True self in buddhism

[Anonymous No.17562602]

The Atman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism

Published by Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Pvt. Ltd. MLBD

So Mahayana is right and Theravada is wrong.
There is indeed a true self spoken by the buddha.


>According to Sallie B. King, the sutra does not represent a major innovation, & is rather unsystematic, which made it "a fruitful one for later students & commentators, who were obliged to create their own order & bring it to the text". According to King, its most important innovation is the linking of the term buddhadhātu with tathagatagarbha. The "nature of the Buddha" is presented as a timeless, eternal "Self", which is akin to the tathagatagarbha, the innate possibility in every sentient being to attain Buddha-hood & manifest this timeless Buddha-nature. "[I]t is obvious that the Mahaparinirvana Sutra does not consider it impossible for a Buddhist to affirm an atman provided it is clear what the correct understanding of this concept is, & indeed the sutra clearly sees certain advantages in doing so."

>>The Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṅa Sūtra, especially influential in East Asian Buddhist thought, goes so far as to speak of it as our true self (ātman). Its precise metaphysical & ontological status is, however, open to interpretation in the terms of different Mahāyāna philosophical schools; for the Madhyamikas it must be empty of its own existence like everything else; for the Yogacarins, following the Laṅkāv


>The existence of the tathagatagarbha must be taken on faith:
>>Essentially the Buddha asks his audience to accept the existence of buddha-nature [tathagatagarbha] on faith [...] the importance of faith in the teachings of the Nirvana Sutra as a whole must not be overlooked.

Origins & development

>According to Shimoda Masahiro, the authors of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra were leaders & advocates of stupa-worship. The term buddhadhātu originally referred to śarīra or physical relics of the Buddha. The authors of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra used the teachings of the Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra to reshape the worship of the śarīra into worship of the inner Buddha as a principle of salvation: the Buddha-nature. "Buddhadhātu" came to be used in place of tathagatagarbha, referring to a concrete entity existing inside the person. Sasaki, in a review of Shimoda, conveys a key premise of Shimoda's work, namely, that the origins of Mahayana Buddhism & the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra are entwined.

>The Indian version of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra underwent a number of stages in its composition. Masahiro Shimoda discerns two versions:

>>a short proto-Nirvāṇa Sūtra, which was, he argues, probably not distinctively Mahāyāna, but quasi-Mahāsāṃghika in origin & would date to 100 CE, if not even earlier; an expanded version of this core text was then developed & would have comprised chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 & 7 of the Faxian & Tibetan versions, though it is believed that in their present state there is a degree of editorial addition in them from the later phases of development.

[Anonymous No.17562603]

>>17562602
>The sutra was further developed in China by the Chinese translator Dharmakṣema in the fifth century CE, who added a thirty extra fascicles to the original core text.[6]:124–5[7]

[Anonymous No.17562639]

the true
spiritual åtman, for the Upanishads as for the Buddha, is the
negation of that which men generally consider to be the
åtman, that is, the psycho-physical individuality.

In actual fact, our controversy is nothing but an argument
over words. The authentic åtman, being the negation of
the empirical åtman, is anåtman; and anåtman is a negative
expression which indicates the authentic åtman, which is ineffable
and—from the objective point of view—“non-existent.”

There is no contradiction between åtman and anåtman. The
åtman, which is denied, and that which is affirmed, through
that negation itself, pertains to two different levels. It is only
when we have not succeeded in distinguishing between
them, that the terms åtman and anåtman seem to us to be
opposed.

[Anonymous No.17562678]

How Buddhism Acquired a Soul on the Way to China
Author
Jungnok Park † [+]
Oxford University
Edited by
Richard Gombrich [+]
University of Oxford / Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies

How Buddhism Acquired a Soul on the Way to China tells the story of the spread of Buddhist religious thinking and practice from India to China and how, along the way, a religion was changed. While Indian Buddhists had constructed their ideas of self by means of empiricism, anti-Brahmanism and analytic reasoning, Chinese Buddhists did so by means of non-analytic insights, utilising pre-established epistemology and cosmogony. Furthermore, many specific Buddhist ideas were transformed when exchanged from an Indian to a Chinese context, often through the work of translators concept-matching Buddhist and Daoist terms.

One of the key changes was the Chinese reinterpretation of the concept of shen – originally an agent of thought which died with the body – into an eternal essence of human spirit, a soul. Though the notion of an imperishable soul was later disputed by Chinese Buddhist scholars the idea of a permanent agent of perception flourished in China. This historical analysis of the concept of self as it developed between Indian and Chinese Buddhism will be of interest to readers of Buddhist Philosophy as well as the History of Ideas.

Theravada is killed.

[Anonymous No.17562840]

Nirvana Sutra V464. While a Bodhisattva discourses thus about the quality of the Self, ordinary people do not but impute various false concepts to the Self just as when asked about the attributes of the sword the [ministers] reply that it is like the horn of a ram.

these ordinary people generate false views in succession from one on to the other. In order to eliminate such false views, the Tathagata reveals and discourses on the non-existence of a self just as when the prince tells his various ministers that there is no such sword in his treasury. Noble Son, the True Self that the Tathagata expounds today is called the Buddha-dhatu [Buddha-Nature]. this manner of Buddha-dhatu is shown in the Buddha-Dharma with the example of the real sword.l Noble Son, should there be any ordinary person who is able well to expound this, then he [speaks] in accordance with unsurpassed Buddha-Dharma. Should there be anyone who is well able to distinguish this in accordance with what has been expounded regarding it, then you should know that he has the nature of a Bodhisattva.

