Welcome admin !

It is currently Fri Aug 18, 2017 11:44 am
Pathway:  Board index General Buddhist Discussion Mahayana Buddhism Far-east Asian Buddhism

True Self, Eternal Self

With a focus on the non-Zen Mahayana schools flowing from China, Japan, Korea, etc.

Re: True Self, Eternal Self

Postby partofit22 on Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:08 pm

I like turtles- :) And cake!
partofit22
 
Posts: 4733
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:36 pm

Re: True Self, Eternal Self

Postby partofit22 on Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:10 pm

My eternal self likes turtles- My true self cake- :)
partofit22
 
Posts: 4733
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:36 pm

Re: True Self, Eternal Self

Postby bubuyaya on Wed Sep 17, 2014 10:56 pm

fukasetsu wrote:
bubuyaya wrote:
As whole world is a finger,
so a finger nail is full Moon.

People in dream say, they are not yet awakened.
Awakened say, the dream itself is the awakened itself.


appearance as appearance
source as source
oneself as source only.

People assert or deny thought-objects about self or no self on the level of appearances, (mind)
which are merely modifications of consciousness
i.e. from the virus of false self-identity/definition, it is never valid.
The dwelling mind = delusion

People ask "there is a self?"
People ask "there is no self?"
But they miss the very Light by which they ask the question.

Neither speech or silence
Neither things, buddha or mind.


From Lambdin translation, Thomas gospel,
(2) Jesus said,
"Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds.
When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished,
and he will rule over the All."

Let him who ask continue asking until he finds.
When he finds, he will become trobled. When he becomes trobled, he will be astonished,
and he will be that Alpha and Omega.

(106) Jesus said,
"When you make the two one, you will become the sons of man, and when you say, 'Mountain, move away,' it will move away."

When people make the devided two be one, then they are also the Men,
and when they say, "Mountain move away," it will move away.

So Diamond sutra say,
Whatever everything all is Buddha Dharma.
bubuyaya
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:50 am

Re: True Self, Eternal Self

Postby fukasetsu on Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:16 pm

bubuyaya wrote:So Diamond sutra say,
Whatever everything all is Buddha Dharma.


Thanks bubu, yes, all is Buddha Dharma, but you are not it, for it is but another production so this must melt away too.
The whole show is dropped off in recognition.
Ramana compared it to an electric fan being disconnected from its power source, but the blades keep spinning for a while.

"I have cast fire upon the world, and look, I'm guarding it until it blazes."
Differences are never in opposition.
User avatar
fukasetsu
 
Posts: 7008
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:17 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: True Self, Eternal Self

Postby Ted Biringer on Thu Sep 18, 2014 8:20 am

fragrant herbs wrote:[I think of Buddha Nature as the True Self. And who wrote the Tathagatagarbha? Perhaps the Theravadans would say it wasn't Buddha, but then how do we know that Buddha really wrote that that is in the Pali Canon and also how do we know that he wrote anything?

Buddha Nature to me sounds like the Christian saying of "God is within," or the Hindu saying, "I am That." Or how the Zen Buddhist group I was in said that "Mind creates all" or "True Self." Mind, That, God--all the same. But this is not the same God as in the Old Testament.


Hey fragrant herbs,

Now you're talking. "And who wrote _______" (fill in the blank - this also applies for "who said"). Ultimately, even if Buddha, Dogen, or Jesus H Christ were to appear before us here and now and painstakingly explain and describe exactly what they said and meant, and even if they were telling the absolute truth, and even if we fully believed them, it would still not be true for us. That is, until we were able to actually confirm what they said through our own experiential verification. When we find a path, teaching, teacher, text, or anything else that somehow seems to ring true (resonates) for us, we first need to make sure we accurately understand it (study, learning), second we need to put it to the test (practice it, apply it, experiment with it), third, if it proves 'false' we need to let it go and move on, if it proves 'true' we need to actualize it (assimilate it in our everyday life, apply it in the world, cultivate and refine it).

