Adakah Atman dalam Agama Buddha ?

[JimyTBH]

Sebnrnya memang berbeda, kalau tdk berbeda ngapain jd bnyak aliran..bukankah di theravada ga ada sugatagarbha, amala vijjnana ??
SUdah jelas dong beda, ngapain maksa disamakan..

[Jerry]

Hmm.. ada konsep baru lagi dalam Buddhisme.. Sugatagarbha, Amala vijjnana.

[Xan To]

Sebnrnya memang berbeda, kalau tdk berbeda ngapain jd bnyak aliran..bukankah di theravada ga ada sugatagarbha, amala vijjnana ??

Menurut saya sih tidak demikian :p, pada awalx kan paham Theravada untuk "Yang Hanya Memiliki Sedikit Debu" atau bahasa simpelx "Satu - empat bait mengerti" Setelahx penjelasannya panjang

[Kelana]

Saya lanjutkan disini

1.Begitu juga Master Zen, Sekkei Harada menggunakan istilah "true Self is found when one "forgets the ego-self" adalah usaha pendekatan agar pemikiran orang yang masih melekat pada Atman dapat memahaminya = Darimana anda dapat mengambil kesimpulan ini silahkan sebutkan sumber-sumbernya  Saya tidak yakin Sensei Harada bicara demikian 

Dari Lankavatara Sutra:
No, Mahamati, my Tathagata-garbha is not the same as the ego (atman) taught by the philosophers…… I also wish, Mahamati, that the Bodhisattva-Mahasattvas of the present and future would not attach themselves to the idea of an ego [imagining it to be a soul].

2.Tathagata-garbha is not the same asthe ego (atman) taught by the philosophers[/b]; for what the Tathagatas teach is the  n the sense, Mahamati, that it is emptiness, reality-limit, Nirvana, being unborn, unqualified, and devoid of will-effort; the reason why the Tathagatas who are Arhats and Fully-Enlightened Ones, teach the doctrine pointing to the Tathagata-garbha is to make the ignorant cast aside their fear when they listen to the teaching of egolessness and to have them realise the state of non-discrimination and imagelessness = Kan sudah saya tulis : Yang dimaksud oleh Sang Buddha dengan anatta/anatman(sanskrit) adalah diri kecil anda yang terbentuk karena faktor avidya (kebodohan fundamental) apabila anda mampu menyingkirkan diri kecil anda maka anda akan sampai ke Diri Buddha anda yang adalah anda yang sesungguhnya.

Saya tidak melihat/membaca bahwa Buddha mengatakan hal itu. Dalam sutra jelas mengatakan : Tathagata-garbha is not the same as the ego (atman)  taught by the philosophers; for what the Tathagatas teach is the sense, Mahamati, that it is emptiness, reality-limit, Nirvana, being unborn, unqualified, and devoid of will-effort;

Jelas dikatakan Tathagata-garbha adalah Emptiness, kosong. Jadi bukan masalah anatta/anatman(sanskrit) adalah hanya meliputi diri kecil, tapi Tathagata-garbha pun kosong dari atman. Kemudian dijelaskan oleh Sang Buddha mengapa para Tathagata menggunakan istilah Tathagata-garbha sebagai “True Self” (Atman) dengan mengatakan:

“….the reason why the Tathagatas who are Arhats and Fully-Enlightened Ones, teach the doctrine pointing to the Tathagata-garbha is to make the ignorant cast aside their fear when they listen to the teaching of egolessness and to have them realise the state of non-discrimination and imagelessness.”


Jadi “True Self” itu bukanlah benar-benar ada Atman, tetapi hanya sebagai pendekatan pengajaran. Oleh karena itu dalam sutra istilah “True Self” selalu menggunakan tanda kutip yang dalam kaidah bahasa menandakan bukan arti yang sebenarnya.

Argumen saya ini justru diperkuat dengan teks yang anda kutip sendiri kalau tidak salah dari Wiki, perhatikan yang saya tebalkan berikut:

in contradistinction to the impermanent "mundane self"  of the five skandhas (the physical and mental components of the mutable ego), there does exist an eternal true self, which is in fact none other than the Buddha himself in his ultimate nirvanic nature. This is the "true self" in the self of each being, the ideal personality, attainable by all beings due to their inborn potential for enlightenment. The Buddha nature does not represent a substantial self (ātman); rather, it is a positive language and expression of emptiness (śūnyatā) and represents the potentiality to realize Buddhahood through Buddhist practices; the intention of the teaching of Buddha nature is soteriological rather than theoretical.

