness is often mistaken as the 'Self'. It is especially difficult for one that has intuitively experience the 'Self' to accept 'No-Self'. As I have told you many times that there will come a time when you will intuitively perceive the 'I' -- the pure sense of Existence but you must be strong enough to go beyond this experience until the true meaning of Emptiness becomes clear and thorough. The Pristine Awareness is the so-called True-Self' but why we do not call it a 'Self' and why Buddhism has placed so much emphasis on the Emptiness nature? This then is the true essence of Buddhism. It is needless to stress anything about 'Self' in Buddhism; there are enough of 'Logies' of the 'I" in Indian Philosophies. If one wants to know about the experience of 'I AM', go for the Vedas and Bhagavad Gita. We will not know what Buddha truly taught 2500 years ago if we buried ourselves in words. Have no doubt that The Dharma Seal is authentic and not to be confused.

When you have experienced the 'Self' and know that its nature is empty, you will know why to include this idea of a 'Self' into Buddha-Nature is truly unnecessary and meaningless. True Buddhism is not about eliminating the 'small Self' but cleansing this so called 'True Self' (Atman) with the wisdom of Emptiness.” - John Tan, 2005

"What you are suggesting is already found in Samkhya system. I.e. the twenty four tattvas are not the self aka purusha. Since this system was well known to the Buddha, if that's all his insight was, then his insight is pretty trivial. But Buddha's teachings were novel. Why where they novel? They were novel in the fifth century BCE because of his teaching of dependent origination and emptiness. The refutation of an ultimate self is just collateral damage." - Lopon Malcolm

In January 2005, John Tan wrote:

“[19:21] <^john^> learn how to experience emptiness and no-selfness. :)
[19:22] <^john^> this is the only way to liberate.
[19:22] <^john^> not to dwell too deeply into the minor aspect of pure awareness.
[19:23] <^john^> of late i have been seeing songs and poems relating to the luminosity aspect of Pure Awareness.
[19:23] <^john^> uncreated, original, mirror bright, not lost in nirvana and samsara..etc
[19:23] <^john^> what use is there?
[19:24] <ZeN`n1th> oic...
[19:24] <^john^> we have from the very beginning so and yet lost for countless aeons of lives.
[19:25] <^john^> buddha did not come to tell only about the luminosity aspect of pure awareness.
[19:25] <^john^> this has already been expressed in vedas.
[19:25] <^john^> but it becomes Self.
[19:25] <^john^> the ultimate controller
[19:26] <^john^> the deathless
[19:26] <^john^> the supreme..etc
[19:26] <^john^> this is the problem.
[19:26] <^john^> this is not the ultimate nature of Pure Awareness.
[19:27] <^john^> for full enlightenment to take place, experience the clarity and emptiness. That's all.”

    And in March 2006, John Tan said:

    <^john^> the different between hinduism and buddhism is they return to the "I AM" and clings to it.
    <^john^> always "I" as the source.
    <ZeN`n1th> icic
    <^john^> but in buddhism it is being replaced by "emptiness nature", there is a purest, an entity, a stage to be gained or achieved is an illusion.
    <^john^> there is none. No self to be found. No identity to assumed. Nothing attained.
    <ZeN`n1th> oic..
    <^john^> this is truly the All.
    <^john^> so for a teaching that is so thorough and complete, why must it resort back to a "True Self"?
    <ZeN`n1th> hmm but i got a question about just now you say impermanent... but mahayana texts also say tathagathagarbha is permanent right?
    <^john^> yes but for other reasons.
    <ZeN`n1th> what kind of reasons
    <ZeN`n1th> wat you mean
    <^john^> first you must know that there is really a very subtle difference between pure subjectivity and emptiness nature.
    <ZeN`n1th> icic
    <^john^> for one that has experienced in full emptiness nature, does he/she need to create an extra "True Self"?
    <ZeN`n1th> so wat difference
    <ZeN`n1th> no
    <^john^> he already knows and experiences and completely understand the arising cause and conditions of why the "true self" was created...
    <^john^> will he still be confused?
    <^john^> he knows exactly what is happening, the reality of the 'self'.
    <ZeN`n1th> icic..
    <^john^> i would say it is due to his compassion to let the other sects have a chance to understand the dharma that he said so.
    <^john^> this is what i think.
    <^john^> but there is no necessity to preach something extra.
    <ZeN`n1th> oic
    <^john^> in light of emptiness nature, "True Self" is not necessary.
    <ZeN`n1th> icic
    <^john^> the so called "purest" is already understood, there is no clinging.
    <^john^> there is hearing, no hearer...etc
    <^john^> is already beyond "True Self".
    <ZeN`n1th> oic
    <^john^> yet it exactly knows the stage of "True Self".
    <^john^> if there is no hearing...then something is wrong.
    <^john^>
    <^john^> but there is hearing but no hearer.
    <ZeN`n1th> hahaha
    <ZeN`n1th> oic
    <^john^> put your time into practice and understanding of no-self and emptiness.
    <^john^>
    <ZeN`n1th> ok

