The Eternal Self of the Buddha

[Sunya]

Dark Zen is a big joke. this one guy Kenneth Wheeler i think is his name started it, or maybe someone else. but kenneth is def involved. he carouses around internet groups and argues against people calling them "demons" and basically acts like a huge prick, its really funny actually. he'll argue against you and then say something like "you're so pathetic, NEXT!" hahaha. but their main thing is that they have one interpretation of the teachings of the Buddha, a really orthodox translation, where certain words are mistranslated and taken out of context and Buddhism is made to be an eternal Self teaching.

 

Rahula actually spent a couple pages in What the Buddha Taught addressing the issue of people trying to throw the Self into the Buddhas teachings in "What the Buddha Taught" and says its just taking words out of context / mis translation / misunderstanding.

 

the latest victim of Kenneth Wheeler's bullshit is the Amazon Buddhist forum, he's been on there for weeks copy and pasting his articles about Buddha teaching an eternal Atman.

[Vajrahridaya]

thanks for the response.

 

i am wondering, from what mind state is it that you feel you have the "correction" for peoples "confusion"?

 

according to your mind, not nagarjuna or buddha or anyone else, what is the cause of monism or nihilism leading to samsaric rebirth while the ways of the folks stated above wont do so?

 

sorry about all the questions, but they are sincere not sarcastic or anything like that (in this case )

 

I've stated it many times through my historical posts. You can read the Chicken and Egg thread if you wish. I'd just be repeating myself unnecessarily. If you don't want to look at the previous posts, then I have no reason to think your sincere in your questioning, but rather trying to phish.

 

Thanks for asking, have a wonderful night...

[contrivedname!]

I've stated it many times through my historical posts. You can read the Chicken and Egg thread if you wish. I'd just be repeating myself unnecessarily. If you don't want to look at the previous posts, then I have no reason to think your sincere in your questioning, but rather trying to phish.

 

Thanks for asking, have a wonderful night...

 

just cause i wouldnt want to go through pages and pages of posts means you should think i am not sincere?

 

i did have a motive for asking (are there ever not motives behind questions?). the motive was to see your answers and determine, whether, to my preception, they have any basis behind them and to possibly discuss your actual reasoning for thinking the way you do (in the phenomena thread i read some of the reasoning, but wanted a refresher without reading 14 pages of posts)

[Vajrahridaya]

just cause i wouldnt want to go through pages and pages of posts means you should think i am not sincere?

 

i did have a motive for asking (are there ever not motives behind questions?). the motive was to see your answers and determine, whether, to my preception, they have any basis behind them and to possibly discuss your actual reasoning for thinking the way you do (in the phenomena thread i read some of the reasoning, but wanted a refresher without reading 14 pages of posts)

No, I'm sorry, I've been attacked a lot lately with people phishing for information to be used against me personally. Just not trying to fall for the ol' fake high, strike low blow...

 

Yes, I can tell that you had a motive.. But, sometimes the motives are really pure and not trying to get personal.

 

Ok... I'll say a little something. I'm going to bed though, I'm tired. YAWN!!

 

 

Clinging to any swabhava or essence as a self of all is placing a seed in the alaya vijnana for manifestation of clinging and identity because the cosmos never stops cycling so the only way out totally is complete eradication of an identity and a clinger clinging to identity... both coarse or subtle, and refined. There is no self to be found, neither formless nor formed.

 

Though... the Alaya Vijnana which is dependent upon it's seeds for existence becomes the basis for Dharmakaya when purified of dualistic seeds and instead filled with the endless heaps accumulated through walking the path. This is basically turning beginningless Samsaric activity of yourself into the space of activity as a Buddha and those connections you made and people you met all become disciples as you fulfill your sincere desire to attain liberation for the sake of all beings. This is unique for each Buddha as each person had his or her own Sasmaric begininglessness. The realization is the same, the way of activity predispositioned by his/her beginningless carrier as a Samsarin is different. So, when Nirvana is attained, it's endless, eternal, bliss and his self is basically the accumulation of merits but there is no real and substantial identity there, it's still relative, but now eternally fixed and unchanging in the sense of constant realization of the true nature of existence, just a dependency for being as the 3 bodies. Which are really one. So you see, this is what the Parinirvana Sutra is talking about. The Subtle difference is all the difference between being merely a Vedantin text or actually Buddhist.