Perhatikan dengan teliti, "mundane self","true self" selalu menggunakan tanda kutip, ini menandakan bukanlah arti sebenarnya. Kemudian penjelasan berikutnya menyatakan bahwa Buddha Nature bukanlah representasi/mewakili substantial self (atman), tetapi merupakan bahasa positif dan ekspresi dari Kekosongan (sunyata). Ini jelas sekali dalam judul dari catatan kaki pada Wiki bahwa penjelasan wiki tersebut berasal dari Heng-Ching Shih, "The Significance Of 'Tathagatagarbha' -- A Positive Expression Of 'Sunyata.' Yang dari judulnya dan isinya jelas menyatakan bahwa Tathagatagarbha, Buddha Nature hanyalah expresi positif dari Sunyata, jadi bukan benar-benar ada atman.

From these descriptions it is found natural for Mahayanists psychologically to deny the existence of an ego-soul or ego-substance in the Alaya = Ya kalo anda mencari ego-soul atau ego-substance, maaf saja anda tak akan menemukannya di Amala Vijnana, yang akan anda temukan adalah Kebuddhaan (Diri Buddha anda).

Buddha Nature itu sendiri adalah Sunyata, Kosong, tanpa aku (anatman) hal ini sudah di sampaikan di atas oleh Sang Buddha sendiri mengenai Tathagata-garbha dan juga dari teks wiki yang anda berikan.

4.Jadi baik dalam sutra maupun penjelasan sudah jelas, terang benderang dan tidak perlu ditafsirkan macam-macam = Anda keliru didalam Agama Buddha Mahayana ada jenjang-jenjang dan pengelompokan dalam penafsiran Sutra-Sutra.

Saya tidak keliru karena saya tidak membahas mengenai ada atau tidaknya jenjang-jenjang penafsiran, tapi saya mengatakan tidak perlu ditafsirkan. Mengapa tidak perlu? Karena sudah jelas, dan tidak semua yang ada dalam sutra harus ditafsirkan. Apakah jika di dalam sutra dikatakan “Sang Bhagava berada di Gunung Malaya…” perlu kita tafsirkan juga? Jelas tidak. Yang dibutuhkan hanyalah akal sehat dan tentu saja pemahaman bahasa yang benar.

5.Mahayana juga tidak mengajarkan adanya atman sejati, tetapi menggunakannya untuk suatu pendekatan agar orang yang masih melekat pada atta/atman mau belajar dan memahami = Silahkan berikan bukti dan sumber peryataan saudara ini.

Aduh, apakah anda belum membaca Lankavatara Sutra? Baiklah saya kutip:

the reason why the Tathagatas who are Arhats and Fully-Enlightened Ones, teach the doctrine pointing to the Tathagata-garbha is to make the ignorant cast aside their fear when they listen to the teaching of egolessness and to have them realise the state of non-discrimination and imagelessness

Jelas dalam sutra bahwa tujuannya adalah menyingkirkan rasa takut ketika mendengar ajaran mengenai ketanpaakuan (anatman). Dari mana rasa takut itu datang? Jelas dari kemelakatan dari padangan salah mengenai aku.

Penjelasan saya ini sama seperti penjelasan Sang Buddha dalam Lankavatara Sutra yang memang mengatakan demikian = Tafsiran anda sendiri tentunya bukan tafsiran yang benar menurut Guru-Guru Suci.

Saya tidak menafsirkan, tapi tertulis dalam Sutra demikian adanya.

7.Lagi, dalam World Buddhist Sangha Council (WBSC) terbentuk di Colombo, tahun 1966 menyatakan dengan bulat bahwa semua tradisi Buddhisme mengajarkan mengenai anatman bukan atman = Kalo Theravada saya tidak tahu tetapi Mahayana menganut pandangan demikian untuk anatman : Yang dimaksud oleh Sang Buddha dengan anatta/anatman(sanskrit) adalah diri kecil anda yang terbentuk karena faktor avidya (kebodohan fundamental) apabila anda mampu menyingkirkan diri kecil anda maka anda akan sampai ke Diri Buddha anda yang adalah anda yang sesungguhnya.

Itu pendapat anda pribadi, dan tidak berdasarkan pada rujukan apapun, apalagi rujukan yang saih seperti sutra.

