- I understand that "There is no self" was unequivocally held by Ven Nanananda.
- I understand that Ven Nanananda has some significant respect for Ven Nagarjuna who (maybe coincidentally) happened to insist on emptiness and super-ultra-emptiness.
- I understand that the Mahayana tradition has Ven Nagarjuna as its primary philosopher, according to some sources.
- I understand that True-self is taken as a Buddha's teaching by at least some Mahayana schools.
I don't understand how these are related: Ven Nanananda (No Self); Ven Nagarjuna (Emptiness); Mahayana (True-Self)
- Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
- Posts: 2179
- Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm
I don't understand how these are related: Ven Nanananda (No Self); Ven Nagarjuna (Emptiness); Mahayana (True-Self)
𝓑𝓾𝓭𝓭𝓱𝓪 𝓗𝓪𝓭 𝓤𝓷𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓿𝓸𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓵𝔂 𝓓𝓮𝓬𝓵𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽
𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
- Iᴅᴇᴀ ᴏꜰ Sᴏᴜʟ ɪs Oᴜᴛᴄᴏᴍᴇ ᴏꜰ ᴀɴ Uᴛᴛᴇʀʟʏ Fᴏᴏʟɪsʜ Vɪᴇᴡ
V. Nanananda
𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
- Nᴏ sᴜᴄʜ ᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴀs ᴀ Sᴇʟғ, Sᴏᴜʟ, Eɢᴏ, Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ, ᴏʀ Āᴛᴍᴀɴ
V. Buddhādasa
Re: I don't understand how these are related: Ven Nanananda (No Self); Ven Nagarjuna (Emptiness); Mahayana (True-Self)
Deleted
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Mon Sep 13, 2021 5:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: I don't understand how these are related: Ven Nanananda (No Self); Ven Nagarjuna (Emptiness); Mahayana (True-Self)
Mahāyāna isn’t one set of ideas but a collection which at times conflict with each other. The Prajñāpāramitā texts (at least the early ones, as far as I’m aware) and Ven. Nāgārjuna didn’t teach about the Tathāgatagarbha, which comes from different authors. Likewise Madhyamaka and Yogācāra teach different things, although some tried to fuse them. For example, Ven. Asaṅga didn’t think to highly of Madhyamaka (and so Ven. Nāgārjuna).Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 5:05 pmHowever, I don't understand what on earth is happening when considering all the above together in perspective.
- I understand that "There is no self" was unequivocally held by Ven Nanananda.
- I understand Ven Nanananda had at least some respect for Ven Nagarjuna who (maybe coincidentally) happened to insist on emptiness and super-ultra-emptiness.
- I understand that the Mahayana tradition has Ven Nagarjuna as its primary philosopher, according to some sources.
- I understand that True-self is taken as a Buddha's teaching by at least some Mahayana schools.
- Ven. Asaṅga”How, again, is emptiness wrongly conceptualized? Some ascetics and Brahmins do not acknowledge that [viz. intrinsic nature] of which something is empty. Nor do they acknowledge that which is empty [viz. things and dharmas]. It is in this way that emptiness is said to be wrongly conceived. For what reason? Because that of which it is empty is non-existent, but that which is empty is existent— it is thus that emptiness is possible. What will be empty of what, where, when everything is unreal? This thing's being devoid of that is not [then] possible. Thus emptiness is wrongly conceptualized in this case.”
“If nothing is real, there cannot be any ideas (prajñapti). Someone who holds this view is a nihilist, with whom one should not speak or share living quarters. This person falls into a bad rebirth and takes others with him."
Yogācāra is Abhidharma for Mahāyānists. They think that ultimately there really is something, it’s just beyond words (and it isn’t the mind, as is commonly believed). Obviously this was a point of contention with the Prajñāpāramitā and the followers of Ven. Nāgārjuna.