 

You see, when you have any sense of self... like the big selfers say their small self is humble to the big self and they offer everything there which is in everything... saying it's all you... but you are me... so it's kind of like an oppression or hiding away of the dualistic samscaras into formless states.

 

It's just suppressing the kleshas into formless all pervasive realities and saying that's the self of all, it's not rooting them out of existence as the understanding of dependent origination and emptiness does. Where there is no superimposition, there is no possibility of re-entering ignorant states of consciousness, or even identity with consciousness at all.

 

It's not actually burning the seeds of clinging to think that the formless states or samadhi's/jhanas are a final ultimate reality. The Buddha was clear about that which is why he left his Vedantin teachers who taught him the Samadhi's but not the insight into them which comes from seeing dependent origination and seeing even formless infinite consciousness as dependently originated, and the states of beyond perception/being and non-perception/being are dependently originated. There's a state that is subtler and deeper, but it's not an absorption, as the Buddha explains, it's the actual cessation of the possibility of absorption. All states of realization are simultaneous and ever fluid as everything the Buddha now experiences. There is no real ultimate state, and that's the ultimate realization.

 

Nihilism is basically saying that everything is destroyed right now, there's no meaning, no real connection anywhere, so they give into chaos and get into ideas that are strictly materialistic. Nihilism is worse than Eternalism because it leads to self destructive behavior that leads to hell realms and animal rebirth.

 

Vedantins at least get to be long lived Gods or enter Pleasure realms for long, long periods of time.

[dwai]

The Buddhas are perfectly empty. They do not join up to form a single cosmic being, but they're not entirely separate from each other either. They're not different, but distinct. Sorry if I haven't managed to express it properly.

 

Believe me, Tibetan scholars have studied each line of every sutra and tantra in intricate detail, cross-referenced them and debated over them for centuries like in Nalanda. (Read The Sound of Two Hands Clapping if you don't believe me) They've still gotten things wrong many times, but nothing so fundamental such as this.

 

PS. See Yogachara and Huayan for more info. I'm afraid Buddhism doesn't appeal to the common sense or claim to be simple and easy to understand. When studying Buddhism, be prepared for subtle complexity and apparent paradoxes around every bend.

 

There is no dichotomy between the Buddha-state being empty yet being The Self. Brahman is exactly like that...empty but full of potentiality.

 

Believe me, long before there were scholars in Tibet, there were in India and they spent a longer duration of time debating and finessing the philosophies. Buddhism is still within the domain of reason, because one has to use it to get to a certain point.

 

I'm afraid that is being missed here.

 

Let me ask a basic question --

 

If there is no self in Buddhism, who is seeking Nirvana?

[Vajrahridaya]

Edited August 3, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[dwai]

An uncountable collection of causes and conditions that have no source, from formless realms of refined attachment to a grandiose Self of all, to denser realm attachments to a self of small. It's all within the unconscious attachment to existence that get's illuminated and transformed into blessed offering through pratityasamutpada/shunyata direct realization. None of them inherently exist. The self in Buddhism is relative, and never absolute. That's the point your missing. Even the endless realization of Nirvana that is unchanging is absolute only in the sense of the absolute emptiness of all relativity, including the emptiness of emptiness as emptiness is relative to all levels of experientials either form or formless.

 

Upon investigation, there is no self, or Self to be found.

 

No Brahman in Buddhism, it's a mistaken identification with the Jhana of beyond perception and non-perception which is why the Buddha left his Vedantin teachers.

 

The scholars in Tibet are based upon a continuation of the scholarship in India which said the exact same thing. They don't lead to the same realization. Never have. In India, Nalanda university was the place where study was done very intensely and debates were held. None of the scholars at Nalanda agree with your position that they lead to the same realization.

Nalanda

They didn't agree with your position in India and they don't in Tibet either.

 

 

Try and wish away the Self with the No-self...But the Nirvana sutras clearly state that Buddha simply taught non-self so people could move beyond the egoic self and finally realize the Absolute Self.

 

I'm afraid the scholars who claim that there is No Absolute Self have incomplete knowledge...and it was not the purpose behind what was taught by Shakyamuni.

 

Okay, so then what's the purpose of Nirvana? So after you realized that everything is emptiness...then what?

Edited August 3, 2009 by dwai

[Vajrahridaya]

 

If there is no self in Buddhism, who is seeking Nirvana?

