Mixing
Difference between Theravada's self and Mahayana's intrinsic essence
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
With reference to this comment:
An intrinsic nature, essence or characteristic that is unique to some
phenomena that can be described as that phenomena's self. The self of
chair would be that intrinsic nature, essence or unique characteristic
or set of characteristics that imbue chairness on a chair. Western
philosophers might describe it as a platonic ideal.
In Theravada Buddhism, "sabbe dhamma anatta", means all phenomena is not self. This can also be rephrased as there is no self in all phenomena, with the understanding of "self" as a permanent and eternal core or soul or self at the center of beings and also non-beings. A chair, a tree, a cat, the mind, empty space and Nibbana all do not have a self, according to Theravada. All things except Nibbana, are subject to change, arising and passing - these are known as "sankhara", or conditioned and/or compounded things. The term "dhamma" refers to phenomena, which includes Nibbana and also all sankharas. Basically everything falls under "dhamma". The emptiness of Theravada refers to the notion that all phenomena is empty of a self. "Sabbe dhamma anatta" is accepted by Mahayana Buddhism too.
Meanwhile, in Mahayana Buddhism, specifically in Madhyamaka, all phenomena is empty of intrinsic essence. Emptiness itself is also empty of intrinsic essence - sometimes called the emptiness of emptiness. intrinsic essence is called "svabhava". I can say that in Madhyamaka, there is an equivalent "sabbe dhamma asvabhava" of sorts.
Generally, the difference between the two is understood as "Mahayana says everything is not ultimately real", but on the other hand, "Theravada says everything is not-self, but are real (even if not constant and not permanent)".
The commentator above now introduced a new set of terminology saying that Theravada's self or atta refers to the "self of persons", while the Mahayana svabhava (or intrinsic essence) of a chair is a "self of chairs".
So my questions would be:
Do other Mahayana Buddhists apart from the commentator above, also call the intrinsic essence (svabhava) of a chair, as the "self of chairs"?
If Theravada states "sabbe dhamma anatta" and Mahayana states "sabbe dhamma asvabhava", does it mean that anatta = asvabhava, and therefore, atta (self) = svabhava (intrinsic essence)?
Depending on your view: if the Theravada atta (self) is different from the Mahayana svabhava (intrinsic essence), then what really is the difference? OR if the Theravada atta (self) is same as the Mahayana svabhava (intrinsic essence), then does that make the Mahayana emptiness a redundant concept?
theravada mahayana anatman sunyata
asked Aug 15 at 14:42
ruben2020
12.6k21137
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
With reference to this comment:
An intrinsic nature, essence or characteristic that is unique to some
phenomena that can be described as that phenomena's self. The self of
chair would be that intrinsic nature, essence or unique characteristic
or set of characteristics that imbue chairness on a chair. Western
philosophers might describe it as a platonic ideal.
In Theravada Buddhism, "sabbe dhamma anatta", means all phenomena is not self. This can also be rephrased as there is no self in all phenomena, with the understanding of "self" as a permanent and eternal core or soul or self at the center of beings and also non-beings. A chair, a tree, a cat, the mind, empty space and Nibbana all do not have a self, according to Theravada. All things except Nibbana, are subject to change, arising and passing - these are known as "sankhara", or conditioned and/or compounded things. The term "dhamma" refers to phenomena, which includes Nibbana and also all sankharas. Basically everything falls under "dhamma". The emptiness of Theravada refers to the notion that all phenomena is empty of a self. "Sabbe dhamma anatta" is accepted by Mahayana Buddhism too.
Meanwhile, in Mahayana Buddhism, specifically in Madhyamaka, all phenomena is empty of intrinsic essence. Emptiness itself is also empty of intrinsic essence - sometimes called the emptiness of emptiness. intrinsic essence is called "svabhava". I can say that in Madhyamaka, there is an equivalent "sabbe dhamma asvabhava" of sorts.
Generally, the difference between the two is understood as "Mahayana says everything is not ultimately real", but on the other hand, "Theravada says everything is not-self, but are real (even if not constant and not permanent)".
The commentator above now introduced a new set of terminology saying that Theravada's self or atta refers to the "self of persons", while the Mahayana svabhava (or intrinsic essence) of a chair is a "self of chairs".
So my questions would be:
Do other Mahayana Buddhists apart from the commentator above, also call the intrinsic essence (svabhava) of a chair, as the "self of chairs"?
If Theravada states "sabbe dhamma anatta" and Mahayana states "sabbe dhamma asvabhava", does it mean that anatta = asvabhava, and therefore, atta (self) = svabhava (intrinsic essence)?
Depending on your view: if the Theravada atta (self) is different from the Mahayana svabhava (intrinsic essence), then what really is the difference? OR if the Theravada atta (self) is same as the Mahayana svabhava (intrinsic essence), then does that make the Mahayana emptiness a redundant concept?
theravada mahayana anatman sunyata
asked Aug 15 at 14:42
ruben2020
12.6k21137
See very related question here which has quotes from Mahayana monastic textbook: buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/28708/…
– Yeshe Tenley
Aug 15 at 14:48
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
With reference to this comment:
An intrinsic nature, essence or characteristic that is unique to some
phenomena that can be described as that phenomena's self. The self of
chair would be that intrinsic nature, essence or unique characteristic
or set of characteristics that imbue chairness on a chair. Western
philosophers might describe it as a platonic ideal.
In Theravada Buddhism, "sabbe dhamma anatta", means all phenomena is not self. This can also be rephrased as there is no self in all phenomena, with the understanding of "self" as a permanent and eternal core or soul or self at the center of beings and also non-beings. A chair, a tree, a cat, the mind, empty space and Nibbana all do not have a self, according to Theravada. All things except Nibbana, are subject to change, arising and passing - these are known as "sankhara", or conditioned and/or compounded things. The term "dhamma" refers to phenomena, which includes Nibbana and also all sankharas. Basically everything falls under "dhamma". The emptiness of Theravada refers to the notion that all phenomena is empty of a self. "Sabbe dhamma anatta" is accepted by Mahayana Buddhism too.