8.Jika saya salah berarti anda menepis kebenaran yang terkandung dalam Lankavatara Sutra yang disabdakan Sang Buddha sendiri dan World Buddhist Sangha Council yang jelas-jelas mengatakan bahwa tidak ada atman = atman dalam huruf kecil memang tidak ada tetapi Diri Buddha/ Atman ada.

Saat rujukan anda berupa pendapat seorang bhiksu terbantahkan dengan adanya rujukan Dewan Sangha, sekarang anda bermain huruf-hurufan, ini berarti menepis argument anda sendiri. Dalam teks yang anda kutip dari Wiki dan juga dalam sutra dimana semua kata “true self” menggunakan huruf kecil begitu juga sunyata,  ini berarti mengatakan bahwa sunyata dan true self  itu tidak ada. Wonderful!

Jadi tinggal anda pilih lebih percaya pada pendapat pribadi anda atau dengan ucapan Sang Buddha yang sudah jelas terdapat dalam sutra = Saya percaya kepada Sutra-Sutra Suci Buddha dengan merujuk pandangan dan tafsiran saya pada Penerus Ajaran Suci Sang Buddha yaitu Guru-Guru Suci.

Tidak ada Guru Suci Buddhisme yang mengatakan ada atman, hanya guru-guru suci palsu yang menyatakan ada atman.

Saya tidak tahu tujuan anda membahas ini dan berusaha keras menyama-samakan ajaran Buddha dengan Hinduisme. Saya katakan anda akan sia-sia, karena dari pengamatan saya, memang tidak sama. = Itukan menurut anda bukan menurut Buddhadharma yang benar.

Saya berdasarkan Sutra tetapi anda tidak.

Akhir kata dari saya :

His Holiness Dalai Lama Ke-14:

Menurut sistem agama Buddha, semua pemunculan ini pada kenyataanya tidak eksis. Dari kekosongan dari semua bentuk “diri” itu terbentuk doktrin Tanpa Aku.

(Y.A Dalai Lama, Belas Kasih Universal, Yayasan Penerbit Karaniya, 1992, Hal 45)


Kesimpulan:
Pandangan Sdr. Triyana ini berbasis pada pemahaman terhadap Tathagatagarbha yang dianggap sebagai diri sejati, padahal dalam Sutra jelas menyatakan Tathagatagarbha bukanlah atman.

[Kelana]

Tambahan rujukan bagi yang senang bahasa Indonesia:

---
Mahayana tidak hanya menolak adanya inti yang kekal atau substansi dalam diri manusia (pudgala-nairatmya) tapi juga berpendapat bahwa realitaspun tidak mengandung inti yang kekal (dharma-nairatmya).

Bisa diartikan bahwa pudgala – nairatmya adalah bahwa tiada inti yang kekal yang terdapat dalam diri manusia, atau yang juga dikenal dengan istilah anatta. Dengan dharma-Nairatmya dimaksudkan bahwa tiada unsur-unsur dari realitas yang berdiri sendiri atau yang mengandung inti yang kekal.

Penolakan paham adanya substansi realitas yang berdiri sendiri tanpa tergantung atas yang lainnya – tidak hanya berlaku untuk manusia (pudgala) namun juga untuk segenap kenyataan lainnya (dharma). Karenanya Mahayana memiliki konsep baik Pudgala – Nairatmya maupun Dharma – Nairatmya.

Baik manusia (pudgala) maupun segenap kenyataan lainnya (dharma) adalah sunya; kosong dari inti yang kekal, atau tiada berinti. Tak ada sesuatu yang sifatnya berdiri sendiri (svabhava, substansi) baik itu yang terdapat dalam diri manusia berupa aku, roh, atau jiwa yang kekal ataupun yang terdapat dalam segenap realitas.
 
(Pokok-Pokok Dasar Mahayana, Dhammasukha Jo Priastna S.S., M.Hum, Yasodhara Puteri, 1999, hal 61-62)

----
Saya rasa cukup bagi saya mengenai topik ini, karena banyak rujukan termasuk Sutra yang mengatakan tidak ada Atman. Silahkan bagi yang mau meneruskan diskusinya, siapa tahu bisa menembus 500 halaman 

No comment selanjutnya

[xenocross]

Gandavyuha Sutra:

And I resolve that just as I light the way for those in the dark who cannot see and have lost their way, as I create light to make various forms manifest, in the same way I will use the light of great wisdom to destroy the darkness of ignorance of those in the long night of the mundane whirl, who have no sense of direction at all, who are in the darkness of ignorance, whose eye of knowledge is covered by the veil of nescience, who are perverted in concepts, thoughts, and views, who think the impermanent is permanent,
who think the painful is painless, who think the selfless has self, who think the impure is pure, who cling to a definite self, being, life, soul, individuality, and personality, who are attached to sense faculties, sense
consciousnesses, and sense data, who are confused about cause and effect, who do what is not good, ....................