[Anonymous No.17562886]

The Nirvana Sutra: Volume 1 (Bdk English Tripitaka: Taisho, 374) by Mark Blum

>One of the most radical teachings of the sutra grows out of the buddha-nature idea, namely, a seeming reversal of what had become the sacrosanct Buddhist doctrine of nonself. For the Nirvana Sutra, nonself is treated like another negative expression of truth, emptiness. That is, nonself is a very important doctrine to be expounded when the listener is attached to his or her notion of selfhood or personality, because it deconstructs that object of attachment, revealing its nature as a fantasy. Emptiness likewise performs the function of deconstructing attachments to notions of identity in things or ideas. But both are merely tools, or upāya (skillful means), and not final truths in and of themselves. Regarding emptiness, we find a strong assertion of the sacred nature of nonemptiness, meaning the world as it is. Emptiness, therefore, must be studied alongside nonemptiness, or the student will end up with a skewed view of things. In a similar vein, the sutra's stance toward nonself and self expresses the complaint that many Buddhists have lost their way precisely because they have simply traded one attachment for another: proudly renouncing self, they are now attached to nonself, clinging to the concept as if it can liberate them. Although the discursive, evaluating self is fiction, there does exist a genuine self and that, according to the sutra, is precisely the buddha-nature. This of course raises a paradox: if this is the only true self, how can it help me, since I am unable to perceive my own buddha-nature? To this the sutra responds that this is precisely what the study of the Buddha's dharma should be about - "seeing" the buddha-nature within oneself.

[Anonymous No.17562894]

Son of Buddha
Posts: 1123
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm
Contact: Contact Son of Buddha

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by Son of Buddha » Sun May 10, 2015 1:41 am

ASTNS I provided adequate "sources" this same criticism applies to yourself. The issue isn't with said sources, but our disagreement regarding what constitutes a valid interpretation of said sources.

Your last 3 posts to me was of you complaining and you giving me your opinions...... And you did not provide any sources that were even relevant to our conversation whatsoever.


Matter of fact out of ALL those long posts you only provided 1 source and your source had zero to do with the actual topic of how Not Self is actually applied in the Tathagatagarbha Sutras.

Here is your source

ASTBS that the tathāgatagarbha IS, is this:

The statement "The tathāgata pervades" means wisdom pervades all objects of knowledge, but it does not mean abiding in everything like Viśnu. Further, "Tathāgatagarbhin" means emptiness, signlessness and absence of aspiration exist the continuums of all sentient beings, but is not an inner personal agent pervading everyone".
-- Bhāviveka

And my reply to you is the Tathagatagarbha is this:


Nirvana sutra] CHAPTER TWELVE: ON THE TATHAGATA-DHATU
V417. “Kasyapa said to the Buddha: “O World-Honoured One! Is there Self in the 25 existences or not?” The Buddha said: “O good man! “Self” means “Tathagatagarbha” [Buddha-Womb, Buddha-Embryo, Buddha-Nature]. Every being has Buddha-Nature. This is the Self. Such Self has, from the very beginning, been under cover of innumerable defilements. That is why man cannot see it.
_ Buddha

[Anonymous No.17562979]

>Me examining all this heresy

[Anonymous No.17563130]

>>17562602
Yeah it's pretty obvious there is a self, even though this makes crypto nihilists seethe

[Anonymous No.17563149]

>btfos Vedantins
>btfos hyperprotestants
How can Mahayana be so based?

[Anonymous No.17563163]

>>17563149
The next step is Zen, and then dropping the raft altogether

[Anonymous No.17563341]

>>17563149
>>btfos Vedantins
This never happened though

[Anonymous No.17563371]

>>17563341
You're kind of right because vedanta and mahayana essentially come to the same conclusions, only autistic faggots feel the need to debate minor details because that's what autistic faggots do
Indian philosophy's problem is that it's too fucking verbose so it attracts the kind of people who disregard the moon to argue about the finger

[Anonymous No.17563482]

>>17563371
>You're kind of right because vedanta and mahayana essentially come to the same conclusions,
No they don’t, the Mahayana philosophy largely consists of different variations of everything being selfless, empty of inherent existence, sunyata; the Mahayana schools who disagree or who take an opposite tack are a small minority. Vedanta on the other hand accepts the existence of an existing supreme reality which they consider as having absolute and independent existence. Ontological and epistemic non-dualism mean different things.
>only autistic faggots feel the need to debate minor details because that's what autistic faggots do
So, does the fact that they all debated minor details in their works make Shankara, Ramanuja, Abhinavagupta, Nagarjuna, Asanga etc all autistic faggots? I don’t think so, it sounds more like you’re just lazily smearing everyone who doesn’t sign up to agree with your generalizations about a complicated subject.

[Anonymous No.17563496]

>>17563482
Exactly what I'm talking about

[Anonymous No.17563517]

>blah blah blah blah
Start with What the Buddha Taught. Then, read the Heart Sutra.

[Anonymous No.17563536]

>>17563517
This but start with the record of linji instead and then go meditate, or don't

[Anonymous No.17563538]

>>17563341
All Buddhists argue against the sort of "great lord" Vedantins believe in, and do not accept the authority of the Vedas or the brahmin caste.

[Anonymous No.17563589]

>buddha says you can have sensory pleasure if you do it without attachment
>all western midwits take this as carte blanche on degeneracy
this can't possibly have been his intention. was it a wise thing to say? did he not expect that his words would live beyond the monks around him, who most likely did understand?

