Does "sunnata" mean "empty of your self"?

Upvote:0

Dhammas or the belief systems are not worth calling as me,mine or myself. Whether that belief system is good or bad or scientific to any extent are impermanent and are therefore source of suffering and therefore can not be called as me,mine or myself. If a belief system does opposite of what it is supposed to do then does it hold any ground? In that sense it is empty. (Physical emptiness is also impermanent)

Faith in Brahman or Brahma or Atma are also impermanent therefore they can not be called as me , mine or myself.(i.e. Self or Universal Self or any kind collective self)

However the Truth above is unchanging.

Upvote:0

I believe the standard interpretation is that the "one mind" mentioned in e.g. in the awakening of faith sastra, written or rewritten by Paramartha in the 6th century, belongs to all sentient beings. It is not experienced identically in all of them, because sentient beings have different non-enlightenment. How "non-enlightenment" works out involves what path you are following, what sutras and teachers, etc..

Which raises the question: are all completely enlightened Buddhas identical? Trivially, in Mahayana Buddhism they have different apparitional and reward bodies. I believe the "dharmakaya" - which is discovered to be identical to the "one mind" - is undifferentiated. So in some sense yes: there is a universal mind, whether or not we call it a "self" (what do you mean by that: it's not what I mean by that?).

I believe there is no "atman" - according to anyone - in Theravada Buddhism. Any self is categorically not "atman" (it's a late addition from forged words of the Buddha like the Mahaparinirvana sutra).

Zhencheng draws heavily upon the idea of one mind, found in the Awakening of Faith, a catechism of the Huayan Buddhist tradition. In this scripture the one mind, or the unitary mind, is said to capture the images of all things within the world. An infamous passage in the Awakening of Faith reads: “With the arising of the mind the multitude of different kinds of dharmas arise; with the cessation of the mind the multitude of different kinds of dharmas come to cease.”68 Zhencheng writes in his Polished Exegesis: “When one person dies, the images and reflections that are carried within that one person’s mind cease. But it is not the case that the common karma that stimulated that mind—such as the mountain or river—would also cease with it.” .69 He continues: “There is but one mountain and one river, one heaven and one earth, one sun and one moon. But they appear as distinct images in the mind of each and every sentient being which contains conceptual discriminations.”
.70

Emphasis added. Zhencheng was a 16th century monk

recognized as leaders of the Chinese lineage of the Huayan school of East Asian Buddhism for their longstanding contributions to this religious and philosophical tradition.

Upvote:2

I said that. This thread is an attempt to engage me personally.

IMO, the text at the end of your question about Brahman is a strange projection and is a critical misunderstanding of what it means to be "empty of attā." The original context was asking users to compare Madhyamaka with non-Madhyamaka. Madhyamaka teaches that all dharmas are empty both of "yourself" (pudgalanairātma) and "themselves" (dharmanairātma). Theravāda traditionally only teaches emptiness of a self or anything to a self belonging. Some modern Theravāda teachers are highly influenced by Madhyamaka and hold the opposite stance.

More post

Search Posts

Related post