 

See, it's not that there is no self in Buddhism, it's just that it's relative. There is also not an absolute no-self in Buddhism either, which is what Vedantin's want to call the Self is the no-self of the Buddhists. But, that's not seeing what the Buddha taught. There is no no-self and there is no self in any absolute non-relative sense.

[Vajrahridaya]

Try and wish away the Self with the No-self...But the Nirvana sutras clearly state that Buddha simply taught non-self so people could move beyond the egoic self and finally realize the Absolute Self.

 

I'm afraid the scholars who claim that there is No Absolute Self have incomplete knowledge...and it was not the purpose behind what was taught by Shakyamuni.

 

Okay, so then what's the purpose of Nirvana? So after you realized that everything is emptiness...then what?

 

Your not understanding the subtle nuances of what we said about the Nirvana Sutra, which you've read in English, which has an extremely dubious history even in it's known Chinese translations. Mahayana is a huge cannon and it's the only one that talks like this to one degree, but other scriptures define what tathaghatagarbha means, and that's been revealed to you in previous posts, but I don't think you actually read the entire posts with objective clarity. In fact, I know you don't and only you can be honest with yourself about this.

 

The purpose is liberation from suffering, from clinging to existence. Then, offering that realization to countless beings still experiencing Samsara. See, everything is not "emptiness", everything is "empty of inherent existence". Emptiness is not an identity, it's a quality.

 

So then this self of a Buddha which is relative in the way's I've explained in previous posts on this thread, is individual, and eternal in the sense that he/she eternally realizes in every moment the inherent empty quality of all experiences. The subtle nuances is what it's all about. Yes, there is the self that is dependently originated, but even that self of the Buddha talked about in the Nirvana sutra is not absolute in and of itself, it originates dependent upon realization. It stands alone only in the sense that it's liberated from itself and the attachment to any ideation and cognition.

 

It's got an overall different meaning from the one your reading into it. This scripture has been abused by systems of thought that cling to an absolute Self of all for quite some time. But, Buddhist masters with deep meditative experience and incredible cognitive skills can tell you the meaning of the text. Zen doesn't agree with your position and neither does the Tibetan position on the text agree with yours. You should re-read Namdrol's post on the text because that's the Tibetan version. Namdrol is a Loppon with over 30 years of study and practice, as well as transmission from Tibetan Masters. He's not some internet scholar. Re-read that post objectively, without laying attachment to your interpretation. At least give it a try.

[dwai]

Your not understanding the subtle nuances of what we said about the Nirvana Sutra, which you've read in English, which has an extremely dubious history even in it's known Chinese translations. Mahayana is a huge cannon and it's the only one that talks like this to one degree, but other scriptures define what tathaghatagarbha means, and that's been revealed to you in previous posts, but I don't think you actually read the entire posts with objective clarity. In fact, I know you don't and only you can be honest with yourself about this.

 

And you have read the Vedantic texts in original english? Aren't you potentially "guilty" of a similar mistake vis-a-vis Advaita?

 

The purpose is liberation from suffering, from clinging to existence. Then, offering that realization to countless beings still experiencing Samsara. See, everything is not "emptiness", everything is "empty of inherent existence". Emptiness is not an identity, it's a quality.

 

Who suffers? Who clings to existence?

 

So then this self of a Buddha which is relative in the way's I've explained in previous posts on this thread, is individual, and eternal in the sense that he/she eternally realizes in every moment the inherent empty quality of all experiences. The subtle nuances is what it's all about. Yes, there is the self that is dependently originated, but even that self of the Buddha talked about in the Nirvana sutra is not absolute in and of itself, it originates dependent upon realization. It stands alone only in the sense that it's liberated from itself and the attachment to any ideation and cognition.

 

It's got an overall different meaning from the one your reading into it. This scripture has been abused by systems of thought that cling to an absolute Self of all for quite some time. But, Buddhist masters with deep meditative experience and incredible cognitive skills can tell you the meaning of the text. Zen doesn't agree with your position and neither does the Tibetan position on the text agree with yours. You should re-read Namdrol's post on the text because that's the Tibetan version. Namdrol is a Loppon with over 30 years of study and practice, as well as transmission from Tibetan Masters. He's not some internet scholar. Re-read that post objectively, without laying attachment to your interpretation. At least give it a try.

 

The meaning is not different at all. Atman is exactly the same time. You are attached to your interpretation/biases/misconceptions about Atman/Brahman and keep insisting there is a difference where there is none.