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Mon Sep 13, 2021 5:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: I don't understand how these are related: Ven Nanananda (No Self); Ven Nagarjuna (Emptiness); Mahayana (True-Self)
I second this. Very true. Even within early Mahayana literature, one can clearly distinguish between, for example, old and new ideas being presented in, respectively, old and new verses or lines. Different Mahayanists work with different concepts, and most sects disagree on (or just ignore) a lot of core topics, including even the interpretation of the bodhisattva vow and the aspiration to liberate all beings. Different sects work with different sutras, too, what they were taught or what worked for them, and just ignore the rest.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 5:10 pm Mahāyāna isn’t one set of ideas but a collection which at times conflict with each other. The Prajñāpāramitā texts (at least the early ones, as far as I’m aware) and Ven. Nāgārjuna didn’t teach about the Tathāgatagarbha, which comes from different authors. Likewise Madhyamaka and Yogācāra teach different things.
Last edited by Mr. Seek on Mon Sep 13, 2021 5:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
- Posts: 2179
- Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm
Re: I don't understand how these are related: Ven Nanananda (No Self); Ven Nagarjuna (Emptiness); Mahayana (True-Self)
𝓑𝓾𝓭𝓭𝓱𝓪 𝓗𝓪𝓭 𝓤𝓷𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓿𝓸𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓵𝔂 𝓓𝓮𝓬𝓵𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽
𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
- Iᴅᴇᴀ ᴏꜰ Sᴏᴜʟ ɪs Oᴜᴛᴄᴏᴍᴇ ᴏꜰ ᴀɴ Uᴛᴛᴇʀʟʏ Fᴏᴏʟɪsʜ Vɪᴇᴡ
V. Nanananda
𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
- Nᴏ sᴜᴄʜ ᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴀs ᴀ Sᴇʟғ, Sᴏᴜʟ, Eɢᴏ, Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ, ᴏʀ Āᴛᴍᴀɴ
V. Buddhādasa
Re: I don't understand how these are related: Ven Nanananda (No Self); Ven Nagarjuna (Emptiness); Mahayana (True-Self)
A slight amendment. I said that Yogācāra is Abhidharma for Mahāyānists. Whilst I think it’s largely aimed at Mahāyānists, I don’t think you necessarily have to be one to practice it just like Madhyamaka. I could be wrong though.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12977
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: I don't understand how these are related: Ven Nanananda (No Self); Ven Nagarjuna (Emptiness); Mahayana (True-Self)
learn from Buddha, not Ven NananandaSabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 5:05 pm However, I don't understand what on earth is happening
- Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
- Posts: 2179
- Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm
Re: I don't understand how these are related: Ven Nanananda (No Self); Ven Nagarjuna (Emptiness); Mahayana (True-Self)
cappuccino wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 6:42 pmlearn from Buddha, not Ven NananandaSabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 5:05 pm However, I don't understand what on earth is happening
To 'realize' that there is Self which is continually changing ?
𝓑𝓾𝓭𝓭𝓱𝓪 𝓗𝓪𝓭 𝓤𝓷𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓿𝓸𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓵𝔂 𝓓𝓮𝓬𝓵𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽
𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
- Iᴅᴇᴀ ᴏꜰ Sᴏᴜʟ ɪs Oᴜᴛᴄᴏᴍᴇ ᴏꜰ ᴀɴ Uᴛᴛᴇʀʟʏ Fᴏᴏʟɪsʜ Vɪᴇᴡ
V. Nanananda
𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
- Nᴏ sᴜᴄʜ ᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴀs ᴀ Sᴇʟғ, Sᴏᴜʟ, Eɢᴏ, Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ, ᴏʀ Āᴛᴍᴀɴ
V. Buddhādasa
Re: I don't understand how these are related: Ven Nanananda (No Self); Ven Nagarjuna (Emptiness); Mahayana (True-Self)
Buddhism is a practice. Getting bogged down in the theory doesn't lead to liberation, but away from it.