Truth (experientially verified) is truth - regardless of who says or writes it. The same goes for falseness. The only truth any being can have or has ever had is truth that they have personally verified - this goes for Buddha, Lao-tzu, Plato, Mohamed, and Joe Six-pack. This inevitable principle that is inherent to the nature of things has always been recognized as a central principle in authentic Zen - but don't take my word for it, verify it, verify it!

Treasure Your Self
Ted
Do not misunderstand Buddhism by believing the erroneous principle ‘a special tradition outside the scriptures.’ Zen Master Dogen, Shobogenzo, Bukkyo (trans. Hee-Jin Kim)
Ted Biringer Author The Flatbed Sutra
User avatar
Ted Biringer
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 6:11 am
Location: Anacortes, Washington

Re: True Self, Eternal Self

Postby Ted Biringer on Thu Sep 18, 2014 8:33 am

1handclapping wrote:
Ted Biringer wrote:I don’t understand how one could be led to believe “in Zen Buddhism that we had no Self…” What, or Who, then, did you think the Zen masters were talking about when they referred to “self” – e.g. yourself, ourself, you, your mind, etc. ? For example, try to imagine how the following expressions would appear if there was no self in Zen:

If you want to be no different from the patriarchs and buddhas, then never look for something outside yourselves. The clean pure light in a moment of your mind—that is the Essence-body of the Buddha lodged in you. The undifferentiated light in a moment of your mind—that is the Bliss-body of the Buddha lodged in you. The undiscriminating light in a moment of your mind—that is the Transformation-body of the Buddha lodged in you. These three types of bodies are you, the person who stands before me now listening to this lecture on the Dharma! And simply because you do not rush around seeking anything outside yourselves, you can command these fine faculties.
Lin-chi, The Zen Teachings of Master Lin-chi, Burton Watson, p.24
I'm assuming the OP meant that in Zen Buddhism, we strive to realize no-self, but maybe I'm wrong.

Did you mean to ask, "imagine how the following [...] would appear if there was no Self in Zen" ?
Those are beautiful passages. These are not texts that students in the first couple of years of study are exposed to, however. Thanks for your effort in posting those quotes. :Namaste:


No, I meant what I said.

When Lin-chi says, "If you want to be no different from the patriarchs and buddhas, then never look for something outside yourselves." Do you think he is speaking in a secret code?

For example, to me (my-self), I (also my-self) take his words "If you want to..." as being addressed to individual human beings (i.e. 'selves'). When he says "never look for something outside yourselves." I (my-self) take his words to mean people ('selves') should not look 'outside their selves.'

I hope this clarifies things.

Please treasure yourself.
Ted
Do not misunderstand Buddhism by believing the erroneous principle ‘a special tradition outside the scriptures.’ Zen Master Dogen, Shobogenzo, Bukkyo (trans. Hee-Jin Kim)
Ted Biringer Author The Flatbed Sutra
User avatar
Ted Biringer
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 6:11 am
Location: Anacortes, Washington

Re: True Self, Eternal Self

Postby fukasetsu on Thu Sep 18, 2014 9:47 am

bubuyaya wrote:So Diamond sutra say,
Whatever everything all is Buddha Dharma.


Bubuyaya :daisy:

Nisargadatta: You have urinated and odor is coming from that —
are you that odor?

Q: No, I am not.

M: You require no more sadhana.. For you, the words of the Guru are final.

74148463.Vnyb6k48.3.jpg


ps consider this my bow-out... before I go too much "out-of-zen" since this is a Far East Asian Buddhism thread.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Differences are never in opposition.
User avatar
fukasetsu
 
Posts: 7008
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:17 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: True Self, Eternal Self

Postby fragrant herbs on Thu Sep 18, 2014 4:26 pm



fragrant herbs wrote:
[I think of Buddha Nature as the True Self. And who wrote the Tathagatagarbha? Perhaps the Theravadans would say it wasn't Buddha, but then how do we know that Buddha really wrote that that is in the Pali Canon and also how do we know that he wrote anything?

