Original topic created by Casino_King,
What is the nature of true self? (Spinoff)
I think things are becoming clearer to me now.
The difference between Mahayana's term 'True Self' and Hinduism's
Advaita is that... in Buddhism, the term 'True Self' or 'Self' is
sort of a re-definition of the wrong concept of 'Self'
...the Dharmakaya reveals itself; once the Dharmakaya lives,
True Self will be produced. Actually True Self is only a name,
if you think that True Self is really True Self, then that is
wrong, it should be No-Self is Self, that is True Self. -
Ven.Shen Kai
This part of the article I pasted on the previous thread by
Casino_King is very important because it is this that sets the
difference between Hinduism and Buddhism. No-Self is Self literally
means that - the nature of Self is No-Self, is emptiness. It is
not a "non-egoistic Self" or "selfless Self", it
means, No-Self is precisely (the true nature of)
Self, and if you think there is a Self with inherent existence
apart from the true nature of No-Self, then you are wrong. And that
is why in Mahayana, 'Self' is only a name... is not seperated from
Emptiness.
I have read about this a long time ago... that Mahayana's teachings
on 'Self' is merely a re-assertion of a wrong concept of Self that
sentient beings have, with the right "concept" of Emptiness.
Without understanding this, one may misunderstand that there is a
'true Self' to be found after the ego (small self) dies. When small
self dies, Great Self/True Self/Dharmakaya (the terms found in many
mahayana sutras, especially those on tathagathagarbha) "manifest"
but this Dharmakaya is Emptiness and without inherent
existence.
So, 'true self' is really just a substitute names... refering to
our true nature of emptiness... there is no inherent existence/self
at all.
See:
http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=38847&st=0
The wiki article sounds like Dr Tony Page or one of his
followers. He runs the Mahaparinirvana Sutra site. He is convinced
that, in a Jonangpa-ish manner Buddha really taught a self-existent
Atman or Self.
What these folks ignore is that when Atman is used, without being
criticised, and is equated or linked to Tathagatagarbha etc.; the
Buddha-nature does not = atman, but Atman = buddha-nature. That is,
the non-inherent, shunyata, emptiness of buddha-nature is also the
nature of Atman. Not that the inherent self-nature, svabhava of
Atman = buddha-nature.