_/|\_
- Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
- Posts: 2179
- Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm
Re: I don't understand how these are related: Ven Nanananda (No Self); Ven Nagarjuna (Emptiness); Mahayana (True-Self)
Never mind. I can't even tell these strange words from the others
𝓑𝓾𝓭𝓭𝓱𝓪 𝓗𝓪𝓭 𝓤𝓷𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓿𝓸𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓵𝔂 𝓓𝓮𝓬𝓵𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽
𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
- Iᴅᴇᴀ ᴏꜰ Sᴏᴜʟ ɪs Oᴜᴛᴄᴏᴍᴇ ᴏꜰ ᴀɴ Uᴛᴛᴇʀʟʏ Fᴏᴏʟɪsʜ Vɪᴇᴡ
V. Nanananda
𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
- Nᴏ sᴜᴄʜ ᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴀs ᴀ Sᴇʟғ, Sᴏᴜʟ, Eɢᴏ, Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ, ᴏʀ Āᴛᴍᴀɴ
V. Buddhādasa
Re: I don't understand how these are related: Ven Nanananda (No Self); Ven Nagarjuna (Emptiness); Mahayana (True-Self)
You also have to know where you are going.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12977
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: I don't understand how these are related: Ven Nanananda (No Self); Ven Nagarjuna (Emptiness); Mahayana (True-Self)
"Form, monks, is not self. If form were the self, this form would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' But precisely because form is not self, form lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.'Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 7:43 pm To 'realize' that there is Self which is continually changing ?
"Feeling is not self...
"Perception is not self...
Pañcavaggi Sutta
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12977
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: I don't understand how these are related: Ven Nanananda (No Self); Ven Nagarjuna (Emptiness); Mahayana (True-Self)
"What do you think, monks — Is form constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord."
"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"
"Stressful, lord."
"And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"
"No, lord."
Pañcavaggi Sutta
"Inconstant, lord."
"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"
"Stressful, lord."
"And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"
"No, lord."
Pañcavaggi Sutta
Re: I don't understand how these are related: Ven Nanananda (No Self); Ven Nagarjuna (Emptiness); Mahayana (True-Self)
Imagine trying to combine every single perspective put forward by "Theravāda," ancient and modern, orthodox and heterodox... Wat Phra Dhammakaya + the Forest Tradition + Dhammayut + Modernist Theravāda + Daniel Ingram etc. It would be enough to warrant the emoticon you signed off your OP with:Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 5:05 pmHowever, I don't understand what on earth is happening when considering all the above together in perspective.
- I understand that "There is no self" was unequivocally held by Ven Nanananda.
- I understand that Ven Nanananda has some significant respect for Ven Nagarjuna who (maybe coincidentally) happened to insist on emptiness and super-ultra-emptiness.
- I understand that the Mahayana tradition has Ven Nagarjuna as its primary philosopher, according to some sources.
- I understand that True-self is taken as a Buddha's teaching by at least some Mahayana schools.
It all doesn't fit, because certain elements of it are mutually exclusive. If you try to reconcile these opposing orthodoxies, you will end up in a mess of compromised half-doctrines.
There are 5+, I think, parinirvāṇa vaipulyas in the Taishо̄ Canon, not counting recensions in the āgamas (of which there are two that I know of, a Sarvāstivādin and a Dharmaguptaka). The one discovered and "translated" by Dharmakṣema in the 400s is the most infamous. This massive parinirvāṇa vaipulya is allegedly condensed from a massive 35,000-verse tome that Dharmakṣema discovered in Gǔzhàng, China, amidst manuscripts from India. It has an extraordinarily sketchy provenance, even for a Mahāyāna sūtra -- that class of sūtra considered "sketchiest" by many. In fact, it is IMHO a "forgery."
Now, what does it mean for a Mahāyāna sūtra to be a "forgery?"
"Surely all of the Mahāyāna sūtras are forgeries!" says some perspectives common on this forum.