[Anonymous No.17563599]

>>17563589
No according to the nikayas he said all pleasure was bad and you should deny yourself all form of satisfaction that doesn't come from meditation
But that's retarded and obviously there's a good middle ground between that and hedonism

[Anonymous No.17563604]

>>17563589
Later Buddhism arguably corrects this by saying only bodhisattvas/buddhas/etc. can do this (which you are not) and for the sake of liberating others

[Anonymous No.17563618]

>>17563599
>But that's retarded and obviously there's a good middle ground between that and hedonism
this on the assumption that the goal can be reached without leaving home

[Anonymous No.17563646]

>>17563618
I think so.
Either way, rejecting all forms of happiness and pleasure because some dude said two more than two millenia ago is really stupid, you should exercise healthy skepticism and act in a reasonable way

[Anonymous No.17563673]

Can someone tell me what the PL sutras have to do with comfy literature about nature?
I'd rather not get memed into buying them when I really don't care all that much about pure land metaphysics or even metaphysics and cosmology in general.

[Anonymous No.17563678]

>>17563538
>All Buddhists argue against the sort of "great lord" Vedantins believe in,
They argued against Isvara, which is not the same thing as the Upanishadic Brahman. Buddhists never came up with any good arguments against the Vedantic Atman or Brahman

[Anonymous No.17563690]

>>17563496
take your trite neoplatonizing orientialist reductionism somewhere else kiddo

[Anonymous No.17563695]

>>17563599
That's just an extreme remedy for the hedonist in need of equipose

[Anonymous No.17563703]

>>17563695
Too many westerners take it literally and flagellate themselves for enjoying things

[Anonymous No.17563719]

>>17563690
Still captivated by that finger huh?

[Anonymous No.17563729]

>>17563673
No idea what Vinaya (monastic codes) or Pure Land (heavenly realms) have to do with nature. Nature is very here and very now and very non-anthrocentric. The Gandhari anthology on this chart includes a translation of the Rhinoceros Sutra, which is pretty monke-tier extolling of nature/solitude

[Anonymous No.17563740]

>>17563729
Yeah I liked the rhino sutra

[Anonymous No.17563742]

>>17563678
Doesn't that come after Buddhism? Some of the very late Buddhists do, e.g. Shantarakshita. Some Tibetan commentators do as well. But the arguments are not hard to imagine regardless, against some transcendent uncaused god.

[Anonymous No.17563754]

>>17563703
I'm aware but the mass of poor interpretations do not detract from the wisdom of texts which themselves proclaim they are not for the feeble minded

[Anonymous No.17563765]

>>17563740
W A N D E R
A L O N E

[Anonymous No.17563776]

>>17563765
like a rhinoceros

[Anonymous No.17563777]

>>17563673
they're weird esoteric mahayanan texts, not nature lit at all

[Anonymous No.17563789]

>>17562602
god so much gibberish. literally the entire of the dharma is return to monke

[Anonymous No.17563794]

>>17563754
I think there's wisdom to be found in them, and things to be discarded too. It's not so much a question of being feeble minded as much as whether or not this is the right path for you
Then again I'm not a buddhist so it's not like I feel the need to stick to the system

[Anonymous No.17563800]

>>17563673
saigyo, dao de jing and the hojoki would be worthwhile reads but the other three dont bother. its just a bunch of pseudo intellectual mumbo jumbo

[Anonymous No.17563815]

>>17563800
Even Walden?
I'm looking for lit about being chill and appreciating nature and the small things in life, other suggestions would be cool if you guys have any

[Anonymous No.17563817]

>>17563678
The Buddha's demonstration of Atman as being inherently incoherent applies to Advaita Vedanta, as do the arguments against Isvara. See >>17563517.

>>17563742
Nagarjuna also, ironically, pre-emptively refutes Shankara, quite humiliatingly too.

[Anonymous No.17563836]

>>17563794
>things to be discarded too
That's also taught in the texts. I'm not a professional spiritual advisor, but as the saying goes "we like the stock"

[Anonymous No.17563863]

>>17563836
I'm aware of the raft analogy and so on. But this is for the people who presumably are already advanced on the path of buddhism specifically

[Anonymous No.17563890]

>>17562678
gonna give this a read thanks anon

[Anonymous No.17563985]

>>17563673
This makes me think, which sutras are the most interesting to read for a non-Buddhist?
The Gita for example is a great book even if you have no intention of becoming a Hinduist. What about Buddhism? Sometimes I see the Lotus and Lankavatara sutras recommended on secular /lit/ charts about philosophy and mysticism.

[Anonymous No.17563986]

>>17563817
>atman is a name for the phenomenon of brahman being brought into illusion
>buddhism agrees essentially that both brahman (here semantics get wonky, but whatever it is that neither-exists-nor-not-exists) and illusion exist
no?

[Anonymous No.17564003]

>>17563742
>Doesn't that come after Buddhism?
The Upanishads describing the Atman as effulgent infinite non-dual consciousness predate Buddha, the systemization of this Upanishadic doctrine by multiple Hindu philosophical schools comes later after Buddha
>Some of the very late Buddhists do, e.g. Shantarakshita.
Shantaraksita did not study the Advaita he tried to criticize and his arguments fail because the things he criticizes are not actually taught by Advaita, see this thread here to see an explanation of why Santaraksita’s arguments are fallacious

>>/lit/thread/S16894953#p16904797

>Some Tibetan commentators do as well.
If you speaking about Mipham, he also misunderstands Advaita and all his arguments against it fail for that reason, he makes some of the same misconceptions about it and mistakes that Santaraksita also made, you can see it explained here in this thread why Mipham’s arguments are wrong.

>>/lit/thread/S17461767#p17466352

Every time the Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhists tried to criticize Advaita Vedanta they didnt bother to do their homework properly and they attacked positions which are not actually taught by Advaita.

>But the arguments are not hard to imagine regardless, against some transcendent uncaused god.
Practically every time I see a Buddhism argument against this concept it strikes me as being sophistic, I have never seen one that withstood critical scrutiny.