Buddha Nature to me sounds like the Christian saying of "God is within," or the Hindu saying, "I am That." Or how the Zen Buddhist group I was in said that "Mind creates all" or "True Self." Mind, That, God--all the same. But this is not the same God as in the Old Testament.

Hey fragrant herbs,


Tha

Now you're talking. "And who wrote _______" (fill in the blank - this also applies for "who said"). Ultimately, even if Buddha, Dogen, or Jesus H Christ were to appear before us here and now and painstakingly explain and describe exactly what they said and meant, and even if they were telling the absolute truth, and even if we fully believed them, it would still not be true for us. That is, until we were able to actually confirm what they said through our own experiential verification. When we find a path, teaching, teacher, text, or anything else that somehow seems to ring true (resonates) for us, we first need to make sure we accurately understand it (study, learning), second we need to put it to the test (practice it, apply it, experiment with it), third, if it proves 'false' we need to let it go and move on, if it proves 'true' we need to actualize it (assimilate it in our everyday life, apply it in the world, cultivate and refine it).

Truth (experientially verified) is truth - regardless of who says or writes it. The same goes for falseness. The only truth any being can have or has ever had is truth that they have personally verified - this goes for Buddha, Lao-tzu, Plato, Mohamed, and Joe Six-pack. This inevitable principle that is inherent to the nature of things has always been recognized as a central principle in authentic Zen - but don't take my word for it, verify it, verify it!

Treasure Your Self
Ted
The seeming paradox of the teacherhood issue... according to... Pai-chang, Lin-chi, Yun-men, and Fo-yen, someone who claims to be a Zen teacher is not. Classics of Buddhism and Zen, 3:3, T. Cleary, p.236
Ted Biringer Author The Flatbed Sutra


Thank you Ted!

Also bought your Flatbed Sutra for my kindle. Sounds like a fun read
Last edited by fragrant herbs on Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
fragrant herbs
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:01 pm

Re: True Self, Eternal Self

Postby fukasetsu on Thu Sep 18, 2014 6:13 pm

Ted Biringer wrote:For example, to me (my-self), I (also my-self) take his words "If you want to..." as being addressed to individual human beings (i.e. 'selves'). When he says "never look for something outside yourselves." I (my-self) take his words to mean people ('selves') should not look 'outside their selves.'


ps Ted, as a sidenote for clarification (wherever needed)

Many people/practisioners misconceive these teachings for they have a mistaken view of self about that which is devoid of self-nature to begin with, so unless they are free of that virus, whatever text, practise or expedient means will only enhance it.

For obvious-instance the quotes you posted about "self" are ofcourse not the self people take them to be, i.e. a personality (the collection of memory and habits) a person, an individual, one's thoughts, emotion, anything perceivable or conceivable, none of that is meant with "selves" these must be fully seen through as false since there's no inherent anything in whatever arises dependently, hence nor is it capable of bondage or liberation. To not confuse "self" with all that, and it is an antidote of looking outside oneself, yet that doesn't mean to mistake the so called "inner world" as ones "self" I prefer to say to whoever to just rest in their natural state, sometimes called "awareness" The Self will recognize Itself through these vehicles when "we" the 10.000 things instead of the illusive imagined personality which is merely a fantasy upon perception no longer interferes, accepts, blocks, asserts or negates whatever narrative of mind arises. So it means for instance the nature of people (or whatever) but not the people (or whatever) itself. People identify Self with the perceived and conceived, and therefore miss the very self-nature of perception itself. We can speak of Self, but since it has no location, cannot be grasped or cast off, it is therefore also not in a book, and cannot be grasped by mind. The dharma (wonderous function of our self-nature) however arises dependently, so people should not make the mistake of granting reality or truth to any of such conceptions of "there is" "there is not"
Medicine can enhance the sickness when one imagines to be sick if the first place, where is the need for any cure?
Differences are never in opposition.
User avatar
fukasetsu
 
Posts: 7008
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:17 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: True Self, Eternal Self

Postby bubuyaya on Fri Sep 19, 2014 2:28 am

fukasetsu wrote:
bubuyaya wrote:So Diamond sutra say,
Whatever everything all is Buddha Dharma.