John Tan's reply on something Malcolm wrote in 2020:

“This is like what I tell you and essentially emphasizing 明心非见性. 先明心, 后见性. (Soh: Apprehending Mind is not seeing [its] Nature. First apprehend Mind, later realise [its] Nature).

First is directly authenticating mind/consciousness 明心 (Soh: Apprehending Mind). There is the direct path like zen sudden enlightenment of one's original mind or mahamudra or dzogchen direct introduction of rigpa or even self enquiry of advaita -- the direct, immediate, perception of "consciousness" without intermediaries. They are the same.

However that is not realization of emptiness. Realization of emptiness is 见性 (Soh: Seeing Nature). Imo there is direct path to 明心 (Soh: Apprehending Mind) but I have not seen any direct path to 见性 (Soh: Seeing Nature) yet. If you go through the depth and nuances of our mental constructs, you will understand how deep and subtle the blind spots are.

Therefore emptiness or 空性 (Soh: Empty Nature) is the main difference between buddhism and other religions. Although anatta is the direct experiential taste of emptiness, there is still a difference between buddhist's anatta and selflessness of other religions -- whether it is anatta by experiential taste of the dissolution of self alone or the experiential taste is triggered by wisdom of emptiness.

The former focused on selflessness and whole path of practice is all about doing away with self whereas the latter is about living in the wisdom of emptiness and applying that insight and wisdom of emptiness to all phenomena.

As for emptiness there is the fine line of seeing through inherentness of Tsongkhapa and there is the emptiness free from extremes by Gorampa. Both are equally profound so do not talk nonsense and engaged in profane speech as in terms of result, ultimately they are the same (imo).”

Dalai Lama - "Nature - there are many different levels. Conventional level, one nature. There are also, you see, different levels. Then, ultimate level, ultimate reality... so simply realise the Clarity of the Mind, that is the conventional level. That is common with Hindus, like that. So we have to know these different levels...." - Dalai Lama on Anatta and Emptiness of Buddha Nature in New Book

Malcolm:

If, following Sakya Paṇḍita, one understands tathāgatagarbha to be freedom from proliferation, then there is no problem, since freedom from proliferation renders samara and nirvana possible for sentient beings. But if one takes tathāgatagarbha aka buddhadhātu to be something existent, it is no different than a nonbuddhist view of self. He makes a number of arguments to which the only response is some misguided, literal reading of tathāgatagarbha sūtras, one rejected in the Laṅkāvatara Sūtra, and even in the Uttaratantra itself, one imagines, because in 3rd century CE India, some people were taking this doctrine too literally. He even points out that if one argues that sugatagarbha denotes an uncontaminated mind, this refers only to the clear aspect of the ālayavijñāna, and not another ninth consciousness (Paramartha does make this argument, of course, but not in India, only in China).

See A Clear Differentiation of the Three Codes, pp. 56-58.

One think that should stand out as remarkable to folks, something I have mentioned before, is just how little positive commentarial attention the tathāgatagarbha doctrine received in India prior to the eighth century and the appearance of the tantras. Indeed, we have no commentaries on the Uttaratantra composed by Indians after Asanga until the 11th century, and those were not translated into Tibetan at all. Talk about lack of interest.

It is certainly true that there were Buddhist sectarians (Pudgalavādins) who proposed the existence of an inexpressible pudgala, neither the same as nor different from the aggregates. And this remains the problem for proponents of an existent buddhadhātu. Is it part of the aggregates or separate from them?

----

Update, more quotes:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/qzng9i/why_do_people_try_to_sneak_in_atman_into_buddhism/

Posted by

u/loveandlight2u

pure land

3 days ago

Why do people try to sneak in atman into Buddhism?

Question

I often see non-Buddhists talk about the nirvana sutra mentioning that there is an atman in us. Is the mention of atman in the sutra meant not to be taken literally?

comments

72% Upvoted

Comment as xabir

level 1

SolipsistBodhisattva

· 3d · edited 3dekayana

According to other sutras like the Lankavatara and Madhyakama masters like Candrakirti and Bhavaviveka, no, we are not to take atman statements in Buddha nature texts literally.