>>17563817
>The Buddha's demonstration of Atman as being inherently incoherent applies to Advaita Vedanta,
Buddha never demonstrated this though because he never explained why the Upanishadic Atman was incoherent or wrong anywhere in the Pali Canon, if you are referencing the “chariots and atman” argument, that argument actually involves the logical fallacy known as a false equivalency, it doesn’t actually refute anything or demonstrate the incoherency of anything. You can try posting whatever argument you think Buddha had against the Atman in this thread and I will point out exactly why it fails as an argument and which logical fallacies it involves.

> Nagarjuna also, ironically, pre-emptively refutes Shankara
No he didn’t, there are none of Nagarjuna’s arguments that refute any of Shankara’s positions, if you want to claim otherwise then you should post some of his arguments which you think apply here, but you probably wont do that because it would reveal Nagarjuna for the sophist that he is and remove some of the mystique that you clowns try to build up around him.

[Anonymous No.17564057]

>>17564003
>No he didn’t, there are none of Nagarjuna’s arguments that refute any of Shankara’s positions
Not him, but I'll bite. How does Shankara escape Nagarjuna's position that everything is inherently empty of INTRINSIC existence, that is, can only exist in relation to the rest of things in the universe, and even nirvana is ultimately empty as it can only be said to exist with respect to samsara. I suppose he could say Brahman is the ultimate acausal and truly existent ground and if equates it with the atman then that is infinite and real too, but that's just my guess.

[Anonymous No.17564075]

>>17564003
>you are wrong, see my other indo-thomist ramblings
Retroactively refuted by Nagarjuna (pbuh)

[Anonymous No.17564405]

>>17564003
KNEEL

[Anonymous No.17564483]

>>17564057
>How does Shankara escape Nagarjuna's position that everything is inherently empty of INTRINSIC existence, that is, can only exist in relation to the rest of things in the universe, and even nirvana is ultimately empty as it can only be said to exist with respect to samsara.
Why should this even be considered as something that needs to be escaped from instead of being an unfounded claim which can be dismissed outright? Because Nagarjuna can point to physical objects and say that they arise in dependence on each other? Brahman is not a physical object so that doesn’t inform us about Brahman.
> I suppose he could say Brahman is the ultimate acausal and truly existent ground and if equates it with the atman then that is infinite and real too, but that's just my guess.
Shankara does more or less say this, and Nagarjuna doesn’t provide any arguments which refute this position

[Anonymous No.17564530]

>>17564405
Sorry for copying your homework

[Anonymous No.17565160]

>>17563719
What you are saying is rejected explicitly in the writings of the authorities and founders of the traditions you claim to be representing the view of

[Anonymous No.17565554]

Alright Buddhists of lit
advita fag here what Buddhists texts should I read that show the supremacy of Buddhism and not advita Vedanta?
read In the Buddha's Words didn't find it too profound

[Anonymous No.17565919]

>>17564075
>>17564405
>>17564530
Nagarjuna's so called 'arguments' were posted in another thread >>17562990

and I swiftly refuted them here >>17563419 by pointing out how they rely on sophistic reasoning, the Buddhists in that thread have given up on even trying to argue that I'm wrong in refuting Nagarjuna. If I, a mere anon, can refute the arguments of Mahayana Buddhism's most vaunted philosopher in a matter of minutes, I can scarcely imagine what Sri Shankaracharya (pbuh) would have done had he ever gotten his hands on the pile of sophistry known as the 'Mulamadhyamakakarika'
>>17565554
My friend, you are asking for the impossible, but it's good of you to seek to challenge yourself intellectually regardless of that, and you should keep doing seeking to do so in various ways.

[Anonymous No.17566219]

>>17565919
The sort of Western people who are interested in Buddhism are bored to death of whatever "god did it, but in Sanskrit" theology you think is fantastic logic. It's not. It's the very sophistry you refer to, to make things up as you go along and frantically plug the holes in experience. No matter how many times you rehash your bit about an uncaused, just-so, eternal originator, Buddhists will find the proof to be inconclusive because if the response to interdependence and relativity is literally "what about my uncaused cause, bet you didn't think about that?" it solves nothing the person interested in Buddhism was looking for an answer to. It's, as the saying goes, retroactively refuted.

[Anonymous No.17566785]

What will you do once you find your true self?

[Anonymous No.17566892]

>>17566785
Before enlightenment, chopping wood and carrying water
After enlightenment, chopping wood and carrying water

[Anonymous No.17567101]

>>17563817
>the importance of faith in the teachings of the Nirvana Sutra as a whole must not be overlooked.
what do you think of the Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra, another tathagatagarbha text?

>“The tathāgatagarbha is without any prior limit, is nonarising, and is indestructible, accepting suffering, having revulsion toward suffering, and aspiring to nirvana. O Lord, the tathāgatagarbha is not a substantial self, nor a living being, nor ‘fate,’ nor a person. The tathāgatagarbha is not a realm for living beings who have degenerated into the belief of a substantially existent body or for those who have contrary views, or who have minds bewildered by emptiness.

[Anonymous No.17567117]

>>17562602
>>17562639
>>17562678
>>17562840
>>17562886
>>17562894
The Buddha repeatedly taught that against clinging to a doctrine of self, so the doctrine of atmavada within Buddhism has very weak foundations. According to most mahayana practitioners, the use of 'ātman' is an upāya (provisional teaching) implemented to benefit those who cling to heterodox views, this is explained in no uncertain terms in the Laṅkāvatāra sūtra:
>O Mahāmati, the tathāgatas thus teach the garbha in so far as they teach the tathāgatagarbha in order to attract those who are attached to the heterodox ātmavāda. How can people whose minds fall into the conceptual theory bearing on an unreal self attain quickly the complete awakening in the supreme and exact sambodhi, possessing a mind comprised in the domain of the three gateways of emancipation? O Mahāmati, it is because of this that the tathāgatas teach the tathāgatagarbha [....]O Mahāmati, with a view to casting aside the heterodox theory, you must treat the tathāgatagarbha as not self (anātman).