Thanks bubu, yes, all is Buddha Dharma, but you are not it, for it is but another production so this must melt away too.
The whole show is dropped off in recognition.

"I have cast fire upon the world, and look, I'm guarding it until it blazes."


Where the trobled is completed, as world is burned out,
there pure paradise completed, so pure people say,
all people are also the same pure sorts.

As people are pure, worlds are pure and words are pure, names are pure,
minds pure, thoughts pure, meanings pure, activities pure, seed process and result all pure.

When people are not the pure transdental self,
then people don't have the capacity to be Themself.

Does empty has that kinds of capacity?
bubuyaya
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:50 am

Re: True Self, Eternal Self

Postby Ted Biringer on Fri Sep 19, 2014 2:42 am

fukasetsu wrote:
Ted Biringer wrote:For example, to me (my-self), I (also my-self) take his words "If you want to..." as being addressed to individual human beings (i.e. 'selves'). When he says "never look for something outside yourselves." I (my-self) take his words to mean people ('selves') should not look 'outside their selves.'


ps Ted, as a sidenote for clarification (wherever needed)

Many people/practisioners misconceive these teachings for they have a mistaken view of self about that which is devoid of self-nature to begin with, so unless they are free of that virus, whatever text, practise or expedient means will only enhance it.

For obvious-instance the quotes you posted about "self" are ofcourse not the self people take them to be, i.e. a personality (the collection of memory and habits) a person, an individual, one's thoughts, emotion, anything perceivable or conceivable, none of that is meant with "selves" these must be fully seen through as false since there's no inherent anything in whatever arises dependently, hence nor is it capable of bondage or liberation. To not confuse "self" with all that, and it is an antidote of looking outside oneself, yet that doesn't mean to mistake the so called "inner world" as ones "self" I prefer to say to whoever to just rest in their natural state, sometimes called "awareness" The Self will recognize Itself through these vehicles when "we" the 10.000 things instead of the illusive imagined personality which is merely a fantasy upon perception no longer interferes, accepts, blocks, asserts or negates whatever narrative of mind arises. So it means for instance the nature of people (or whatever) but not the people (or whatever) itself. People identify Self with the perceived and conceived, and therefore miss the very self-nature of perception itself. We can speak of Self, but since it has no location, cannot be grasped or cast off, it is therefore also not in a book, and cannot be grasped by mind. The dharma (wonderous function of our self-nature) however arises dependently, so people should not make the mistake of granting reality or truth to any of such conceptions of "there is" "there is not"
Medicine can enhance the sickness when one imagines to be sick if the first place, where is the need for any cure?


Thank you fukasetsu,

I think I understand your main points here. If so, my experience and understanding differs significantly from yours. I am not saying my view is better or more accurate than yours, only that it is significantly different. Accordingly, our views concerning the various facets of the nature and dynamics of the self, as well as other aspects of the Buddha Way are likely to diverge from one another. Again, I am not asserting a distinction of 'superior' and 'inferior' or 'right' and 'wrong', only remarking a definite difference of perspectives.

Peace,
Ted
Do not misunderstand Buddhism by believing the erroneous principle ‘a special tradition outside the scriptures.’ Zen Master Dogen, Shobogenzo, Bukkyo (trans. Hee-Jin Kim)
Ted Biringer Author The Flatbed Sutra
User avatar
Ted Biringer
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 6:11 am
Location: Anacortes, Washington

Re: True Self, Eternal Self

Postby fukasetsu on Fri Sep 19, 2014 3:16 pm

Ted Biringer wrote:Thank you fukasetsu,

I think I understand your main points here. If so, my experience and understanding differs significantly from yours. I am not saying my view is better or more accurate than yours, only that it is significantly different. Accordingly, our views concerning the various facets of the nature and dynamics of the self, as well as other aspects of the Buddha Way are likely to diverge from one another. Again, I am not asserting a distinction of 'superior' and 'inferior' or 'right' and 'wrong', only remarking a definite difference of perspectives.