Well, the answer as to how one Mahāyāna sūtra can be a forgery and another not is that one of them is, literally, a fake Mahāyāna sūtra. The "Mahāyāna sūtras" constitute a body of material that is, by this period, considered a) Indian, and b) definitely closed by the 400s, during Dharmakṣema's time. Now, the reality of the fact is that maybe many Mahāyāna sūtras are "Central Asian" if anything, not necessarily "Indian," and that many are considerably newer than the "old Mahāyāna sūtras" like the Lotus, the Flower Garland, the Prajñāpāramitā, the Inquiries of Maitreya, etc. These are famous Mahāyāna sūtras with well-established Indian pedigrees, regardless of if a Mahāyāna sūtra is necessarily a forgery inasmuch as it is prospective "buddhavacana." Here is the passage from the infamous sūtra:
(T374.407b6 Parinirvāṇasūtra)Mahākāśyapa Bodhisattva asked the Buddha to speak, saying, "O, Lord, from now I commence in obtaining right view. Lord, until now, we all entirely abided in wrong view. Lord, in the twenty-five existences, is there no ātman?"
The Buddha said: "O, noble son, 'the ātman,' truly, is 'the tathāgatagarbha' in its meaning. All sentient beings have the buddhadhātu and, truly, 'the ātman' is its meaning. Thus so, the ātman's meaning is, from root towards end, constantly covered under kleśas without limit. Therefore, sentient beings cannot obtain sight of it [...]"
The texts goes on to proclaim nirvāṇa as well as the dharmakāya of the Buddhas to have four characteristics: 1) purity, 2) selfhood, 3) eternity, and 4) bliss. These are also interpreted as "perfections" in the style of bodhisattva perfections. It further declares that the Tathāgatas have a "diamond essence" that endures after parinirvāṇa. It declares that the tathāgatagarbha is the ātman, as we see right above this.
It is a very "different" sort of sūtra of dubious origin than other Mahāyāna sūtras with or without dubious origins. No other version of the Mahāparinirvāṇa vaipulya has these sections.
The issue the OP is having with the conflicting stances is caused by, in my experience, the tendency in (modern) Mahāyāna, particularly (modern) Chinese Mahāyāna, to ignore the sectarian disputes of the past over things like doctrines and the textual status of texts. The Tiāntāi school for instance, before it was moribund in China, used to sharply polemicize against the śāstra called "The Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna." They called it heretical, un-Buddhist, and Daoist. The doctrines of the Chán Buddhists used to be so controversial, no other school would have them. No co-celebration of uposathas there.
All this is gone in modern (at least Chinese) Buddhism. Japanese Buddhism still has sharp divisions, but most Japanese people are thoroughly unreligious, and the Japanese who are are often so in a sectarian fundamentalist manner when it comes to these "old sects." In modern Mahāyāna, an intellectual malaise has crept in where people just turn off their brains and say "All the Buddha-sūtras are true and authentic and all of the treatises are wise and correct."
It's fine for cultivating non-attachment and withholding judgement based on sectarian or personal bias, but bad for cultivating critical thinking leading to discernment. What I am saying is not "completely the case," obviously. An intellectual malaise isn't over the whole of Chinese and East Asian Mahāyāna, but IMO this is definitely something of an unaddressed problem. Dharmakṣema's Parinirvāṇasūtra that proclaims the true self cannot be true while also the scriptures of the Buddhas which proclaim selflessness are true. It is one thing to withhold judgement as an act of humility, but it is another to be so open-minded that you become vulnerable to someone convincing you that merging with your true self, or something like that, is a Buddhist doctrine.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Re: I don't understand how these are related: Ven Nanananda (No Self); Ven Nagarjuna (Emptiness); Mahayana (True-Self)
Thank you for the helpful analysis!
I would also add that there often seems far too much reliance on cartoonish "sound bite" versions of various doctrines (this problem infects many threads about Abhidhamma, MMK, etc... ). Why anyone would think they are in a position to comment on such complex issues after skimming a couple of paragraphs on the Internet is beyond me!
Mike