[Vajrahridaya]

There is no dichotomy between the Buddha-state being empty yet being The Self. Brahman is exactly like that...empty but full of potentiality.

 

See for Buddhists, it's dependent origination that is full of infinite potential because it's endless relativity. Not a mysterious source or will that things spring from as if from no where and superimpose over in order to become limited and suffer through innumerable beings.

 

This universe is based on the end of the last universe, and not caused by a supreme will or absolute source of being.

 

The Nirvana Sutra is not talking about the Self of the Vedantins.

[dwai]

See for Buddhists, it's dependent origination that is full of infinite potential because it's endless relativity. Not a mysterious source or will that things spring from as if from no where and superimpose over in order to become limited and suffer through innumerable beings.

 

This universe is based on the end of the last universe, and not caused by a supreme will or absolute source of being.

 

The Nirvana Sutra is not talking about the Self of the Vedantins.

 

You are wrong.

 

Also cleverly sidestepped the important question -- who wants liberation from suffering, clinging to existence? Why does the Buddhist seek Nirvana if there is no self?

Edited August 3, 2009 by dwai

[Vajrahridaya]

And you have read the Vedantic texts in original english? Aren't you potentially "guilty" of a similar mistake vis-a-vis Advaita?

 

I've read in English but I've chanted in Sanskrit transliteration with each word defined individually next to or underneath in countless texts.

 

Who suffers? Who clings to existence?

 

Causes/Effects and conditions coagulated as a seeming self since beginningless time.

 

The meaning is not different at all. Atman is exactly the same time. You are attached to your interpretation/biases/misconceptions about Atman/Brahman and keep insisting there is a difference where there is none.

 

Buddhist Masters and scholars with way more study and meditative experience than you since antiquity disagree. I can be a parrot if you wish and overwhelm you with endless cut and pastes from them? We've already quoted from various Masters from history, both me and Xabir to no avail though.

 

The Vedantin position on the Buddha is wrong and understudied. Most all the ancient famous Buddhist scholars of India were born Brahmin, but became Buddhist. For one reason and one reason only, they themselves saw that it was different in revelation.

 

You are wrong.

 

Also cleverly sidestepped the important question -- who wants liberation from suffering, clinging to existence? Why does the Buddhist seek Nirvana if there is no self?

 

Are you absolutely not reading my reply's? Of course this question has been posed endless times.

 

It's the endless and complex accumulation of causes and conditions mistakenly reified as a self through beginningless clinging. There is only the relative self, no absolute self. Since my experience of Samsara was beginningless, so will my experience of Nirvana be endless. Because the chain of causes and conditions is endless in both ways, endless regress and endless progress. Not like Vedanta at all.

 

We seek Nirvana in order to realize the endless relativity of things and consciousness and the non-abiding nature of any level of experience, thus to be freed from experience while experiencing is Nirvana.

 

Like I said, we don't deny that there is a relative self. But just like I said before, there is no absolute no-self either. There is only interrelating causes and conditions.

 

Read Abhidarma. It's daunting, but it explains how this happens.

[dwai]

I've read in English but I've chanted in Sanskrit transliteration with each word defined individually next to or underneath in countless texts.

Causes/Effects and conditions coagulated as a seeming self since beginningless time.

Buddhist Masters and scholars with way more study and meditative experience than you since antiquity disagree. I can be a parrot if you wish and overwhelm you with endless cut and pastes from them? We've already quoted from various Masters from history, both me and Xabir to no avail though.

 

The Vedantin position on the Buddha is wrong and understudied. Most all the ancient famous Buddhist scholars of India were born Brahmin, but became Buddhist. For one reason and one reason only, they themselves saw that it was different in revelation.

 

See you have cut and pasted stuff but never really articulated in your own words what it means. I don't think you understand what it is you are cutting and pasting...

 

How can this coagulated pseudo-self of causality have and retain memory? And why should this coagulated "self" seek Nirvana?

 

On an aside, have you learned Sanskrit? Do you know the meanings of the words themselves? Do you understand the mechanism of Sanskrit grammar?

[Vajrahridaya]

See you have cut and pasted stuff but never really articulated in your own words what it means. I don't think you understand what it is you are cutting and pasting...

Your funny Dwai. Most of what I've said since I've come here are my own words and realizations. Which you'll probably insult right now. I used the cut and pastes to support my realizations.

 

How can this coagulated pseudo-self of causality have and retain memory? And why should this coagulated "self" seek Nirvana?