Peace,
Ted


Thank you Ted,

I agree that views are (could be called) either wide or narrow, shallow or deep (don't mean as in a personal conception) and that things like "superior/inferior" "right/wrong" don't really apply, it's all water so no opposition, just different angles of vision, to me all Eyes are the Tathagata Eye equally, just these vehicles (our interference) can either cloud the vision or "clear the eye" enabling vessels of the Selfless Dharma for the sake of true self-recognition, we're all here to remind ourself of who we truly are. No view I express is definitive or fixed, it merely arises due to causes and conditions. We all have our own specific qualities, which only adds to the beauty of the garden.
Differences are never in opposition.
User avatar
fukasetsu
 
Posts: 7008
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:17 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: True Self, Eternal Self

Postby fukasetsu on Fri Sep 19, 2014 3:22 pm

bubuyaya wrote:Does empty has that kinds of capacity?


Where do you see any empty? None of it is mine bubu, but all of it is me.
Give it a second thought, then that exact moment is the birth of various religions dedicated to confirming the prospect of my actual existence, with all the rusty ramifications accompanying such arrogant fantasy.
Where do you not appear as yourself joyfully modifying emptiness to appear and disappear as itself in its various attires, masks, or wispy little nothings! It's all you, but none of it is yours.
Differences are never in opposition.
User avatar
fukasetsu
 
Posts: 7008
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:17 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: True Self, Eternal Self

Postby bubuyaya on Sat Sep 20, 2014 1:14 am

fukasetsu wrote:
bubuyaya wrote:Does empty has that kinds of capacity?


Where do you see any empty? None of it is mine bubu, but all of it is me.


So (people's) I am all,
Empty is Me and I am the empty,
Full is Me and I am the full,

Likewise all is Me.
I am all.

What is (People's) Me?
The pure itself, which uses worlds and words of Me.

How I return to pure Me?

Lambdin translated Thomas gospel,
(18) The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us how our end will be."
Jesus said, "Have you discovered, then, the beginning, that you look for the end?
For where the beginning is, there will the end be. Blessed is he who will take his place in the beginning;
he will know the end and will not experience death."

Jesus said Zen of no birth and no death.
bubuyaya
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:50 am

Re: True Self, Eternal Self

Postby fukasetsu on Sat Sep 20, 2014 12:09 pm

bubuyaya wrote:For where the beginning is, there will the end be. Blessed is he who will take his place in the beginning;
he will know the end and will not experience death."

Jesus said Zen of no birth and no death.


Yes bubu, but lets simplify the matter (without using nonsense words as "birth" and "death" "jesus" or "zen")
All that jesus-zen or zen-jesus is saying here, is that one cannot experience something (that is, apart from one's imagination) which has never been produced in reality in the first place. Consciousness cannot know that which is prior to consciousness, everything seen or known here is a figment, a fabrication, nothing you can perceive or conceive is real, it's all pure illusion. What is left is the Real, and we cannot go there, nor can we not. Whatever happens in consciousness (even "awakening") is imaginary, how hard is it to accept that? Does it matter, ofcourse not.
What you are 8 days or a million days before your birth, is the same you are 8 or a million after, the productions (of no-birth) which "cover" it are merely tricks (modifications) of mind in where we imagine to be something we're not, imagine to be bonded and liberated. You're all the water-moons, its source and silent witness, but it is not you.
Differences are never in opposition.
User avatar
fukasetsu
 
Posts: 7008
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:17 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: True Self, Eternal Self

Postby bubuyaya on Sun Sep 21, 2014 1:09 am

fukasetsu wrote:
bubuyaya wrote:For where the beginning is, there will the end be. Blessed is he who will take his place in the beginning;
he will know the end and will not experience death."

Jesus said Zen of no birth and no death.