Meanwhile, in Mahayana Buddhism, specifically in Madhyamaka, all phenomena is empty of intrinsic essence. Emptiness itself is also empty of intrinsic essence - sometimes called the emptiness of emptiness. intrinsic essence is called "svabhava". I can say that in Madhyamaka, there is an equivalent "sabbe dhamma asvabhava" of sorts.
Generally, the difference between the two is understood as "Mahayana says everything is not ultimately real", but on the other hand, "Theravada says everything is not-self, but are real (even if not constant and not permanent)".
The commentator above now introduced a new set of terminology saying that Theravada's self or atta refers to the "self of persons", while the Mahayana svabhava (or intrinsic essence) of a chair is a "self of chairs".
So my questions would be:
Do other Mahayana Buddhists apart from the commentator above, also call the intrinsic essence (svabhava) of a chair, as the "self of chairs"?
If Theravada states "sabbe dhamma anatta" and Mahayana states "sabbe dhamma asvabhava", does it mean that anatta = asvabhava, and therefore, atta (self) = svabhava (intrinsic essence)?
Depending on your view: if the Theravada atta (self) is different from the Mahayana svabhava (intrinsic essence), then what really is the difference? OR if the Theravada atta (self) is same as the Mahayana svabhava (intrinsic essence), then does that make the Mahayana emptiness a redundant concept?
theravada mahayana anatman sunyata
asked Aug 15 at 14:42
ruben2020
12.6k21137
With reference to this comment:
An intrinsic nature, essence or characteristic that is unique to some
phenomena that can be described as that phenomena's self. The self of
chair would be that intrinsic nature, essence or unique characteristic
or set of characteristics that imbue chairness on a chair. Western
philosophers might describe it as a platonic ideal.
In Theravada Buddhism, "sabbe dhamma anatta", means all phenomena is not self. This can also be rephrased as there is no self in all phenomena, with the understanding of "self" as a permanent and eternal core or soul or self at the center of beings and also non-beings. A chair, a tree, a cat, the mind, empty space and Nibbana all do not have a self, according to Theravada. All things except Nibbana, are subject to change, arising and passing - these are known as "sankhara", or conditioned and/or compounded things. The term "dhamma" refers to phenomena, which includes Nibbana and also all sankharas. Basically everything falls under "dhamma". The emptiness of Theravada refers to the notion that all phenomena is empty of a self. "Sabbe dhamma anatta" is accepted by Mahayana Buddhism too.
Meanwhile, in Mahayana Buddhism, specifically in Madhyamaka, all phenomena is empty of intrinsic essence. Emptiness itself is also empty of intrinsic essence - sometimes called the emptiness of emptiness. intrinsic essence is called "svabhava". I can say that in Madhyamaka, there is an equivalent "sabbe dhamma asvabhava" of sorts.
Generally, the difference between the two is understood as "Mahayana says everything is not ultimately real", but on the other hand, "Theravada says everything is not-self, but are real (even if not constant and not permanent)".
The commentator above now introduced a new set of terminology saying that Theravada's self or atta refers to the "self of persons", while the Mahayana svabhava (or intrinsic essence) of a chair is a "self of chairs".
So my questions would be:
Do other Mahayana Buddhists apart from the commentator above, also call the intrinsic essence (svabhava) of a chair, as the "self of chairs"?
If Theravada states "sabbe dhamma anatta" and Mahayana states "sabbe dhamma asvabhava", does it mean that anatta = asvabhava, and therefore, atta (self) = svabhava (intrinsic essence)?
Depending on your view: if the Theravada atta (self) is different from the Mahayana svabhava (intrinsic essence), then what really is the difference? OR if the Theravada atta (self) is same as the Mahayana svabhava (intrinsic essence), then does that make the Mahayana emptiness a redundant concept?
theravada mahayana anatman sunyata
asked Aug 15 at 14:42
ruben2020
12.6k21137
edited Aug 15 at 15:52
asked Aug 15 at 14:42
ruben2020
12.6k21137
asked Aug 15 at 14:42
ruben2020
12.6k21137
asked Aug 15 at 14:42
ruben2020
12.6k21137
12.6k21137
See very related question here which has quotes from Mahayana monastic textbook: buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/28708/…
– Yeshe Tenley
Aug 15 at 14:48
add a comment |Â
See very related question here which has quotes from Mahayana monastic textbook: buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/28708/…
– Yeshe Tenley
Aug 15 at 14:48
See very related question here which has quotes from Mahayana monastic textbook: buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/28708/…
– Yeshe Tenley
Aug 15 at 14:48
See very related question here which has quotes from Mahayana monastic textbook: buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/28708/…
– Yeshe Tenley
Aug 15 at 14:48
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
1. Do other Mahayana Buddhists apart from the commentator above, also call the intrinsic essence (svabhava) of a chair, as the "self of chairs"?
Yes, this is a common expression in Mahayana texts on the topic.
2. If Theravada states "sabbe dhamma anatta" and Mahayana states "sabbe dhamma asvabhava", does it mean that anatta = asvabhava, and therefore, atta (self) = svabhava (intrinsic essence)?
I think Mahayana states "sabbe dhamma shunyata" - which can be explained as "sabbe dhamma asvabhavata" and "sabbe dhamma pratityasamutpida". From this it also follows that all dharmas are anicca (ephemeral) and dukkha (here, faulty/unreliable).