 

It's retained through traces on immaterial levels, or refined material levels. Also like chains. Even Brain specialists talk about how this happens and also how hard drives compress information like traces to through various causes and conditions come out and play larger than the compressed module seemed to have. There still is no real absolute self there, just a play of causes and conditions extending through immaterial to material to denser hell realms.

 

We seek Nirvana in order to realize the endless relativity of things and consciousness and the non-abiding nature of any level of experience, thus to be freed from experience while experiencing is Nirvana. Then help others.

 

On an aside, have you learned Sanskrit? Do you know the meanings of the words themselves? Do you understand the mechanism of Sanskrit grammar?

 

I haven't learned Devanagari script, no. But, I do understand a bit of the grammar. But all through transliteration. I understand the Gutteral, Palatal, Lingual, Dental, Labial in pronunciation according to what symbol is used over the letter, and how to hold for 1 matra in conjuncts. I've been told that for a white boy, my pronunciation is pretty good. But, I've been chanting for most of my life, and hearing sanskrit my entire life.

 

But yeah, I have not been officially schooled in Classical Sanskrit. It's very complex. Mr. Panini was a genius.

[xabir2005]

There is no dichotomy between the Buddha-state being empty yet being The Self. Brahman is exactly like that...empty but full of potentiality.

 

Believe me, long before there were scholars in Tibet, there were in India and they spent a longer duration of time debating and finessing the philosophies. Buddhism is still within the domain of reason, because one has to use it to get to a certain point.

 

I'm afraid that is being missed here.

 

Let me ask a basic question --

 

If there is no self in Buddhism, who is seeking Nirvana?

 

"Mere suffering is, not any sufferer is found

 

The deeds exist, but no performer of the deeds:

 

Nibbana is, but not the man that enters it,

 

The path is, but no wanderer is to be seen."

 

 

 

No doer of the deeds is found,

 

No one who ever reaps their fruits,

 

Empty phenomena roll on,

 

This view alone is right and true.

 

 

 

 

No god, no Brahma, may be called,

 

The maker of this wheel of life,

 

Empty phenomena roll on,

 

Dependent on conditions all." Visuddhimagga XIX.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

No god, no Brahma, may be called,

 

The maker of this wheel of life,

 

Empty phenomena roll on,

 

Dependent on conditions all." Visuddhimagga XIX.

 

The Visuddhimagga ("The path to purity") is a Theravada Buddhist commentary written by Buddhaghosa approximately in 430 CE in Sri Lanka. It is considered the most important Theravada text outside of the Tipitaka canon of scriptures. The Visuddhimagga's structure is based on the Ratha-vinita Sutta ("Relay Chariots Discourse," MN 24), which describes the progression from the purity of discipline to the nibbana, considering seven steps.

[xabir2005]

[Lucky7Strikes]

See you have cut and pasted stuff but never really articulated in your own words what it means. I don't think you understand what it is you are cutting and pasting...

 

How can this coagulated pseudo-self of causality have and retain memory? And why should this coagulated "self" seek Nirvana?

 

On an aside, have you learned Sanskrit? Do you know the meanings of the words themselves? Do you understand the mechanism of Sanskrit grammar?

 

Dude, go re read Xabir's posts. He answers these questions over and over again.

 

There's no denial of the luminous consciousness experience of "I AM." Buddhism just says that this existence is also a dependently originated phenomenon.

 

You're interpreting dependent origination in a nihilistic manner.

 

And I'm beginning to think you're just in a state of denial...

Edited August 3, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[dwai]

[Vajrahridaya]

Tathagatagarbha:

 

It's the absolute realization of the absolute non-abiding and empty nature of infinite dependently originated experiencers, experiences, experiencing and experientials. All beings have this element of potential to become a Buddha because of this. That's what Buddha Nature means. It's not a big Self of all that is the source of all being.

 

Tathagata means, thus gone, or one thus gone. Garbha means embryo, or potentiality. so... you see, all beings have inherent in them the potentiality to be a Tathagata. Your not seeing the subtle difference which is the difference between a cliff and the open space beyond the cliff. Your still clinging to an ultimate existent. The guy commenting on it is dismissing the Sutras that explain the meaning.

 

It looks like Brahman to you because that's what you wish to see.

 

But, the Lankavatara Sutra which is just as well a Mahayana Sutra which is used to understand the Nirvana Sutra clears up your misunderstanding.

