Son of Buddha wrote:this has nothing to do with the suttas I provided,its not commentary on the ACTUAL suttas its simply reification of one owns traditions views.
for instance he tries to claim that Enlightenment is a phenomena, this is an entirely substantialist view,Enlightenment is not a phenomena nor is it a product of this phenomena reality.
In the Pali suttas, awakening happens through transcendental dependent arising which runs by the same Principle of Dependent Origination (but it is not the same scheme as the afflictive twelve links of dependent arising). As explained here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... el277.html
second and most importatnt the sutta itself refutes his views which is why he doesnt even try to comment on the actual sutta cause if he did he would end up with what Im about to ask you.
The sutta does not refute his view. And I have shown you suttas that explicitly reject any self-hood or a self of tathagata.
based on the (SN 23.24)
4 (2)-34 (12) Subject to Mara, tc.(I wont reference the suttas again you know where to find them to reference the questions)
(1)does this sutta state that Whatever is of a Selfless nature belongs to/is subject to mara and you should abandon it??? (Yes or No)
Please quote the relevant sections.
(2)so if Enlightenment is without self nature then it belongs to mara and should be abandoned correct? (Yes or No)
There is nothing wrong with abandoning. Enlightenment is not something to be "picked up", "grasped on", "held to". Picking up is bondage, attachment is bondage. It is precisely because even enlightenment is empty that it is liberating.
Diamond Sutra: "Tell me, Subhuti. Does a Buddha say to himself, 'I have obtained Perfect Enlightenment.'?"
"No, lord. There is no such thing as Perfect Enlightenment to obtain. If a Perfectly Enlightened Buddha were to say to himself, 'I am enlightened' he would be admitting there is an individual person, a separate self and personality, and would therefore not be a Perfectly Enlightened Buddha.""
Buddha: "I truly attained nothing from complete, unexcelled enlightenment, and that is why it is called complete, unexcelled enlightenment."
Based on SN 22.59
(3)does this sutta not state that No self leads to suffering? (Yes or No)
This sutta says that because there is no self, affliction can occur. It explains that because there is no self, no agent, no controller, things do not go the way we want them to. Example: because your loved one is not yours, you cannot control it to not die. Because your body is not you or yours, you cannot make it immortal by controlling it. If your sadness were self, you could think "sadness stop" and it would stop, but it does not stop by your control because it is not you or yours.
At the same time, it is the ending of any conceit of "I Am" or any I-making, that is the end of suffering. There is no contradiction. That complete end of I-making is liberation, is freedom from bondage, is freedom from identification and clinging.
(4) does this sutta state that IF the 5 aggregates WERE SELF they would not lead to suffering? (Yes or No)
Yes this is the case. However by discerning that the aggregates were empty of self, one would not suffer as a result.
(5) if Enlightenment has NO Self then it would lead to suffering correct? (Yes or No)
The Buddha said this: ""Bhikkhus, form is not-self. Were form self, then this form would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.' And since form is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.'"
Note that he does not say "everything that is not-self must lead to affliction" He is only saying that in reference to the five aggregates, that the aggregates lead to affliction when they are not-self.
Enlightenment is not-self, but enlightenment does not lead to affliction but the end of affliction. It does so by ending ignorance and the remaining chain of the 12 links of afflictive D.O., it does not do so because there is a Self involved. Awakening arises through the transcendental links of dependent arising (see the link I passed you above).
(6)if Enlightenment WERE Self then it would NOT lead to suffering Correct? (Yes or No)
Your question does not apply. We all know that the aggregates suffer afflictions. They suffer afflictions because 1) there is the causes and conditions for afflictions to arise, as explained in the afflictive 12 links of dependent arising, and 2) there is no Self/controller/agent that can dictate/stop/change/control these conditions. However liberation is possible through the 12 transcendental links of dependent arising.
Awakening is not Self but leads to release. Awakening leads to the end of suffering not because you suddenly gain control of suffering as a self, awakening ends suffering because it ends ignorance and the remaining 11 links of afflictive D.O. This is why it is not self, does not lead to afflictions but lead to the ending of afflictions.