If we don't nitpick too much about the meaning of the equal sign, I think I can agree with your statements that "anatta = asvabhava" and "atta = svabhava". More on this in a second.
3. Depending on your view: if the Theravada atta (self) is different from the Mahayana svabhava (intrinsic essence), then what really is the difference? OR if the Theravada atta (self) is same as the Mahayana svabhava (intrinsic essence), then does that make the Mahayana emptiness a redundant concept?
I think svabhava is a broader concept than atman (atta). To me, atman is only one case of reification, or one case of attributing svabhava to abstractions and observations.
Therefore, Mahayana's emptiness is not redundant. True -- it is not something entirely new that was absent in Theravada, but in my opinion it gives proper emphasis to something that is kind of implicit and not explained enough in the Pali Canon (even if ever-present "between the lines").
answered Aug 15 at 17:18
Andrei Volkov♦
34.9k229103
OK. So, you're saying that "anatta ⊂asvabhava" and "atta ⊂svabhava", where the symbol ⊂ in set theory means, "A⊂B, A is a subset of B, but A is not equal to B."
– ruben2020
Aug 15 at 17:25
That is correct.
– Andrei Volkov♦
Aug 15 at 18:03
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Here is some more support for the terminology of the "two selves" in Madhyamaka philosophy via Treasury of Precious Qualities:
We can see this in the example of the rope and the snake. When a
distinction is made between persons and phenomena, a person is the
subjective individual, such as "Devadatta," imputed upon his own
collection of aggregates, which are the basis of such a labeling. By
contrast, phenomena are Devadatta's aggregates, his eyes, for example,
which act as the ground on which the person "Devadatta" is imputed.
The term "phenomena" refers to all other things, in addition to the
personal aggregates.
...
The "personal no-self" is the absence of inherent existence in the
person. The "phenomenal no-self" is the absence of inherent existence
in phenomena. This is understood by the "wisdom of realizing no-self."
Persons and phenomena are, of course, said to exist on the
conventional level.
This terminology is very common in Mahayana Madhyamaka literature and might have started with Chandrakirti which defines the terms in his Commentary on the "Four Hundred Stanzas":
“Self†is an essence of things that does not depend on others; it is
an intrinsic nature. The nonexistence of that is selflessness. Be-
cause of the division into objects and persons, it is understood as
twofold: a “selflessness of objects†and a “selflessness of persons.â€Â
You can also find these two selves referred to as the self of pugdala (pali: puggala) and the self of dharmas (pali: dhammas):
Accordingly, upon finding no given thing of the two selves (pugdala
and dharma), the nongiven thing of the refuted (two selves) is
something rightly produced.
answered Aug 15 at 16:31
Yeshe Tenley
1,348221
add a comment |Â
up vote
-2
down vote
An intrinsic nature, essence or characteristic that is unique to some phenomena that can be described as that phenomena's self.
I said this in one of my answers but was scored down by the same Mahayana who believe in these ideas.
An intrinsic nature, essence or characteristic that is unique to some phenomena CANNOT be described as that phenomena's self.
That a rock is 'hard' by nature is not its "self". That Nibbana is "peaceful" is not its "self". Such ideas are crazy. "Self" is "ego" & "possessiveness" ("I-making" & "mine-making").
“RÄÂhula, the interior earth element is said to be anything hard, solid, and organic that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This
includes head hair, body hair, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews,
bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, diaphragm, spleen, lungs,
intestines, mesentery, undigested food, feces, or anything else hard,
solid, and organic that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This
is called the interior earth element. The interior earth element and
the exterior earth element are just the earth element. This should be
truly seen with proper understanding like this: ‘This is not mine, I
am not this, this is not my self.’ When you really see with proper
understanding, you reject the earth element, detaching the mind from
the earth element.
MN 62
answered Aug 17 at 1:49
Dhammadhatu
23.1k11041
An intrinsic nature, essence or characteristic that is unique to some phenomena CANNOT be described as that phenomena's selfBut apparently it (the word "self") IS used that way. The Pali word is sabhÄÂva which starts with sa- defined as "own" -- Wikipedia's sabhÄÂva says,literally means "own-being" or "own-becoming". It is the intrinsic nature, essential nature or essence of living beings: which, Andrei says, people translate as a something's "self" or "true self".
– ChrisW♦
Aug 17 at 2:21
If one removes Self grasping from earth as described in MN, and then "reject the earth element, detaching the mind from the earth element" that is earth devoid of Self grasping context and that is what is meant by Selfless of phenomenon. Dr. Alexander Berzin on Self-essence of phenomena "Just because nothing exists in impossible ways does not mean that nothing exists. Voidness refutes merely impossible ways of existing, such as self-established inherent existence. It does not refute the existence of things as “this†or “that†in accordance with the conventions of words and concepts."
– bodhihammer
Aug 17 at 8:54
Spare us Chris. Thanks. As though Wikipedia understands dhamma. As though Buddhism teaches about a True Self.
– Dhammadhatu
Aug 17 at 9:36
No Bodhihammer. MN 62 merely states to not regard the earth element as "mine". Why don't you read the sutta, which states: "earth property are simply earth property".
– Dhammadhatu
Aug 17 at 9:40
No one claims otherwise, removing "mine" is ending Self grasping in regard to earth element (both interior and exterior). In Mahayana terms it makes one not perceive it as an intrinsic in essence.
– bodhihammer
Aug 17 at 10:23
 |Â
show 1 more comment
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
1. Do other Mahayana Buddhists apart from the commentator above, also call the intrinsic essence (svabhava) of a chair, as the "self of chairs"?
Yes, this is a common expression in Mahayana texts on the topic.
2. If Theravada states "sabbe dhamma anatta" and Mahayana states "sabbe dhamma asvabhava", does it mean that anatta = asvabhava, and therefore, atta (self) = svabhava (intrinsic essence)?