Bhāviveka demonstrates the proper way to view buddhanature:
>The statement "The tathāgata pervades" means wisdom pervades all objects of knowledge, but it does not mean abiding in everything like Viśnu/Isvara. Further, "Tathāgatagarbhin" means emptiness, signlessness and absence of aspiration exist the continuums of all sentient beings, but is not an inner personal agent pervading everyone

[Anonymous No.17567425]

>>17567117
Man, hate to be that guy, but anything Mahayana says about pre-sectarian Buddhism can be safely dismissed.

[Anonymous No.17567580]

>>17564057
Can someone explain to a mere pleb how or if this paradox resolves in the Mahayana literature? I've never been able to find a satisfactory answer. If everything, including the self, including nirvana and samsara is devoid of intrinsic existence and therefore empty. In what sense is the practice of Mahayana (or any) Buddhism accomplishing anything?

In other words, WHAT precisely is meant to achieve nirvana?

[Anonymous No.17567607]

Not-self in Mahayana is indeed a skillful means to teach true self= buddhanature. This equation god=nature and sins=virtues appeal a lot to atheists and women, like in Spinoza and other Humanists, because women and atheists hate to hear that there are sins and virtues and god punishes the sinners. Those people feel threaten by this so in order to satisfy their spiritual cravings they can only think about a generic impotent creator which is nature and there is no judgment and no sins and samsara is nirvana, and all teachings about morality are just skillful means so enlightened people like their gurus can still kill and have sex and hit people with their sticks. It is a dream come true for women and atheists to hear that they can keep doing whatever they've been doing as non-enlightened people, ie mostly having sex, enjoying entertainment, caring about politics, while still being righteous buddhas and not having to build a narrative where they know that they are the author of this half assed ''morality'' since it is actually reality not a historical construct according to them.

[Anonymous No.17567619]

>>17567607
what an absolutely pseud take

[Anonymous No.17567626]

>>17567117
>According to most mahayana practitioners, the use of 'ātman' is an upāya (provisional teaching) implemented to benefit those who cling to heterodox views, this is explained in no uncertain terms in the Laṅkāvatāra sūtra:
No it's the opposite, the upaya is the tathāgatagarbha to kill the ''heterodox ātmavāda'', ie all the self = 5 aggregates. Buddha nature is indeed a true self.

The budhha's trick is make those people ''treat the tathāgatagarbha as not self (anātman).'' and in truth is it indeed a self, but not the self they had from their initial wrong view (because non-enlightened people don't know about buddha nature)

[Anonymous No.17567656]

>>17567580
The only come back in mahayana is just their creation of the world
http://www.cttbusa.org/shurangama/shurangama_contents.asp
[last chapter]


The Shurangama Sutra Contents:
Introduction I: The Fundamental Importance of the Shurangama Sutra

Introduction II: The Buddha Speaks the Ultimate Extinction of the Dharma Sutra

User’s Guide to Volumes I to VIII of the Shurangama Sutra series, with the Tripitaka Master Hsuan Hua's commentaries

The Shurangama Sutra Text:

The Ten Doors of Discrimination 1:1
The General Explanation of the Title 1:4
Causes and Conditions for the Arising of the Teaching 1:30
The Division and The Vehicle 1:52
The Depth of the Meaning and Principle 1:54
The Teaching Substance 1:62
Individuals Able to Receive the Teaching 1:64
Similarities, Differences and Determination of Time 1:66
The History of the Transmission and Translation 1:68
The Translator 1:70
The Reviewer, Certifier and Editor 1:76
The Testimony of Faith 1:79
Ananda’s Fall 1:121
The Way to Shamatha 1:155
The False Consciousness is Without a Location 1:167
The False Consciousness is Not the Mind 1:215
The False Consciousness is Without a Substance 1:253
Ananda Repents and Seeks the Truth 1:267

The Seeing Nature 2:1
Seeing Is the Mind 2:4
Seeing Does Not Move 2:9
Seeing Does Not Become Extinct 2:28
Seeing is Not Lost 2:46
Seeing Does Not Return 2:58
Seeing Does Not Intermingle 2:80
Seeing Is Not Obstructed 2:103
Seeing Is Not Separate 2:116
Seeing Transcends the Ordinary 2:142
Seeing is Apart from Seeing 2:159
The Two False Views 2:172
Mixing and Uniting 2:208

False Is Just True 3:1
The Five Skandhas 3:5
The Six Entrances 3:27
The Twelve Places 3:60
The Eighteen Realms 3:95
The Seven Elements Are All-Pervasive 3:138
Ananda Gives Rise to Faith 3:208

The Reason for Continual Arisal 4:1
The Reason for Perfect Penetration 4:62
Ananda Attaches to Causes and Conditions 4:115
The Two Decisive Doctrines 4:142
Purification of the Turbidities 4:145
Liberation of the Organs 4:161
Hearing is Not Sound 4:211
The Source of the Knot 4:237

The Six Knots 5:1
Twenty-five Means to Enlightenment 5:19
The Six Defiling Objects 5:24
Five Organs 5:44
The Six Consciousnesses 5:63
The Seven Elements 5:92
The Ear Organ 5:129
Manjushri Selects the Organ of Entry 5:189

The Three Non-Outflow Studies 6:1
One Must Cut Off Lust 6:10
One Must Cut Off Killing 6:20
One Must Cut Off Stealing 6:31
One Must Cut Off False Speech 6:48
Establishing the Bodhimanda 6:75
The Spiritual Mantra 6:87
The Two Upside-down Causes 6:162
The Twelve Categories of Living Beings 6:177

[Anonymous No.17567658]

>>17567626
How do you explain the Laṅkāvatāra and Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda sutra? Also I doubt the Buddha would single out Anatta is an upaya while simultaneously refuting Atman in the same vein. It all seems counter logical, which is why most Mahayanas consider atmavada to be upaya.

[Anonymous No.17567662]

The Three Gradual Stages 7:1
The Bodhisattva Stages 7:25
The Ten Faiths 7:28
The Ten Dwellings 7:39
The Ten Conducts 7:46
The Ten Transferences 7:55
The Four Positions of Additional Practices 7:64
The Ten Positions of the Ten Grounds 7:68
The Position of Equal and Wonderful Enlightenment 7:75
The Names of the Sutra 7:82
The Seven Destinies 7:88
Destiny of Hells 7:118
Destiny of Ghosts 7:161
Destiny of Animals 7:175
Destiny of People 7:185
Destiny of Immortals 7:194
Destiny of Gods 7:206
Destiny of Asuras 7:248

The Origin of Demonic States 8:1
The Form Skandha 8:25
The Feeling Skandha 8:50
The Thinking Skandha 8:82
The Formations Skandha 8:174
The Consciousness Skandha 8:238
Concluding Instructions 8:277
The Arising and Cessation of the Five Skandhas 8:287
Exhortation to Propagate the Sutra 8:320

[Anonymous No.17567681]

>>17567580
It doesn't really resolve, and it's meant to be paradoxical. Nirvana proper is just the cessation of rebirth, but all sects have different ideas of what Enlightenment is and what happens after it. Some say Enlightenment is the true realization of that emptiness and transcending it in some way thus, others speak of finding out there something beyond it. All however, agree it must be ineffable and impossible to understand conceptually or sometimes even experientially until you come back out of it and can give a report that won't do it justice anyway. A good way to understand it is to think of ancient Indian logic, where a proposition could be true, false, both, or neither (this is known as the catuskoti, or tetralemma), this can seem hard to grasp, but the last two cases apply to things like "what happens if Pinocchio says that his nose is about to grow". In the Buddhist sutras, Gautama is asked what happens to an enlightened person after death, if he exists, stops existing, or neither or both, and he responds none of the four cases are correct. So, the answer is the same as to the question of what God or Heaven are like, they're said to be impossible to understand or describe beyond simply pointing at them.

[Anonymous No.17567703]

''Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water''. This is peak Mahayana.

[Anonymous No.17567710]

>>17567580
>In what sense is the practice of Mahayana (or any) Buddhism accomplishing anything? In other words, WHAT precisely is meant to achieve nirvana?
Mahayana practitioners consider emptiness as the only valid view enabling liberation to be achievable. If it were the case otherwise ie there were an essence, then there would be no arising of anything. If there were no arising, there would be no cessation. If there were no cessation we would all be in doomed to samsara. As Nagarjuna puts it in the MMK:

>In denying that interdependent arising is emptiness and that emptiness is interdependent arising, you also negate all of the conventions of everyday thought and action.
>The denial of emptiness implies (1) that there are no actions [which is contrary to the facts of experience], (2) that there are actions without beginning or end [which is incredible], and (3) that there are agents without actions [which is contradictory since an agent is, by definition, a performer of actions].
>In a world of essences, everything would be unchanging, there would be no changes of circumstances from time to time, and nothing would either begin or end.
>If all is empty of essence [as we claim], then renunciation of all actions and worldly defilements, the ending of suffering, and the attainment of enlightenment are all possible.
>He who sees interdependent arising sees suffering, the arising and cessation thereof, and the Noble Eightfold Path.

[Anonymous No.17567712]

>>17567658
>I doubt the Buddha would single out
>The Buddha did
>the Buddha didn't
You realize even the Pali canon was put together centuries after he died, right? It's impossible to reconstruct an original coherent teaching and this even goes in line with the belief of the decay of the Dharma. Expecting anything Mahayana to be in line with other teachings except for its bare bones is nuts.

[Anonymous No.17567853]

>>17565554
>>17565919
Never fear advaitafriends, the mighty guenonfag himself has come over to the buddhist side and agreed that shankara was a cryptobuddhist mahayana copycat

[Anonymous No.17567925]

"Talks With Sri Ramana Maharshi":

Atma sakshatkara (Self-Realisation) is thus only anatma nirasana (giving up the non-Self).

based an hindu pilled

[Anonymous No.17568002]

Critical Buddhism (Japanese: 批判仏教, hihan bukkyō) was a trend in Japanese Buddhist scholarship, associated primarily with the works of Hakamaya Noriaki (袴谷憲昭) and Matsumoto Shirō (松本史朗).

Hakamaya stated that "'Buddhism is criticism' or that 'only that which is critical is Buddhism.'"[1] He contrasted it with what he called Topical Buddhism, in comparison to the concepts of critical philosophy and topical philosophy.[1] According to Lin Chen-kuo, Hakamaya's view is that "Critical Buddhism sees methodical, rational critique as belonging to the very foundations of Buddhism itself, while 'Topical Buddhism' emphasizes the priority of rhetoric over logical thinking, of ontology over epistemology."[2]

Critical Buddhism targeted specifically certain concepts prevalent in Japanese Mahayana Buddhism and rejected them as being non-buddhist. For example, Matsumoto Shirō and Hakamaya Noriaki rejected the doctrine of Tathagatagarbha, which according to their view was at odds with the fundamental Buddhist doctrine of dependent origination.[3][4]

Critical Buddhism became known to Western scholarship due to a panel discussion held at the American Academy of Religion's 1993 meeting in Washington, DC with the title "Critical Buddhism: Issues and Responses to a New Methodological Movement", which led to an English collection of essays.[5]

The movement is seen as having peaked in 1997 and having declined by 2001.[6]

[Anonymous No.17568020]

>>17567712
>you can't know the original!
Moot point since neither could you or anyone else could say what the Buddha really really said. I am simply arguing from first principles. Both the Pali Canon and Agamas are accepted by scholars to predate Mahayana sutras regardless of what practitioners say.

>Expecting anything Mahayana to be in line with other teachings except for its bare bones is nuts.
That's what I'm trying to say. The bare bones of Buddhism includes Anatta, which Mahayana equates with Sunyata. The question then isn't whether it is in line with other traditions, its whether the core of all traditions. As another example the influential Yogacarabhumi-sastra which features heavily in the Yogacara school talks extensively about the 4 Noble truths, 8 Fold path, 3 Marks of existence, and the 37 factors of awakening among other things.

Upaya doesn't mean abrogation, it means expediency. You have to understand that the main Mahayana ideas while seeming like new innovations, actually have its source in early Buddhist texts. The Mahayana and non-Mahayana distinction in this regard is a matter of emphasis, not form. Therefore Mahayana is already in line with the Agamas.

This leads to question of how should a sutra that contradicts other sutras within its own tradition (let alone the the entirety of agamic/pali canon sutras) be seen? 2 conclusions are obvious
>the message contradicts the Buddha Dharma, this message is the final teaching, everything else is upaya
or
>the message doesn't contradict the Buddha Dharma, this teaching is upaya, everything else remains consistent

There may be some that choose the former but the consensus between most schools is the latter as it doesn't seem logical to suppose that the numerous times in both Mahayana and Agama/PC that the Buddha argued against the Self as a cornerstone toward path to enlightenment is just an inversion to say 'actually Self does exist lol'.

The Nirvana Sutra played an important role in Tiantai and to some extent in Chan. Neither of them had problem matching it with the teachings of Prajnaparamita ie teachings of emptiness and lack of intrinsic self. Therefore ideas about that tathagatagarbha or dharmadhatu are ultimately seen in light of emptiness, not in spite of it.

[Anonymous No.17568026]

>>17568020
its whether its in line with* the core of all traditions

[Anonymous No.17568041]

>>17562894
nigga are you pasting content from buddhist forums? lmao the desperation of vedantins...

[Anonymous No.17568108]

>>17568041
Lol you're right, he reposted a 12 year old thread from dharmawheel.

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

[Anonymous No.17568145]

>>17565919
>If I, a mere anon, can refute the arguments of Mahayana Buddhism's most vaunted philosopher in a matter of minutes, I can scarcely imagine what Sri Shankaracharya (pbuh) would have done had he ever gotten his hands on the pile of sophistry known as the 'Mulamadhyamakakarika'
Kek

[Anonymous No.17568326]

Yeah In it's well known there is a true self.

http://www.maida-center.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Dec2k11.pdf


Shakyamuni’s View of the True Self

If I mention the words “true self,” some people may wonder how I can reconcile it with “selflessness” (or the absence of a self) that Shakyamuni teaches. The concept of the true self and that of selflessness seem contradictory. But actually there is no contradiction. Here it is important to know that Shakyamuni talks about two types of selves: the ego-self and the true self. When he teaches selflessness, he is talking about the absence (or non-reality) of the ego-self. The ego-self refers to the self that we mistakenly consider permanent, substantial, and autonomous because of our attachment to it, or because of our ignorance of the Dharma of impermanence (i.e., the truth that all things are constantly moving and changing). Shakyamuni, however, tells us that the true self—the self that is one with the Dharma of impermanence (i.e., the self that is constantly moving and changing)—does exist.When Shakyamuni attained enlightenment, he clearly understood that all things were impermanent and the self that he thought permanent did not exist. He realized that his true self was part of the Dharma of impermanence—that it was nothing but a constantly moving and changing flow of life. Thus, having identified himself with the Dharma, he started to live his life as a constant seeker and learner. He realized that the dynamically seeking and learningself was the true self. Without being attached to any fixed values and without being complacent with whatever he attained, he kept on seeking new meanings in his life. It was because the people of his time saw a dynamic, powerful, and creative life in him that his teaching spread throughout India. Thus we can say that Buddhism is a teaching in which we see the non-reality of the ego-self and the reality of the true self

[Anonymous No.17568329]

Many Buddhist teachings refer to the true self. In the Ohana Matsuri (Flower Festival) Service, which commemorates the birth of Shakyamuni Buddha, we often talk about the legend that when the baby Buddha was born, he took seven steps and shouted, “Above heaven, below heaven, I alone am most noble.” Here the “I” that is most noble is the true self. This statement may sound arrogant. But it isn’t. Here the baby Buddha represents all humanity and is talking about the dignity of realizing the true self. By declaring, “I alone am most noble,” the baby Buddha is saying that he is born in this world to realize the noble self, the true self, and that all human beings should do so, too. We can see a similar teaching in Shakyamuni’s words in the Sutra of the Teaching Bequeathed by the Buddha. As the final message of his life, Shakyamuni says, “Rely uponthe self, not upon other things. Rely upon the Dharma, not upon human beings.” His words, “Rely upon the self,” mean that the most important thing that we should discover in our lives is the true self—the self that is one with the Dharma.

[Anonymous No.17568511]

>>17568326
>Shin Buddhism
>First patriarch: Nagarjuna
Why are we so good Nagarjunabros? Hindubabbys copy us, Buddhistbros want to be like us. We just can't stop being everywhere.

[Anonymous No.17568545]

>this thread
This is why Zen is based. No autistic debates.

[Anonymous No.17568787]

Even the Lankavatara states there is a true self


Confused thinkers without guidance are in a cave of consciousness running hither and thither seeking to explain the self. The pure self has to be realized first hand; that is the matrix of realization [Tathagatagarbha], inaccessible to speculative thinkers."