Enlightenment is not Self, and by clinging to enlightenment as Self there is suffering as a result of identification and clinging. This is why in MN 1 it is stated that the Buddha does not conceive of Nirvana in terms of self. ""He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has comprehended it to the end, I tell you."
Based on SN 22.46 Impermanent (2) pg 885
(7)does this sutta state that No self is Suffering?(Yes or No)
No, the sutta does not state that no self is suffering. It states that what is suffering is not self. What is not suffering (nirvana) is also not self.
(8) if Nirvana has no self then that would mean it is suffering correct?(Yes or No)
No, since it is not the case that what is not self is equivalent to suffering. Nirvana is not self but is not suffering.
(9)isn't Nirvana the end of suffering or are the 4 noble truth a lie?(Yes or No)
Nirvana is the termination of craving as defined in the 4 noble truths sutta. It is not a self.
as you can see,once you actually answer the questions in direct relation to the actual suttas in question there is no room for the Idea that Nirvana is without a self
By correctly comprehending the actual suttas there is no room for the idea that Nirvana is a Self.
Here, the Buddha clarifies:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
..."What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"
"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"
"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"
this supports my position.and is my point exactly Enlightenment is NOT the 5 aggregates it only uses realitive phenomena when it is in the realm of realitive phenomena
this further supports the transcendent aspect of Nirvana./
This sutta does not support your position because it is clearly stated that there is no Tathagata as an inherently existing Self, truth or reality, even one that is apart from the aggregates.
"When a monk's mind is thus freed, O monks, neither the gods with Indra, nor the gods with Brahma, nor the gods with the Lord of Creatures (Pajaapati), when searching will find on what the consciousness of one thus gone (tathaagata) is based. Why is that? One who has thus gone is no longer traceable here and now, so I say.
It does not imply a Self.
Ven. Nanananda explains well and consistently with the suttas what this unsupported/non-established consciousness is referring to:
""Monks, there are these four lustres. What four? The lustre of the moon, the lustre of the sun, the lustre of fire, the lustre of wisdom. These, monks, are the four lustres. This, monks, is the highest among these four lustres, namely the lustre of wisdom."
So, then, we can now understand why the form and the formless fade away. This wisdom has a penetrative quality, for which reason it is called nibbedhikà pa¤¤à. When one sees forms, one sees them together with their shadows. The fact that one sees shadows there, is itself proof that darkness has not been fully dispelled. If light comes from all directions, there is no shadow at all. If that light is of a penetrative nature, not even form will be manifest there.
Now it is mainly due to what is called `form' and `formless', råpa/aråpa, that the worldling experiences pleasure and pain in a world that distinguishes between a `pleasure' and a `pain'. "
"What actually happens in the attainment to the fruit of arahant-hood? The worldling discerns the world around him with the help of six narrow beams of light, namely the six sense-bases. When the superior lustre of wisdom arises, those six sense-bases go down. This cessation of the six sense-bases could also be referred to as the cessation of name-and-form, nàmaråpanirodha, or the cessation of consciousness, vi¤¤àõanirodha.
The cessation of the six sense-bases does not mean that one does not see anything. What one sees then is voidness. It is an in-`sight'. He gives expression to it with the words su¤¤o loko, "void is the world". What it means is that all the sense-objects, which the worldling grasps as real and truly existing, get penetrated through with wisdom and become non-manifest." - http://www.beyondthenet.net/calm/nibbana15.htm
"Similarly, by imagining a self in name-and-form, consciousness gets attached to it. It is such a consciousness, which is established on name-and-form, that can be called abhisaṅkhata viññāṇa. Then could there be also a consciousness which does not reflect a name-and-form? Yes, there could be. That is what is known as anidassana viññāṇa, or 'non-manifestative consciousness'." - http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/463722
if would be like me saying I AM NOT a hand,this does not mean I do not use a hand just that I am simply NOT the hand itself.
That is understandable. But I'm saying that the "I AM" itself is a fabricated delusion.
nothing you said has anything to do with that passage whatsoever,that passage is simply saying their is no self in the 5 aggregates.
It has everything to do with that passage. That passage is saying there is no self in OR APART from the 5 aggregates. Read carefully.
“Venerable Gotama, I am one of such a doctrine, of such a view: ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer.’”