I think Mahayana states "sabbe dhamma shunyata" - which can be explained as "sabbe dhamma asvabhavata" and "sabbe dhamma pratityasamutpida". From this it also follows that all dharmas are anicca (ephemeral) and dukkha (here, faulty/unreliable).
If we don't nitpick too much about the meaning of the equal sign, I think I can agree with your statements that "anatta = asvabhava" and "atta = svabhava". More on this in a second.
3. Depending on your view: if the Theravada atta (self) is different from the Mahayana svabhava (intrinsic essence), then what really is the difference? OR if the Theravada atta (self) is same as the Mahayana svabhava (intrinsic essence), then does that make the Mahayana emptiness a redundant concept?
I think svabhava is a broader concept than atman (atta). To me, atman is only one case of reification, or one case of attributing svabhava to abstractions and observations.
Therefore, Mahayana's emptiness is not redundant. True -- it is not something entirely new that was absent in Theravada, but in my opinion it gives proper emphasis to something that is kind of implicit and not explained enough in the Pali Canon (even if ever-present "between the lines").
answered Aug 15 at 17:18
Andrei Volkov♦
34.9k229103
OK. So, you're saying that "anatta ⊂asvabhava" and "atta ⊂svabhava", where the symbol ⊂ in set theory means, "A⊂B, A is a subset of B, but A is not equal to B."
– ruben2020
Aug 15 at 17:25
That is correct.
– Andrei Volkov♦
Aug 15 at 18:03
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
1. Do other Mahayana Buddhists apart from the commentator above, also call the intrinsic essence (svabhava) of a chair, as the "self of chairs"?
Yes, this is a common expression in Mahayana texts on the topic.
2. If Theravada states "sabbe dhamma anatta" and Mahayana states "sabbe dhamma asvabhava", does it mean that anatta = asvabhava, and therefore, atta (self) = svabhava (intrinsic essence)?
I think Mahayana states "sabbe dhamma shunyata" - which can be explained as "sabbe dhamma asvabhavata" and "sabbe dhamma pratityasamutpida". From this it also follows that all dharmas are anicca (ephemeral) and dukkha (here, faulty/unreliable).
If we don't nitpick too much about the meaning of the equal sign, I think I can agree with your statements that "anatta = asvabhava" and "atta = svabhava". More on this in a second.
3. Depending on your view: if the Theravada atta (self) is different from the Mahayana svabhava (intrinsic essence), then what really is the difference? OR if the Theravada atta (self) is same as the Mahayana svabhava (intrinsic essence), then does that make the Mahayana emptiness a redundant concept?
I think svabhava is a broader concept than atman (atta). To me, atman is only one case of reification, or one case of attributing svabhava to abstractions and observations.
Therefore, Mahayana's emptiness is not redundant. True -- it is not something entirely new that was absent in Theravada, but in my opinion it gives proper emphasis to something that is kind of implicit and not explained enough in the Pali Canon (even if ever-present "between the lines").
answered Aug 15 at 17:18
Andrei Volkov♦
34.9k229103
OK. So, you're saying that "anatta ⊂asvabhava" and "atta ⊂svabhava", where the symbol ⊂ in set theory means, "A⊂B, A is a subset of B, but A is not equal to B."
– ruben2020
Aug 15 at 17:25
That is correct.
– Andrei Volkov♦
Aug 15 at 18:03
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
1. Do other Mahayana Buddhists apart from the commentator above, also call the intrinsic essence (svabhava) of a chair, as the "self of chairs"?
Yes, this is a common expression in Mahayana texts on the topic.
2. If Theravada states "sabbe dhamma anatta" and Mahayana states "sabbe dhamma asvabhava", does it mean that anatta = asvabhava, and therefore, atta (self) = svabhava (intrinsic essence)?
I think Mahayana states "sabbe dhamma shunyata" - which can be explained as "sabbe dhamma asvabhavata" and "sabbe dhamma pratityasamutpida". From this it also follows that all dharmas are anicca (ephemeral) and dukkha (here, faulty/unreliable).
If we don't nitpick too much about the meaning of the equal sign, I think I can agree with your statements that "anatta = asvabhava" and "atta = svabhava". More on this in a second.
3. Depending on your view: if the Theravada atta (self) is different from the Mahayana svabhava (intrinsic essence), then what really is the difference? OR if the Theravada atta (self) is same as the Mahayana svabhava (intrinsic essence), then does that make the Mahayana emptiness a redundant concept?
I think svabhava is a broader concept than atman (atta). To me, atman is only one case of reification, or one case of attributing svabhava to abstractions and observations.
Therefore, Mahayana's emptiness is not redundant. True -- it is not something entirely new that was absent in Theravada, but in my opinion it gives proper emphasis to something that is kind of implicit and not explained enough in the Pali Canon (even if ever-present "between the lines").
answered Aug 15 at 17:18
Andrei Volkov♦
34.9k229103
1. Do other Mahayana Buddhists apart from the commentator above, also call the intrinsic essence (svabhava) of a chair, as the "self of chairs"?
Yes, this is a common expression in Mahayana texts on the topic.
2. If Theravada states "sabbe dhamma anatta" and Mahayana states "sabbe dhamma asvabhava", does it mean that anatta = asvabhava, and therefore, atta (self) = svabhava (intrinsic essence)?
I think Mahayana states "sabbe dhamma shunyata" - which can be explained as "sabbe dhamma asvabhavata" and "sabbe dhamma pratityasamutpida". From this it also follows that all dharmas are anicca (ephemeral) and dukkha (here, faulty/unreliable).
If we don't nitpick too much about the meaning of the equal sign, I think I can agree with your statements that "anatta = asvabhava" and "atta = svabhava". More on this in a second.