Edited August 3, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[dwai]

Tathagatagarbha:

 

It's the absolute realization of the absolute non-abiding and empty nature of infinite dependently originated experiencers, experiences, experiencing and experientials. All beings have this element of potential to become a Buddha because of this. That's what Buddha Nature means. It's not a big Self of all that is the source of all being.

 

It looks like Brahman to you because that's what you wish to see.

 

But, the Lankavatara Sutra which is just as well a Mahayana Sutra which is used to understand the Nirvana Sutra clears up your misunderstanding.

 

I could turn it around and tell you the same thing -- it looks like Emptiness and Non-self to you because that's what you want to see...

 

Read carefully...The Buddha teaches his advanced students the Tathagatagarbha Sutras and refers to the Tathagata personified (It is always a He). Sounds like reification?

 

Actually the same is true for Atman/Brahman as well. It is not reification, it is identification with the Eternal Self. It is acceptance of one's true nature.

[Enishi]

One thing which confuses me is how there can be an infinite number of mind streams stretching back into the eternal past. If the past is eternal, why haven't we all attained enlightenment by this point?

 

Since they're empty, can mindstreams combine or divide in some manner?

[Vajrahridaya]

One thing which confuses me is how there can be an infinite number of mind streams stretching back into the eternal past. If the past is eternal, why haven't we all attained enlightenment by this point?

 

Since they're empty, can mindstreams combine or divide in some manner?

 

Infinite mind streams attain liberation all the time within infinite space and time. There's no limits, it's uncountable.

 

They intermingle... there's no real subsentence there for merging to actually happen. Do you mean like can two mind streams become one? No, unless one is to see through time and see that your mind stream right now is a collection of a whole bunch of streams of experience since beginningless time, but that's what a mind stream is. An enlightened being through his or her heaps of merit, collected pure intention energy can manifest many different streams of mind reflective of the one intention to liberate beings but cannot actually liberate all beings at will. So, this one enlightened beings Sambhogakaya can become many Nirmanakayas.

 

But, there is no supreme will according to Buddhism. No soul controller of the entire mass of Samsara.

 

Nirvana Sutra doesn't even allude to that, it just alludes to the fact that we all have the garbha, or potential, for tathagata, or enlightenment to transcend Samsara. That is the true home, true place, true way to be for a Buddha. That's what the term atman refers to in this sutra. Not a Self of all. Though one does attain omnipresence, one does not attain omnipotence.

 

Buddhanature is not established either and upon investigation, cannot be found to inherently exist outside of it's relative meaning as the potentiality of all conscious beings. This relativity is based upon the absolute truth that all is inherently empty, and this realization becomes an endless positivity as a Buddha, or Tathagata.

 

These new Western scholars who are influenced by Theism are just not getting the subtleties.

 

I could turn it around and tell you the same thing -- it looks like Emptiness and Non-self to you because that's what you want to see...

 

Read carefully...The Buddha teaches his advanced students the Tathagatagarbha Sutras and refers to the Tathagata personified (It is always a He). Sounds like reification?

 

Actually the same is true for Atman/Brahman as well. It is not reification, it is identification with the Eternal Self. It is acceptance of one's true nature.

 

There are many tathagatagarbha sutras. You can't just read one of them. You have to read them all to get an idea of what it's alluding to.

 

Read again what... tathagatagarbha means...

 

Garbha means potential, and Tathagata means thus gone. Meaning the potential to be thus gone, Nirvana, blown out...

 

The realization is positive. The realization that all things and beings have always been empty of inherent existence. Like the first statement of the Buddha... "mind is uncompounded and pure since beginningless time".

 

It's the realization of yes, what already is. But, no, it's not a true inherent existence, other than that all things are inherently empty of essence, which is the essential nature and potential to be a Buddha. Do you get it?

 

The words in the Sutra are tricking you because you don't have context.

 

It is not reification, it is identification with the Eternal Self. It is acceptance of one's true nature.

 

Of course it's reification in Vedanta. It's reified as the one ultimate reality. The real source of all existence, the real that makes the unreal seem real.

 

In Trika Shaivism (Kashmir Shaivism), it's the real of the real as the base of things are real, so are all it's expressions as the Nataraj and Lila is real. There is no illusion other than mis-cognition of this real true substance of the universe the soul of all things that is all things simultaneously.

 

This is not the Buddhist realization.

Edited August 3, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[xabir2005]