“I have not, brahman, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view. How, indeed, could one — moving forward by himself, moving back by himself  — say: ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’? What do you think, brahmin, is there an element or principle of initiating or beginning an action?”
“So, brahmin, when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer. I have not, brahmin, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view as yours. How, indeed, could one — moving forward by himself, moving back by himself — say ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’?”
Self-doer is a valid convention. As explained in Vajira sutta. It is merely a convention. On that conventional level you do not deny the validity of self or doer. Upon investigation that self or doer is seen through as being baseless.
Excerpts from http://www.angelfire.com/indie/anna_jon ... ental.html
In the ultimate sense, there do not even exist such things as
mental states, i.e. stationary things. Feeling, perception,
consciousness, etc., are in reality mere passing processes of feeling,
perceiving, becoming conscious, etc., within which and outside of
which no separate or permanent entity lies hidden.
Thus a real understanding of the Buddha's doctrine of kamma and
rebirth is possible only to one who has caught a glimpse of the
egoless nature, or //anattata//, and of the conditionality, or
//idappaccayata//, of all phenomena of existence. Therefore it is said
in the //Visuddhimagga// (Chap. XIX):
Everywhere, in all the realms of existence, the noble disciple
sees only mental and corporeal phenomena kept going through the
concatenation of causes and effects. No producer of the
volitional act or kamma does he see apart from the kamma, no
recipient of the kamma-result apart from the result. And he is
well aware that wise men are using merely conventional language,
when, with regard to a kammical act, they speak of a doer, or
with regard to a kamma-result, they speak of the recipient of the
No doer of the deeds is found,
No one who ever reaps their fruits;
Empty phenomena roll on:
This only is the correct view.
And while the deeds and their results
Roll on and on, conditioned all,
There is no first beginning found,
Just as it is with seed and tree. ...
No god, no Brahma, can be called
The maker of this wheel of life:
Empty phenomena roll on,
Dependent on conditions all.
Now, the Buddha clearly explains that everything arises not through an agent or I, but through dependent origination. See
"Who, O Lord, has a sense-impression?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One.
"I do not say that 'he has a sense-impression.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who has a sense-impression?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of sense-impression?' And to that the correct reply is: 'The sixfold sense-base is a condition of sense-impression, and sense-impression is the condition of feeling.'"
"Who, O Lord, feels?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he feels.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who feels?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of feeling?' And to that the correct reply is: 'sense-impression is the condition of feeling; and feeling is the condition of craving.'"
" etc etc
also you say the Tathagatagarbha is just another means for demonstrating emptiness.............okay to what is the Tathagatgarbhas teachings on emptiness?
I'm talking about Lankavatara Sutra. Obviously, different sutras (written by different people) have different contextual definitions of emptiness.
Son of Buddha
your incorrect about what the early doctrines of Buddhism state, also the pali canon doesnt even support non duality Bhikkhu Bodhi actually wrote a extensive paper on the subject..........essentially there is conditioned and Unconditioned..ect
The not-conditioned in the Pali canon simply means the cessation of afflictions.
your reply had nothing to do with the topic http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... ay_27.html
At the peak of the pairs of opposites stands the duality of the conditioned and the Unconditioned: samsara as the round of repeated birth and death wherein all is impermanent, subject to change, and liable to suffering, and Nibbana as the state of final deliverance, the unborn, ageless, and deathless. Although Nibbana, even in the early texts, is definitely cast as an ultimate reality and not merely as an ethical or psychological state, there is not the least insinuation that this reality is metaphysically indistinguishable at some profound level from its manifest opposite, samsara. To the contrary, the Buddha's repeated lesson is that samsara is the realm of suffering governed by greed, hatred, and delusion, wherein we have shed tears greater than the waters of the ocean, while Nibbana is irreversible release from samsara, to be attained by demolishing greed, hatred, and delusion, and by relinquishing all conditioned existence.
Yes I have no problem with this statement. The problem is that you are seeing Nirvana as a Self.
The Nirvana spoken in the Pali Suttas is clearly defined as merely the termination of passion, aggression and delusion, and that is given many epithets like 'not-conditioned' 'death-free' and so on (in the very long quote I gave above)