3. Depending on your view: if the Theravada atta (self) is different from the Mahayana svabhava (intrinsic essence), then what really is the difference? OR if the Theravada atta (self) is same as the Mahayana svabhava (intrinsic essence), then does that make the Mahayana emptiness a redundant concept?
I think svabhava is a broader concept than atman (atta). To me, atman is only one case of reification, or one case of attributing svabhava to abstractions and observations.
Therefore, Mahayana's emptiness is not redundant. True -- it is not something entirely new that was absent in Theravada, but in my opinion it gives proper emphasis to something that is kind of implicit and not explained enough in the Pali Canon (even if ever-present "between the lines").
answered Aug 15 at 17:18
Andrei Volkov♦
34.9k229103
edited Aug 15 at 17:24
answered Aug 15 at 17:18
Andrei Volkov♦
34.9k229103
answered Aug 15 at 17:18
Andrei Volkov♦
34.9k229103
answered Aug 15 at 17:18
Andrei Volkov♦
34.9k229103
34.9k229103
OK. So, you're saying that "anatta ⊂asvabhava" and "atta ⊂svabhava", where the symbol ⊂ in set theory means, "A⊂B, A is a subset of B, but A is not equal to B."
– ruben2020
Aug 15 at 17:25
That is correct.
– Andrei Volkov♦
Aug 15 at 18:03
add a comment |Â
OK. So, you're saying that "anatta ⊂asvabhava" and "atta ⊂svabhava", where the symbol ⊂ in set theory means, "A⊂B, A is a subset of B, but A is not equal to B."
– ruben2020
Aug 15 at 17:25
That is correct.
– Andrei Volkov♦
Aug 15 at 18:03
OK. So, you're saying that "anatta ⊂asvabhava" and "atta ⊂svabhava", where the symbol ⊂ in set theory means, "A⊂B, A is a subset of B, but A is not equal to B."
– ruben2020
Aug 15 at 17:25
OK. So, you're saying that "anatta ⊂asvabhava" and "atta ⊂svabhava", where the symbol ⊂ in set theory means, "A⊂B, A is a subset of B, but A is not equal to B."
– ruben2020
Aug 15 at 17:25
That is correct.
– Andrei Volkov♦
Aug 15 at 18:03
That is correct.
– Andrei Volkov♦
Aug 15 at 18:03
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Here is some more support for the terminology of the "two selves" in Madhyamaka philosophy via Treasury of Precious Qualities:
We can see this in the example of the rope and the snake. When a
distinction is made between persons and phenomena, a person is the
subjective individual, such as "Devadatta," imputed upon his own
collection of aggregates, which are the basis of such a labeling. By
contrast, phenomena are Devadatta's aggregates, his eyes, for example,
which act as the ground on which the person "Devadatta" is imputed.
The term "phenomena" refers to all other things, in addition to the
personal aggregates.
...
The "personal no-self" is the absence of inherent existence in the
person. The "phenomenal no-self" is the absence of inherent existence
in phenomena. This is understood by the "wisdom of realizing no-self."
Persons and phenomena are, of course, said to exist on the
conventional level.
This terminology is very common in Mahayana Madhyamaka literature and might have started with Chandrakirti which defines the terms in his Commentary on the "Four Hundred Stanzas":
“Self†is an essence of things that does not depend on others; it is
an intrinsic nature. The nonexistence of that is selflessness. Be-
cause of the division into objects and persons, it is understood as
twofold: a “selflessness of objects†and a “selflessness of persons.â€Â
You can also find these two selves referred to as the self of pugdala (pali: puggala) and the self of dharmas (pali: dhammas):
Accordingly, upon finding no given thing of the two selves (pugdala
and dharma), the nongiven thing of the refuted (two selves) is
something rightly produced.
answered Aug 15 at 16:31
Yeshe Tenley
1,348221
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Here is some more support for the terminology of the "two selves" in Madhyamaka philosophy via Treasury of Precious Qualities:
We can see this in the example of the rope and the snake. When a
distinction is made between persons and phenomena, a person is the
subjective individual, such as "Devadatta," imputed upon his own
collection of aggregates, which are the basis of such a labeling. By
contrast, phenomena are Devadatta's aggregates, his eyes, for example,
which act as the ground on which the person "Devadatta" is imputed.
The term "phenomena" refers to all other things, in addition to the
personal aggregates.
...
The "personal no-self" is the absence of inherent existence in the
person. The "phenomenal no-self" is the absence of inherent existence
in phenomena. This is understood by the "wisdom of realizing no-self."
Persons and phenomena are, of course, said to exist on the
conventional level.
This terminology is very common in Mahayana Madhyamaka literature and might have started with Chandrakirti which defines the terms in his Commentary on the "Four Hundred Stanzas":
“Self†is an essence of things that does not depend on others; it is
an intrinsic nature. The nonexistence of that is selflessness. Be-
cause of the division into objects and persons, it is understood as
twofold: a “selflessness of objects†and a “selflessness of persons.â€Â
You can also find these two selves referred to as the self of pugdala (pali: puggala) and the self of dharmas (pali: dhammas):
Accordingly, upon finding no given thing of the two selves (pugdala
and dharma), the nongiven thing of the refuted (two selves) is
something rightly produced.
answered Aug 15 at 16:31
Yeshe Tenley
1,348221
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Here is some more support for the terminology of the "two selves" in Madhyamaka philosophy via Treasury of Precious Qualities:
We can see this in the example of the rope and the snake. When a
distinction is made between persons and phenomena, a person is the
subjective individual, such as "Devadatta," imputed upon his own
collection of aggregates, which are the basis of such a labeling. By
contrast, phenomena are Devadatta's aggregates, his eyes, for example,
which act as the ground on which the person "Devadatta" is imputed.