Consciousness cannot know that which is prior to consciousness, everything seen or known here is a figment, a fabrication, nothing you can perceive or conceive is real, it's all pure illusion.
What is left is the Real, and we cannot go there, nor can we not.
Whatever happens in consciousness (even "awakening") is imaginary, how hard is it to accept that? Does it matter, ofcourse not.
What you are 8 days or a million days before your birth, is the same you are 8 or a million after, the productions (of no-birth) which "cover" it are merely tricks (modifications) of mind in where we imagine to be something we're not, imagine to be bonded and liberated. You're all the water-moons.


When the left is (people's) Real I,
then consciousness illusion, such as water moon will be also (people's) Real I.

Illusion of Real I is nondual.
All each people is that I am.
bubuyaya
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:50 am

Re: True Self, Eternal Self

Postby fukasetsu on Sun Sep 21, 2014 1:55 am

bubuyaya wrote:When the left is (people's) Real I,
then consciousness illusion, such as water moon will be also (people's) Real I.

Illusion of Real I is nondual.
All each people is that I am.


Thank you bubu, there is no mistake about True Identity (apart from one's conception of it)
Let me just finish by saying that all shall burn, the dual and non-dual alike.
See for yourself what remains.

Jai to You, I am You.
:Namaste:

sri niz wrote:“Understand this state of affairs; the concept ‘I Am’ comes spontaneously and goes spontaneously. Amazingly, when it appears, it is accepted as real. All subsequent misconceptions arise from that feeling of reality in the ‘I Amness’. Why am I totally free? Because I have understood the unreality of that ‘I Am’.”
Differences are never in opposition.
User avatar
fukasetsu
 
Posts: 7008
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:17 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: True Self, Eternal Self

Postby bubuyaya on Mon Sep 22, 2014 1:53 am

fukasetsu wrote:
bubuyaya wrote:When the left is (people's) Real I,
then consciousness illusion, such as water moon will be also (people's) Real I.

Illusion of Real I is nondual.
All each people is that I am.


Thank you bubu, there is no mistake about True Identity (apart from one's conception of it)
Let me just finish by saying that all shall burn, the dual and non-dual alike.
See for yourself what remains.


Nice talking, fukasetsu.
When free, use it free.
Nice day to every people. :Namaste:
bubuyaya
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:50 am

Re: True Self, Eternal Self

Postby Gregory Wonderwheel on Thu Sep 25, 2014 8:02 pm

fragrant herbs wrote:My original question was, why didn't any teacher teach about the Eternal Self? That was my question. I never bought into the belief that nirvana was non existence, if it were, then Buddhism have no other purpose than to learn to be kind to others while you are in this life on earth for no other reason than to be kind and not hurtful. But if that were all there was to life, then it would be the best life to live. Questioning is also good since disciples of Buddha questioned him and obtained answers. Do I understand what I am reading? Yes, I believe I do.

Do I accept all of what Buddha had to say? No. And I realize that I don't have to accept all. I personally believe that our life continues after we die, that we are all immortal. Would I want to be liberated? Not like how Buddhism describes it. What is explained in this sutra is that our True Self is pure, unchanging, peaceful, and blissful. I would not wish to be in this state forever if that was all there was to it. This is also what is said about God in other religions, yet God is said to have thoughts and to have created with Thoughts. I like thoughts, and I like change. Peace and purity are good also, but this all describes static states to me. It is kind of like a Catholic priest once said to me, "I want to go to heaven and be wrapped in Christ's arms in a blissful state forever." So, if I don't understand, it would be that there is more to know about this blissful everlasting state than what is presented or otherwise why bother trying to obtain something that is boring? Or that it could be a state that you would not know that you were experiencing. And why bother if it is non-existence as some Buddhists teach? Buddha is really rather vague on these matters you know. I have been in the blissful states in meditation, and while they were wonderful, I don't find myself wanting to continue to obtain more of them.


Do you feel you have received responses you can relate to?

From my perspective, it is important to see the distinction that is usually raised by the terminology. In Zen we sometimes hear famous Zen Masters like Keizan speak of "true self," and that has very different connotations from "eternal self."

