Ñāṇa wrote:Dan74 wrote:This language of self, of mind, of Buddha-nature, etc does not contradict Buddha's injunction that no self can be found in the aggregates. Because it is not of the aggregates, it includes the aggregates as well as everything else even the non-existent delusions.
This type of language isn't found in the Nikāyas & Āgamas Dan, and this type of view is connected to more than one wrong view described in
DN 1. For example, the views of eternalism:
- The self and the world are eternal.... And though these beings roam and wander (through the round of existence), pass away and re-arise, yet the self and the world remain the same just like eternity itself.
And the fourth view of partial eternalism:
- [T]hat which is called "mind" (citta) or "mentality" (mano) or "consciousness" (viññāṇa) — that self is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and it will remain the same just like eternity itself.
You are the authority on the type of language found in the Nikayas, Ñāṇa, so I defer to your expertise. I am not sure what this proves though except that we don't have evidence that the Buddha used language like this. The reasons for us not having such evidence or for the Buddha not using such language if indeed he didn't, could be manifold.
As for being connected to wrong views, I don't think what is expressed are even views or positions, but simply metaphors for liberation.
Ñāṇa wrote:
Dan74 wrote:It is in fact nothing but a description of nibbana and an encouragement to realize it here and now because it is nowhere else.
It's not a description of nibbāna.
Why not? What is it a description of then?
Ñāṇa wrote:Dan74 wrote:So I am always left wondering in these debates what is this self that is affirmed? What is the self that is denied?
In the Nikāyas & Āgamas no transcendent or innate self-nature is ever affirmed. And I'm not saying this as some sort of dogmatic fundamentalist. It's simply not a part of the view expressed in these texts which are almost exclusively apophatic when describing what awakened awareness is like. The Buddha and other speakers in these texts are far more concerned with teaching the
path than in describing the
fruition of that path. In this sense the Nikāyas are almost the reverse of the Mahāyāna sūtras, which like to go on about awakening at great length.
[/quote]
There is no concept of
transcendent self-nature in Mahayana and I am surprised that a learned person like yourself would even posit such a straw-man. Transcend what? Not even delusion is transcended but seen through as a mirage that it is. But surely you know this much better than me.
As for
innate self-nature, this is not there either, why would it be innate? This is Emerson, not Mahayana.
The sutras that I am familiar with are very instructive. "Apophatic" is a great word and I have a lot of time for remaining silent. But sometimes it can be appropriate to say something too.
So I am still left wondering if what is being refuted has any bearing on what
appears to be affirmed. All these seeming affirmations are provisional after all and are refuted when appropriate. But at the end of the day we have nibbana which must mean something even if that something is an absence. It has characteristics and this invites descriptions to point out both as a path as a way of being since the path and the effort are themselves in a sense delusory - it is samsara that takes a lot of effort to keep going!