/lit/ - Literature

>>18060581
>>18059674
The two kinds of selfhood that Dolpopa says that the Tathagatagarbha is empty of are the “relative selfhood of individuals and phenomena”, so that’s not actually disagreeing with the Advaita Vedanta Atman which is not a relative self of individuals (being neither relative nor individual) or of phenomena (as it transcends phenomena).

He says right after that:

>to eliminate Indian extremists’ view of a self, beings are made to enter into the pure and true, the absolute self of suchness, sugatagarbha – which is, nevertheless, selfless, in not having the two kinds of relative selfhood of individuals and phenomena. To teach the ground of emptiness of all conceptual, relative phenomena, the unborn ground, free from duality with anything other than its own single nature, [the ground] free from all natures of such things, is to teach the bodhisattvas’ unsurpassable doctrine of suchness.

>Thus, tathāgatagarbha is not like the self of Indian extremists, because it is empty of the two kinds of selfhood. The uncompounded nature of [absolute] phenomena transcends instantaneous [relative] phenomena. It is permanent, stable, and unchanging; yet it is not empty, like space that lacks the qualities, powers, and other [absolute] phenomena of buddhahood. Thus, it is not like the self of a [merely relative] individual that Indian extremists classify as permanent. The complete major and minor marks of tathāgatagarbha are capable of manifesting all the aspects, powers, masteries, and qualities of the [absolute] essence. They are not the same as the major and minor marks of the relative form kāyas.
>“In that way, the tathāgatas lead those attached to the Indian extremists’ affirmation of a self...” shows the purpose of teaching them tathāgatagarbha. However, teaching that purpose does not entail that tathāgatagarbha is of the provisional meaning, because it is really non-existent, like the mother’s promise of laddu to her child,

So, Dolpopa is actually saying that the Tathagatagarbha is permanent, stable, unchanging, pure self, pure suchness and that its not empty or provisional. So, while he says that its different from the view of the “Indian extremists” he ends up arriving at practically the same thing anyway evidently without being aware that he did. That Dolpopa was not fully conversant with the Advaitic Atman and hence not really qualified to say if it is in agreement with his doctrine or not is supported by the fact that he erroneously refers to it being taught as the doer of actions which is denied by Advaita.