In my view, the term "immortal" means undying, and so if we say undying or immortal, we have to balance that with saying unborn. If the mind is immortal, then it is also unborn. To me, the reason for this strictness is that simply saying "immortal" suggests a subtle belief in birth without death. That is the delusion that needs to be treated with the medicine of the unborn.

In Buddhist practice, blissful states are very low on the levels of profundity of practice. As far as I know, no one teaches a Buddha Dharma that suggests obtaining blissful states as a 'goal'. A blissful state can be good medicine for a very depressed state, but then medicine can become a disease if it becomes an addiction or is misapplied to the wrong illness.

When the Sutras say True Self is pure, unchanging, peaceful, and blissful, they are referring to the Dharmakaya, not to a literal self. That statement is medicine for those who have no sense of the Dharmakaya and have fallen into nihilism. It would be an example of turning a medicine into a disease if the paramita teaching that the Dharmakaya as pure, unchanging, peaceful, and blissful were used to encourage the mistaken belief in eternalism and objectified self.

_/|\_
Gregory
Why you do not understand is because the three carts were provisional for former times, and because the One Vehicle is true for the present time. ~ Zen Master 6th Ancestor Huineng
User avatar
Gregory Wonderwheel
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 4248
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 3:07 am
Location: Santa Rosa, California

Re: True Self, Eternal Self

Postby Ted Biringer on Sat Sep 27, 2014 6:56 am

fukasetsu wrote:
Ted Biringer wrote:Thank you fukasetsu,

I think I understand your main points here. If so, my experience and understanding differs significantly from yours. I am not saying my view is better or more accurate than yours, only that it is significantly different. Accordingly, our views concerning the various facets of the nature and dynamics of the self, as well as other aspects of the Buddha Way are likely to diverge from one another. Again, I am not asserting a distinction of 'superior' and 'inferior' or 'right' and 'wrong', only remarking a definite difference of perspectives.

Peace,
Ted


Thank you Ted,

I agree that views are (could be called) either wide or narrow, shallow or deep (don't mean as in a personal conception) and that things like "superior/inferior" "right/wrong" don't really apply, it's all water so no opposition, just different angles of vision, to me all Eyes are the Tathagata Eye equally, just these vehicles (our interference) can either cloud the vision or "clear the eye" enabling vessels of the Selfless Dharma for the sake of true self-recognition, we're all here to remind ourself of who we truly are. No view I express is definitive or fixed, it merely arises due to causes and conditions. We all have our own specific qualities, which only adds to the beauty of the garden.


Thank you fukasetsu.

Just to be clear, I was not referring to the nature of ‘views’ in Zen/Buddhism generally; I was pointing out that the views you set forth differed significantly from my own. In noting that I was not asserting a distinction of 'superior' and 'inferior' or 'right' and 'wrong' I simply meant to emphasize that, while I disagree, I see no reason for debating the points. I think I understand your position and I respect it – although I disagree. I am fairly familiar with your posts, thus I am aware that your experience and understanding concerning the fundamental elements of Zen/Buddhism (e.g. the nature of practice-enlightenment [shusho], emptiness [sunyata], existence-time, etc.) differs greatly from mine. It is, therefore, only natural that our views concerning the practical application of Zen/Buddhist teachings and techniques (e.g. self/no-self, skillful means, zazen, koans, etc.) will diverge significantly. Great, wonderful! And really no point in arguing.

Please treasure yourself.
Ted
Do not misunderstand Buddhism by believing the erroneous principle ‘a special tradition outside the scriptures.’ Zen Master Dogen, Shobogenzo, Bukkyo (trans. Hee-Jin Kim)
Ted Biringer Author The Flatbed Sutra
User avatar
Ted Biringer
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 6:11 am
Location: Anacortes, Washington

PreviousNext

Return to Far-east Asian Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

 
RocketTheme Joomla Templates

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 157 on Mon Sep 19, 2016 8:44 am

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest