Positive teachings on the tman in Mahyna Buddhism

[Jainarayan]

Just some food for thought, consider the preponderance of belief in rejection of a permanent or eternal self in Buddhist thinking. Ātman (Buddhism) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia And though Vajrayana is a minority school, we have Adi-Buddha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is why I believe, much to the chagrin of some Buddhists and Hindus, that Hinduism and Buddhism are not mutually exclusive, and in some respects are entirely compatible.

 

[SageTree]

Zhentong- "Other Emptiness".... check it out.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhentong

 

[Jainarayan]

Yep, I've been on top of that. All over it like white-on-rice.

 

[SageTree]

Brown rice is better for ya....

Never-the-less... I get the gist

Glad to hear of your journey once more and again. :namaste

May it be filled with goodness

 

[Jainarayan]

Thanks.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

You don't have to go as far as the tantras to find this idea in Buddhism. The tathagatagarbha school teaches the same thing, and the idea is found, off the top of my head, in the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra. Here the Buddha taught that, while he did teach anatta, there was also a "true self", eternal, not subject to change, and that essence is the very Buddha nature itself.

 

[LuisDantas]

This is why I believe, much to the chagrin of some Buddhists and Hindus, that Hinduism and Buddhism are not mutually exclusive, and in some respects are entirely compatible.

All religions are expected to be compatible if they make enough of an effort not to be trapped in their own expectations and forms, it seems to me.

Both Anatta and Atman are nominally at odds with each other. Both are passible of abuse. It takes religious wisdom to use either without abusing them.

I do however believe that Atman is inherently more dangerous a concept in the long term (and harder to correct), while I suppose Anatta is more dangerous in the short term, if misunderstood and used in the absence of adequate environmental emotional support and guidance.

 

[Jainarayan]

All religions are expected to be compatible if they make enough of an effort not to be trapped in their own expectations and forms, it seems to me.

Here is a quote fom someone that, imo of course, supports being trapped in one's own belief system, making sweeping statements. No one can know what all Buddhists or all Hindus think:

All Hindu acharyas criticized Buddhism of being false, asuric or only very partly true. All Buddhist acharyas have criticized Sanatana Dharma as a wrong view stuck in samsaric grasping with no hope of nirvana. ... Only a small group of Tibetans believing in the dolpo shengtong view adheres to an advaitic type of view. This view is not accepted officially by any of the 4 sects of Tibetan Buddhism. Outside Vajrayana there is no scope at all for advaitic views by any stretch of imagination.

​

I'm not sure how much of that last statement is true, maybe it is 99% true.

Both Anatta and Atman are nominally at odds with each other. Both are passible of abuse. It takes religious wisdom to use either without abusing them.

I think nominal is the key word. Nothing is black and white. If it were there wouldn't be all the schools and subschools of Hinduism and Buddhism.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Outside Vajrayana there is no scope at all for advaitic views by any stretch of imagination.

To me, this is a sweeping generalization. A good bit of Mahayana Buddhism would fit well within the advaitic paradigm. This is particularly true of Zen.

 

[SageTree]

I agree with both of dyanaprajna's posts in this thread, whole-heartedly.

Post #6 in particular being a great explanation of what Zhentong posits, although Rangtog is the prevailing view, generally speaking.

It's interesting to see the over lap in the ends, given that historically they are opposing views.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

It's interesting to see the over lap in the ends, given that historically they are opposing views.

This is true. Of course, there has also been the debates between Madyamaka, Yogacara, and Tathagatagarbha philosophical schools, each seemingly with their differences, only to find out in the end, that they're all basically saying the same thing, just in different words and emphasizing different aspects.

 

[SageTree]

each seemingly with their differences, only to find out in the end, that they're all basically saying the same thing, just in different words and emphasizing different aspects.

Perhaps it is just my Universalist tendency showing....
But what you said really captures the 'One Truth, Many Paths' belief I hold.

Which is surely (an maybe more practically) true in the different sects of each Path....
Also perhaps in the 'reactionary' differences.... between differing religions.

Thinking the 'Self/No Self' language.
It almost seems like Apaphatic/Cataphatic disagreement/approach.

 

[LuisDantas]

To me, this is a sweeping generalization. A good bit of Mahayana Buddhism would fit well within the advaitic paradigm. This is particularly true of Zen.

It was a surprising statement to be sure. I wonder why he felt so.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Perhaps it is just my Universalist tendency showing....
But what you said really captures the 'One Truth, Many Paths' belief I hold.

Which is surely (an maybe more practically) true in the different sects of each Path....
Also perhaps in the 'reactionary' differences.... between differing religions.

Thinking the 'Self/No Self' language.
It almost seems like Apaphatic/Cataphatic disagreement/approach.

Even among the apparent differences between Theravada and Mahayana schools, they're mostly just a difference in words. From my own studies, most Vajrayana practices and ideas can be traced back to Theravada.

 

[SageTree]

agreed

 

[Jainarayan]

To me, this is a sweeping generalization. A good bit of Mahayana Buddhism would fit well within the advaitic paradigm. This is particularly true of Zen.

That was exactly my point. He was making broad statements with nothing to back them up with. Even at my level of learning I can see that statement is wrong. I wanted to say "you don't know what the hell you're talking about, so shut up and sit down". But that wouldn't be very meritorious, now would it?

 

[ratikala]

dear dyanaprajna ji

Even among the apparent differences between Theravada and Mahayana schools, they're mostly just a difference in words. From my own studies, most Vajrayana practices and ideas can be traced back to Theravada.

and from theravada back to the buddha and from buddha back to indian thought , ...

simmilarly all forms were taught allong side each other in universitys such as nalanda , varanasi and the like , only since the demise of such institutions have we become so sectarian .

shame

 

[Jeff Strehlow]

You don't have to go as far as the tantras to find this idea in Buddhism. The tathagatagarbha school teaches the same thing, and the idea is found, off the top of my head, in the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra. Here the Buddha taught that, while he did teach anatta, there was also a "true self", eternal, not subject to change, and that essence is the very Buddha nature itself.

I agree. And Zen Buddhism also speaks of a true self who is always there. It's not surprising that the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra is an important sutra in Zen