The term "phenomena" refers to all other things, in addition to the
personal aggregates.
...
The "personal no-self" is the absence of inherent existence in the
person. The "phenomenal no-self" is the absence of inherent existence
in phenomena. This is understood by the "wisdom of realizing no-self."
Persons and phenomena are, of course, said to exist on the
conventional level.
This terminology is very common in Mahayana Madhyamaka literature and might have started with Chandrakirti which defines the terms in his Commentary on the "Four Hundred Stanzas":
“Self†is an essence of things that does not depend on others; it is
an intrinsic nature. The nonexistence of that is selflessness. Be-
cause of the division into objects and persons, it is understood as
twofold: a “selflessness of objects†and a “selflessness of persons.â€Â
You can also find these two selves referred to as the self of pugdala (pali: puggala) and the self of dharmas (pali: dhammas):
Accordingly, upon finding no given thing of the two selves (pugdala
and dharma), the nongiven thing of the refuted (two selves) is
something rightly produced.
answered Aug 15 at 16:31
Yeshe Tenley
1,348221
Here is some more support for the terminology of the "two selves" in Madhyamaka philosophy via Treasury of Precious Qualities:
We can see this in the example of the rope and the snake. When a
distinction is made between persons and phenomena, a person is the
subjective individual, such as "Devadatta," imputed upon his own
collection of aggregates, which are the basis of such a labeling. By
contrast, phenomena are Devadatta's aggregates, his eyes, for example,
which act as the ground on which the person "Devadatta" is imputed.
The term "phenomena" refers to all other things, in addition to the
personal aggregates.
...
The "personal no-self" is the absence of inherent existence in the
person. The "phenomenal no-self" is the absence of inherent existence
in phenomena. This is understood by the "wisdom of realizing no-self."
Persons and phenomena are, of course, said to exist on the
conventional level.
This terminology is very common in Mahayana Madhyamaka literature and might have started with Chandrakirti which defines the terms in his Commentary on the "Four Hundred Stanzas":
“Self†is an essence of things that does not depend on others; it is
an intrinsic nature. The nonexistence of that is selflessness. Be-
cause of the division into objects and persons, it is understood as
twofold: a “selflessness of objects†and a “selflessness of persons.â€Â
You can also find these two selves referred to as the self of pugdala (pali: puggala) and the self of dharmas (pali: dhammas):
Accordingly, upon finding no given thing of the two selves (pugdala
and dharma), the nongiven thing of the refuted (two selves) is
something rightly produced.
answered Aug 15 at 16:31
Yeshe Tenley
1,348221
answered Aug 15 at 16:31
Yeshe Tenley
1,348221
answered Aug 15 at 16:31
Yeshe Tenley
1,348221
answered Aug 15 at 16:31
Yeshe Tenley
1,348221
1,348221
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
-2
down vote
An intrinsic nature, essence or characteristic that is unique to some phenomena that can be described as that phenomena's self.
I said this in one of my answers but was scored down by the same Mahayana who believe in these ideas.
An intrinsic nature, essence or characteristic that is unique to some phenomena CANNOT be described as that phenomena's self.
That a rock is 'hard' by nature is not its "self". That Nibbana is "peaceful" is not its "self". Such ideas are crazy. "Self" is "ego" & "possessiveness" ("I-making" & "mine-making").
“RÄÂhula, the interior earth element is said to be anything hard, solid, and organic that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This
includes head hair, body hair, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews,
bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, diaphragm, spleen, lungs,
intestines, mesentery, undigested food, feces, or anything else hard,
solid, and organic that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This
is called the interior earth element. The interior earth element and
the exterior earth element are just the earth element. This should be
truly seen with proper understanding like this: ‘This is not mine, I
am not this, this is not my self.’ When you really see with proper
understanding, you reject the earth element, detaching the mind from
the earth element.
MN 62
answered Aug 17 at 1:49
Dhammadhatu
23.1k11041
An intrinsic nature, essence or characteristic that is unique to some phenomena CANNOT be described as that phenomena's selfBut apparently it (the word "self") IS used that way. The Pali word is sabhÄÂva which starts with sa- defined as "own" -- Wikipedia's sabhÄÂva says,literally means "own-being" or "own-becoming". It is the intrinsic nature, essential nature or essence of living beings: which, Andrei says, people translate as a something's "self" or "true self".
– ChrisW♦
Aug 17 at 2:21
If one removes Self grasping from earth as described in MN, and then "reject the earth element, detaching the mind from the earth element" that is earth devoid of Self grasping context and that is what is meant by Selfless of phenomenon. Dr. Alexander Berzin on Self-essence of phenomena "Just because nothing exists in impossible ways does not mean that nothing exists. Voidness refutes merely impossible ways of existing, such as self-established inherent existence. It does not refute the existence of things as “this†or “that†in accordance with the conventions of words and concepts."
– bodhihammer
Aug 17 at 8:54
Spare us Chris. Thanks. As though Wikipedia understands dhamma. As though Buddhism teaches about a True Self.
– Dhammadhatu
Aug 17 at 9:36
No Bodhihammer. MN 62 merely states to not regard the earth element as "mine". Why don't you read the sutta, which states: "earth property are simply earth property".
– Dhammadhatu
Aug 17 at 9:40
No one claims otherwise, removing "mine" is ending Self grasping in regard to earth element (both interior and exterior). In Mahayana terms it makes one not perceive it as an intrinsic in essence.
– bodhihammer
Aug 17 at 10:23
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
-2
down vote
An intrinsic nature, essence or characteristic that is unique to some phenomena that can be described as that phenomena's self.
I said this in one of my answers but was scored down by the same Mahayana who believe in these ideas.
An intrinsic nature, essence or characteristic that is unique to some phenomena CANNOT be described as that phenomena's self.