The Lanka says:

[Buddha nature] it is emptiness, reality-limit, Nirvana, being unborn, unqualified, and devoid of will-effort; the reason why the Tathagatas [...] teach the doctrine pointing to the Tathagata-garba is to make the ignorant cast aside their fear when they listen to the teaching of egolessness and to have them realise the state of non-discrimination and imagelessness.

Master Bhavya says:

[The expression] “possessing the tathagata heart” is [used] because emptiness, signlessness, wishlessness, and so on, exist in the mind streams of all sentient beings. However, it is not something like a permanent and all-pervasive person that is the inner agent. For we find [passages] such as “All phenomena have the nature of emptiness, signlessness, and wishlessness. What is emptiness, signlessness, and wishlessness is the Tathagata.”

level 1

En_lighten

· 3dekayāna

In part, perhaps, the reason for using such language is to overcome subtle clinging to the conceptual habit of negation related to the doctrine of anatman. At a point I think basically no words are taken literally when it comes to ... basically ultimate wisdom. Depending on the circumstance, a realized being may use seemingly contradictory language without fault, depending on the needs of the circumstance, beings, etc.

level 2

krodha

· 3d

In part, perhaps, the reason for using such language is to overcome subtle clinging to the conceptual habit of negation related to the doctrine of anatman.

In the Lankavatara it says verbiage of that nature is just for people who are scared of emptiness.

level 3

En_lighten

· 3dekayāna

Kongtrul says,

With regard to the dharmakaya, the children entertain a strong attachment in terms of the belief in purity, in the existence of a self, in happiness, and in permanence. Sravakas and pratyekabuddhas reverse these four aspects of an exaggerated view [of a view wrongly asserting reality where it is not present]. In doing so they get attached to [their vision of] impurity, non-existence of self, suffering, and impermanence. The four aspects of the [true] purity of dharmakaya and so on act as the remedies for this attachment.

So I guess you can find multiple citations.

He also says,

The conceptual elaboration consisting of the belief in the existence of a self as it is imputed by the tirthikas and so on, and the conceptual elaboration consisting of the belief in the non-existence of a self as it is imputed by the sravakas and so on, have been totally stilled and pacified without any remainder. Thus it is the perfection of true self.

level 4

krodha

· 3d

Like the Buddha says in the Mahāyāna-mahāparinirvāṇa sūtra, these apparent discrepancies are pacified through understanding that the self is a convention:

Fools who do not understand words, "While the seed of happiness exists in my body, this conflicts with permanence because suffering is shown." Grasping everything, these immature ones think "my body is not stable." If impermanence is explained, the immature think it is like a pot made by a potter. Since the intelligent on the other hand think "The seed of dharmakāya exists in my body," they do not grasp to everything. If selflessness is demonstrated, the immature grasp to the explanation thinking there is no self. The intelligent on the other hand think "The [self] exists conventionally, there is no doubt.” If it is explained "tathagatagarbha is empty." The immature cultivate the dread of annihilation.The intelligent know that permanence, stability and immutability exists as a mere illusion.

level 4

krodha

· 3d

The import of the perfection of self [ātmapāramitā] and/or supreme self [paramātma] is essentially the same. Asanga explains it is like the tathāgata using the convention self because he cannot be deceived by a self that does not actually exist.

level 5

krodha

· 3d

Buddhism argues that none of the five aggregates is the self, but Hinduism would argue the same. Atman is beyond the five aggregates.

Vasubandhu states:

There is neither direct perception nor inference of an ātman independent of the skandhas. We know then that a real ātman does not exist.

......

Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith:

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?t=41303&start=280

In fact, the Lankāvtāra Sūtra states that tathāgatagarbha is just a name for the ālayavijñāna. How is the ālayavijñāna not personal and individual?

