User talk:Tomabird
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hallo Tomabird, Thanks for your nice message and interesting input. You will not be surprised to hear that I largely disagree with you! Although non-essentialism is indeed a very prevalent teaching within Buddhism, it is one which is resisted - indeed opposed - by the Buddha in the Tathagatagarbha sutras. That is perhaps why these sutras have been so controversial for many hundreds of years! But they do in fact teach (specifically the Nirvana Sutra) of the eternal, immutable Buddha (and the Buddha-dhatu) as that which is the eternal, changeless, sovereign Self of the Buddha. This is indeed presented as "the real Truth" (there are, after all, the doctrines of relative truth and Ultimate Truth - and an "upaya" does not by any means automatically mean that what it teaches is ultimately untrue!). So I think it is quite acceptable in this context to deploy the word "Self". Perhaps we could also add, though, that this doctrine is not universally accepted within the Mahayana and has always been an area of vigorous debate (to reflect your own unease and that of many other Buddhists). My position on the use of the word "Self" in the "Transcendental Immanence" (or, as you say, the reverse!) section is that if it is good enough for the Buddha to use it (in a very positive, cataphatic sense), then it is good enough for us to use it too - especially when we are quoting him! The quote you yourself give relates to the ordinary ego, the worldly self - which is indeed rejected as "a lie" by the Buddha in the Nirvana Sutra. But the Self of Buddha is beyond counting (1,2, 3, etc.) and beyond comprehension (it is acintya - incomprehensible). Also, one has to take the totality of the Mahaparinirvana Sutra in its three main versions to see what the fundamental doctrines of that scripture are. The key point is that the Buddha is eternal and unchanging and that the indestructible Tathagatagarbha / Buddha-dhatu is present within all beings. This is repeatedly referred to as "the (True) Self". Anyway, I appreciate your kind comments and suggestions, even though I don't quite share your stance. I've posted a litle reply to you (I have not mentioned you by "name"!) on the Mahayana discussion page. All best wishes to you. Yours, Tony. TonyMPNS 11:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