That a rock is 'hard' by nature is not its "self". That Nibbana is "peaceful" is not its "self". Such ideas are crazy. "Self" is "ego" & "possessiveness" ("I-making" & "mine-making").
“RÄÂhula, the interior earth element is said to be anything hard, solid, and organic that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This
includes head hair, body hair, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews,
bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, diaphragm, spleen, lungs,
intestines, mesentery, undigested food, feces, or anything else hard,
solid, and organic that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This
is called the interior earth element. The interior earth element and
the exterior earth element are just the earth element. This should be
truly seen with proper understanding like this: ‘This is not mine, I
am not this, this is not my self.’ When you really see with proper
understanding, you reject the earth element, detaching the mind from
the earth element.
MN 62
answered Aug 17 at 1:49
Dhammadhatu
23.1k11041
An intrinsic nature, essence or characteristic that is unique to some phenomena CANNOT be described as that phenomena's selfBut apparently it (the word "self") IS used that way. The Pali word is sabhÄÂva which starts with sa- defined as "own" -- Wikipedia's sabhÄÂva says,literally means "own-being" or "own-becoming". It is the intrinsic nature, essential nature or essence of living beings: which, Andrei says, people translate as a something's "self" or "true self".
– ChrisW♦
Aug 17 at 2:21
If one removes Self grasping from earth as described in MN, and then "reject the earth element, detaching the mind from the earth element" that is earth devoid of Self grasping context and that is what is meant by Selfless of phenomenon. Dr. Alexander Berzin on Self-essence of phenomena "Just because nothing exists in impossible ways does not mean that nothing exists. Voidness refutes merely impossible ways of existing, such as self-established inherent existence. It does not refute the existence of things as “this†or “that†in accordance with the conventions of words and concepts."
– bodhihammer
Aug 17 at 8:54
Spare us Chris. Thanks. As though Wikipedia understands dhamma. As though Buddhism teaches about a True Self.
– Dhammadhatu
Aug 17 at 9:36
No Bodhihammer. MN 62 merely states to not regard the earth element as "mine". Why don't you read the sutta, which states: "earth property are simply earth property".
– Dhammadhatu
Aug 17 at 9:40
No one claims otherwise, removing "mine" is ending Self grasping in regard to earth element (both interior and exterior). In Mahayana terms it makes one not perceive it as an intrinsic in essence.
– bodhihammer
Aug 17 at 10:23
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
-2
down vote
up vote
-2
down vote
An intrinsic nature, essence or characteristic that is unique to some phenomena that can be described as that phenomena's self.
I said this in one of my answers but was scored down by the same Mahayana who believe in these ideas.
An intrinsic nature, essence or characteristic that is unique to some phenomena CANNOT be described as that phenomena's self.
That a rock is 'hard' by nature is not its "self". That Nibbana is "peaceful" is not its "self". Such ideas are crazy. "Self" is "ego" & "possessiveness" ("I-making" & "mine-making").
“RÄÂhula, the interior earth element is said to be anything hard, solid, and organic that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This
includes head hair, body hair, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews,
bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, diaphragm, spleen, lungs,
intestines, mesentery, undigested food, feces, or anything else hard,
solid, and organic that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This
is called the interior earth element. The interior earth element and
the exterior earth element are just the earth element. This should be
truly seen with proper understanding like this: ‘This is not mine, I
am not this, this is not my self.’ When you really see with proper
understanding, you reject the earth element, detaching the mind from
the earth element.
MN 62
answered Aug 17 at 1:49
Dhammadhatu
23.1k11041
An intrinsic nature, essence or characteristic that is unique to some phenomena that can be described as that phenomena's self.
I said this in one of my answers but was scored down by the same Mahayana who believe in these ideas.
An intrinsic nature, essence or characteristic that is unique to some phenomena CANNOT be described as that phenomena's self.
That a rock is 'hard' by nature is not its "self". That Nibbana is "peaceful" is not its "self". Such ideas are crazy. "Self" is "ego" & "possessiveness" ("I-making" & "mine-making").
“RÄÂhula, the interior earth element is said to be anything hard, solid, and organic that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This
includes head hair, body hair, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews,
bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, diaphragm, spleen, lungs,
intestines, mesentery, undigested food, feces, or anything else hard,
solid, and organic that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This
is called the interior earth element. The interior earth element and
the exterior earth element are just the earth element. This should be
truly seen with proper understanding like this: ‘This is not mine, I
am not this, this is not my self.’ When you really see with proper
understanding, you reject the earth element, detaching the mind from
the earth element.
MN 62
answered Aug 17 at 1:49
Dhammadhatu
23.1k11041
edited Aug 17 at 2:00
answered Aug 17 at 1:49
Dhammadhatu
23.1k11041
answered Aug 17 at 1:49
Dhammadhatu
23.1k11041
answered Aug 17 at 1:49
Dhammadhatu
23.1k11041
23.1k11041
An intrinsic nature, essence or characteristic that is unique to some phenomena CANNOT be described as that phenomena's selfBut apparently it (the word "self") IS used that way. The Pali word is sabhÄÂva which starts with sa- defined as "own" -- Wikipedia's sabhÄÂva says,literally means "own-being" or "own-becoming". It is the intrinsic nature, essential nature or essence of living beings: which, Andrei says, people translate as a something's "self" or "true self".
– ChrisW♦
Aug 17 at 2:21
If one removes Self grasping from earth as described in MN, and then "reject the earth element, detaching the mind from the earth element" that is earth devoid of Self grasping context and that is what is meant by Selfless of phenomenon. Dr. Alexander Berzin on Self-essence of phenomena "Just because nothing exists in impossible ways does not mean that nothing exists. Voidness refutes merely impossible ways of existing, such as self-established inherent existence. It does not refute the existence of things as “this†or “that†in accordance with the conventions of words and concepts."