[Anonymous No.17569291]

>>17563163
Based

[Anonymous No.17569334]

Queen Srimala Sutra

“O Lord, living beings have contrary ideas when they have acquired the
five psychophysical elements of the individual.
The impermanent is considered permanent,
suffering is considered happiness.
The substantial self is considered the transcendental self,
the impure is considered pure. The knowledge
of all arhats and pratyekabuddhas has not originally apprehended the
Dharma body of the Tathāgata nor the realm of his omniscience.
If there are living beings who believe in the Buddha’s words, they will have thoughts
of permanence, of happiness, of self, and of purity. These are not contrary
views but are correct views.
Why? The Dharma body of the Tathāgata is the
perfection of permanence, the perfection of happiness, the perfection of the self, and the perfection of purity.
Those who see the Dharma body
of the Buddha in this way are said to see correctly. Those who see correctly
are the true sons and daughters of the Buddha. They arise from the Buddha’s
words, from the True Dharma, and from conversion to the Dharma, attaining
the remaining benefits of the Dharma.

[Anonymous No.17569523]

Read this and weep.


Self & Non-Self in Early Buddhism Paperback – December 1, 1980
by Joaquin Pérez-Remon (Author)

[Anonymous No.17569915]

>>17562602
>>17562602
Too lazy to be ambitious,
I let the world take care of itself.
Ten days' worth of rice in my bag;
a bundle of twigs by the fireplace.
Why chatter about delusion and enlightenment?
Listening to the night rain on my roof,
I sit comfortably, with both legs stretched out.

[S10241875 No.17570268]

>>17562602
This is the third line of Mahayana thought: tatahagata-garbha. The first was madhyamaka, the second was yogacara, the third was this.
Sooner or later, such a direction of Buddhism had to appear.
I understand the interpretation of tathagatagarbha as potential (the potential for any being to become a buddha), but I do not understand the interpretation as Reality. It seems to me that this is no longer Buddhism. But I'm not criticizing them, I just stay away.

>>17562678
Yes, it is interesting that it was in China that the garbhists became mainstream.
Apparently the point is in competition with Confucians and Taoists.
The Garbhists offered a more "exotic" version that made them stand out in the spiritual life of China.
Thank you, the book is interesting, I'll take a look.

[Anonymous No.17570814]

Whatever exists therein of material form, feeling, perception, formations,
and consciousness, he sees those states as impermanent, as suffering, as
a disease, as a tumour, as a barb, as a calamity, as an affliction, as alien, as
disintegrating, as void [suññato], as not self [anattato].

[Anonymous No.17570896]

I'm about ready to take the Buddhism pill.
Give me something that will help me stop ruminating on the distant past, obsessing about things that happened in the distant past, etc.
Rationally, I know that the past is in some sense no longer real, but I could really use some help acknowledging that on a deeper level.

[Anonymous No.17570919]

>>17570896
btw, I'm open to Taoist, Vedanta, Stoicism, etc., stuff too. Looking for a book or other resource that's more practical than academic.

[Anonymous No.17570962]

>>17570919
Zhuangzi
Buddhism and Hinduism are too autistic, if you really want to get into that nonetheless, go with Zen

[Anonymous No.17571000]

>>17570896
See >>17563517.

Sit down, meditate. Focus on the breath. Why are you ruminating? Dissect it.

[Anonymous No.17571061]

>>17568787
Right, and you realize that the Pure Self is Empty. That's the same problem with Buddha Nature; it's not a self, it's closer to what things are made out of. Because they are Empty. Because Emptiness is a characteristic, not a thing.

[Anonymous No.17571290]

>>17562602
All this is so strange.
Vedantins seem to argue, in the same breath that
>Mahayana is the definitive teaching because it is closer to Hinduism and it teaches an atman as Buddha-nature
>pre-sectarian early Buddhism is definitive because it somehow taught the path to the atman via apophaticism and affirming negations, and all the received tradition (Mahayana included) today is mere corruption
>all Buddhism is false because it does not accept the Atman, and is refuted by Vedanta philosophers
At least be fair and honest in your debating: there is no major tradition of Buddhism that accepts an Atman. None at all. Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana all vehemently refute any kind of essential Self or Atman. Even Mahayana which teaches the tathagatagarbha as the ever-present potentiality for awakening, which utilizes the “True Self” in some sutras as a false provisional expedient, harshly denies any kind of Atman or Purusha or Brahman in both of its major tenet systems.
Why can’t you just accept that Buddhism is not Hinduism, and then argue against Buddhist tradition on its own terms by challenging its actual philosophy? Why the need to attempt some kind of weird subversion where you pit the Buddhist traditions against each other based on which ones you pretend teach an Atman (which you call correct) versus the ones which deny it (which you’d call false, corrupt)? Why not just debate things straightforwardly?

[Anonymous No.17571507]

>>17571290
So long as he interprets Buddhism as a heresy of the Vedic/brahminic religion he will never understand it on its own terms.
>>17570919
Sextus Empiricus' Outlines of Pyrrhonism argues against past, future, and present as real objects of knowledge, so could be up your alley. I don't subscribe to the view that the Pyrrhonists were literal Buddhists (Sextus denies that one can even teach what Buddhists would consider "vehicles"), and in fact they might be closer to postmodernism than to any religious philosophy. They do share some ideas and rhetoric, however, and imo Sextus is easier to read than the more stylized Buddhist works, which all presuppose familiarity with the concepts they wax about.

[Anonymous No.17571747]

>>17571507
Pyrrhonism is more "barebones" than Buddhism since it doesn't fancy itself as a soteriology, the flip side being that it doesn't give you much in the way of practical advice (like Buddhism does with the eightfold path).
>they might be closer to postmodernism than to any religious philosophy.
This is true, but it's not a bad thing. Postmodernism failed because it was reluctant to deconstruct marxism.