Asanga states in the Uttaratantra commentary that the name for the dharmakāya encased in afflictions is "tathāgatagarbha." How can personal afflictions encase a transpersonal entity? He later states in the same that the name for suchness, tathāta, encased in afflictions is tathāgatagarbha. The same question applies. He later describes sentient beings as "tathāgarbhins", possessors of tathāgatagarbha. In the same way consciousness pervades all sentient beings, it is stated that tathāgatagarbha pervades all sentient beings. However, no one thinks the phrase "consciousness pervades all sentient beings" means there is one unitary consciousness that pervades all sentient beings. It is the same with the basis, tathāgatagarbha. Finally, Asanga concludes his treatises by pointing out that the gnosis of tathāgatagarbha is just the tathāgata's gnosis of emptiness. He says:

"Without the gnosis of ultimate emptiness, it is impossible to realize and actualize the dhātu of pure nonconceptuality. Having stated this, the gnosis of tathāgatagarbha is the Tathāgata's gnosis of emptiness. Further, it is said extensively that the tathāgatagarbha has not been seen or realized by all śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas. However tathāgatagarbha is, the dharmakāyagarbha is just like that, and it is not within the domain of those who fall into a view of personality (satkāyadṛṣṭi), because the dharmadhātu is the antidote to views."

So how is the dharmadhātu defined in this text? Again "The so-called dharmadhātu is the tathāgatagabha that is no different than the nature of one's dharmatā."

So here you have a very precise description of tathāgatagarbha being described as individual and specific to each sentient being. Since the spyi gzhi is just a term for tathāgatagarbha in Dzogchen teachings, we can understand the meaning to be the same here, especially since in the discussion of how the basis exists in the body in the third topic of the Tshig don mdzod, Longchenpa mainly cites from the Uttaratantra.

In the same way that we talk about the vijñānadhātu or the sattvadhātu as aggregates of consciousness and sentient beings, we talk about the dharmadhātu as an an aggregate of dharmatās. Without individual dharmatās that belong to dharmins, we cannot talk about dharmatās at all, just as we cannot talk about the emptiness of nonexistents like the children of barren women, etc.

And of course in Vajrayāna teachings, we go a step further and site the location of sugatagarbha in the bodies of sentient beings. However, the idea the sugatagarbha sited in the bodies of all sentient beings refers to one transpersonal entity has been rejected by the Buddha very clearly as an incorrect view of atman. For example, the Nirvana Sūtra (Chinese recension) explicitly rejects it: "Child of a good family, some tīrthikas advocate a permanent "self," other advocate an annhilationist "not-self." The Tathagata is not like that. Because he teaches self and not-self, it is called "the middle." Now, whoever teaches the Buddha's middle way can say that the nature of buddhahood exists in all sentient beings, but it is not known and not seen because it is obscured by afflictions. Therefore, be diligent in the method of eliminating afflictions." The Indian recension of the Nirvana sutra states, "The buddhadhātu exists in all sentient beings, held in each one's body. After sentient beings exhaust afflictions, they become buddhas."

I could go on, but we are getting into TL;DR territory

Labels: Mahayana 0 comments | |

Report Abuse

- - - Followers

Search This Blog

Cloud Numbered Labels

Cloud Labels

Translate

Ads 300 x 600

Recent Posts

The Recognition of Selflessness (Anattasaññā)

The Recognition of Selflessness and the Seven Factors of Awakening (Satta Bojjhaṅgā)

The Recognition of Cessation (Nirodhasaññā)

The Recognition of Cessation and the Seven Factors of Awakening (Satta Bojjhaṅgā)

The Five (Brethren)
Pañca Sutta (SN 22:59)

Update, 2024:

Update, 2022:

Further Reading & Resources

Why do people try to sneak in atman into Buddhism?

Total Views

Other Languages

'Must Reads'

Free E-Books

Audio

Insightful Materials

Stickied Posts

Recommended Links

About Me

Blog Archive

Labels

The Awakening to Reality Practice Guide and The Original Awakening to Reality Guide

Recommended Blogs

(continued)

Popular Posts

Contact Form

Report Abuse

Subscribe To

- - - Followers

Search This Blog

Cloud Numbered Labels

Cloud Labels

Translate

Ads 300 x 600

Recent Posts

The Recognition of Selflessness (Anattasaññā)

The Recognition of Selflessness and the Seven Factors of Awakening (Satta Bojjhaṅgā)

The Recognition of Cessation (Nirodhasaññā)

The Recognition of Cessation and the Seven Factors of Awakening (Satta Bojjhaṅgā)

The Five (Brethren) Pañca Sutta (SN 22:59)

Update, 2024:

Update, 2022:

Further Reading & Resources

Why do people try to sneak in atman into Buddhism?

Total Views

Other Languages

'Must Reads'

Free E-Books

Audio

Insightful Materials

Stickied Posts

Recommended Links

About Me

Blog Archive

Labels

The Awakening to Reality Practice Guide and The Original Awakening to Reality Guide

Recommended Blogs

(continued)

Popular Posts

Contact Form

The Five (Brethren)
Pañca Sutta (SN 22:59)