– bodhihammer
Aug 17 at 8:54
Spare us Chris. Thanks. As though Wikipedia understands dhamma. As though Buddhism teaches about a True Self.
– Dhammadhatu
Aug 17 at 9:36
No Bodhihammer. MN 62 merely states to not regard the earth element as "mine". Why don't you read the sutta, which states: "earth property are simply earth property".
– Dhammadhatu
Aug 17 at 9:40
No one claims otherwise, removing "mine" is ending Self grasping in regard to earth element (both interior and exterior). In Mahayana terms it makes one not perceive it as an intrinsic in essence.
– bodhihammer
Aug 17 at 10:23
 |Â
show 1 more comment
An intrinsic nature, essence or characteristic that is unique to some phenomena CANNOT be described as that phenomena's selfBut apparently it (the word "self") IS used that way. The Pali word is sabhÄÂva which starts with sa- defined as "own" -- Wikipedia's sabhÄÂva says,literally means "own-being" or "own-becoming". It is the intrinsic nature, essential nature or essence of living beings: which, Andrei says, people translate as a something's "self" or "true self".
– ChrisW♦
Aug 17 at 2:21
If one removes Self grasping from earth as described in MN, and then "reject the earth element, detaching the mind from the earth element" that is earth devoid of Self grasping context and that is what is meant by Selfless of phenomenon. Dr. Alexander Berzin on Self-essence of phenomena "Just because nothing exists in impossible ways does not mean that nothing exists. Voidness refutes merely impossible ways of existing, such as self-established inherent existence. It does not refute the existence of things as “this†or “that†in accordance with the conventions of words and concepts."
– bodhihammer
Aug 17 at 8:54
Spare us Chris. Thanks. As though Wikipedia understands dhamma. As though Buddhism teaches about a True Self.
– Dhammadhatu
Aug 17 at 9:36
No Bodhihammer. MN 62 merely states to not regard the earth element as "mine". Why don't you read the sutta, which states: "earth property are simply earth property".
– Dhammadhatu
Aug 17 at 9:40
No one claims otherwise, removing "mine" is ending Self grasping in regard to earth element (both interior and exterior). In Mahayana terms it makes one not perceive it as an intrinsic in essence.
– bodhihammer
Aug 17 at 10:23
An intrinsic nature, essence or characteristic that is unique to some phenomena CANNOT be described as that phenomena's self But apparently it (the word "self") IS used that way. The Pali word is sabhÄÂva which starts with sa- defined as "own" -- Wikipedia's sabhÄÂva says, literally means "own-being" or "own-becoming". It is the intrinsic nature, essential nature or essence of living beings: which, Andrei says, people translate as a something's "self" or "true self".– ChrisW♦
Aug 17 at 2:21
An intrinsic nature, essence or characteristic that is unique to some phenomena CANNOT be described as that phenomena's self But apparently it (the word "self") IS used that way. The Pali word is sabhÄÂva which starts with sa- defined as "own" -- Wikipedia's sabhÄÂva says, literally means "own-being" or "own-becoming". It is the intrinsic nature, essential nature or essence of living beings: which, Andrei says, people translate as a something's "self" or "true self".– ChrisW♦
Aug 17 at 2:21
If one removes Self grasping from earth as described in MN, and then "reject the earth element, detaching the mind from the earth element" that is earth devoid of Self grasping context and that is what is meant by Selfless of phenomenon. Dr. Alexander Berzin on Self-essence of phenomena "Just because nothing exists in impossible ways does not mean that nothing exists. Voidness refutes merely impossible ways of existing, such as self-established inherent existence. It does not refute the existence of things as “this†or “that†in accordance with the conventions of words and concepts."
– bodhihammer
Aug 17 at 8:54
If one removes Self grasping from earth as described in MN, and then "reject the earth element, detaching the mind from the earth element" that is earth devoid of Self grasping context and that is what is meant by Selfless of phenomenon. Dr. Alexander Berzin on Self-essence of phenomena "Just because nothing exists in impossible ways does not mean that nothing exists. Voidness refutes merely impossible ways of existing, such as self-established inherent existence. It does not refute the existence of things as “this†or “that†in accordance with the conventions of words and concepts."
– bodhihammer
Aug 17 at 8:54
Spare us Chris. Thanks. As though Wikipedia understands dhamma. As though Buddhism teaches about a True Self.
– Dhammadhatu
Aug 17 at 9:36
Spare us Chris. Thanks. As though Wikipedia understands dhamma. As though Buddhism teaches about a True Self.
– Dhammadhatu
Aug 17 at 9:36
No Bodhihammer. MN 62 merely states to not regard the earth element as "mine". Why don't you read the sutta, which states: "earth property are simply earth property".
– Dhammadhatu
Aug 17 at 9:40
No Bodhihammer. MN 62 merely states to not regard the earth element as "mine". Why don't you read the sutta, which states: "earth property are simply earth property".
– Dhammadhatu
Aug 17 at 9:40
No one claims otherwise, removing "mine" is ending Self grasping in regard to earth element (both interior and exterior). In Mahayana terms it makes one not perceive it as an intrinsic in essence.
– bodhihammer
Aug 17 at 10:23
No one claims otherwise, removing "mine" is ending Self grasping in regard to earth element (both interior and exterior). In Mahayana terms it makes one not perceive it as an intrinsic in essence.
– bodhihammer
Aug 17 at 10:23
 |Â
show 1 more comment
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbuddhism.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f28707%2fdifference-between-theravadas-self-and-mahayanas-intrinsic-essence%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
See very related question here which has quotes from Mahayana monastic textbook: buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/28708/…
– Yeshe Tenley
Aug 15 at 14:48