Mulamadhyamakarika by Nagarjuna
18. Investigation of Self and Things
(Self)
1. If the aggregates were self, it would be possessed of arising and decaying. If it were other than the aggregates, it would not have the characteristics of the aggregates.

2. If the self did not exist, where could what is mine exist? In order to pacify self and what is mine, grasping I and grasping mine can exist no more.

3. The one who does not grasp at me and mine likewise does not exist.

4. When one ceases thinking of inner and outer things as self and mine, clinging will come to a stop. Through that ceasing, birth will cease.

5. Through the ceasing of action and affliction, there is freedom. Action and affliction [come] from thoughts and they from fixations. Fixations are stopped by emptiness.

6. It is said that “there is a self,” but “non-self” too is taught. The buddhas also teach there is nothing which is “neither self nor non-self.”

7. That to which language refers is denied, because an object experienced by the mind is denied. The unborn and unceasing nature of reality is comparable to nirvana.

8. Everything is real, not real; both real and not real; neither not real nor real: this is the teaching of the Buddha.

9. Not known through others, peaceful, not fixed by fixations, without conceptual thought, without differentiation: these are the characteristics of suchness.

10. Whatever arises dependent on something else is at that time neither that very thing nor other than it. Hence it is neither severed nor permanent.

11. That ambrosial teaching of the buddhas, those guardians of the world, is neither the same nor different, neither severed nor permanent.

[xenocross]

Aryadeva's Four Hundred Verse Treatise on the Actions of a Bodhisattva's Yoga

Ten: Indicating the Meditations for Refuting a (Static, Impossible) “ Self” or “Soul”

(1) A (static, truly existent) internal “self” (or atman as asserted by you Vaisheshikas) can be neither female, nor male, nor hermaphroditic, (otherwise you would always have to be reborn as the same gender). When this is so, then it is only out of unknowing (naivety) that you can think in terms of being a (truly existent) male “self” (and so on).

(2) And when it is so that none of the elements (constituting the body) exist as male, female, or hermaphroditic, then how can (an external “self”) that relies on these be (truly existently) male or female or hermaphroditic?

(3) That which is your “self” is not my “self.” Therefore, this (object of your self-preoccupation) cannot be a (truly existent) “self,” because (if it were, it would also have to be the object of my self-preoccupation and this) cannot be ascertained (to be so). Doesn’t the thought (of a “self”) arise (merely as an imputation) on the nonstatic functional phenomena (of one’s own aggregate factors of experience)?

(4) A “person” (or “self”) would have to change aspects from rebirth to rebirth in accordance with (the change in) body (and life form). Therefore, it is unreasonable for you (to maintain) that (the “self”) is a different (substantial) entity from the body and static.

(5) It can never happen that something that cannot have contact (with anything) can be said to incite a functional phenomenon (into action). Because of that, the “living one” (or “self”) cannot become the agent for (causing) the body’s motion.

(6) (If) it cannot be harmed, how can you think there is any use in causal (actions to prevent suffering) for a static “self”? In no respect, would you ever need to protect a diamond-hard scepter from wood-worms!

(7) If your “self” is static and permanent because it has memories of (past) lives (in which it also considered itself “me,” well then) from seeing a mole (on your body similar to one you) had in a previous (life), why would your body itself not be static and permanent?

( And if (you say it is) a “self” that possesses (the quality of) having consciousness that indeed is the knower (of previous lives and so on), well then such a “ person” (or “self”) that is not conscious (on its own, but then comes to) have consciousness (as its quality) could not be static.

(9) You can see that the “living one” (or “self”) when it possesses (qualities) such as happiness and so on (takes on) varied (aspects) in accordance with whether (it is experiencing) happiness and so on. Because of that, it is improper for (the “self”) to be static indeed while (it can experience being) happy and so on.

(10) But if, (according to you Samkhyas, the “self” or “person,” which) has (a nature) of consciousness, is static and permanent, then (its needing to rely on cognitive sensors for) the action (of cognizing objects) becomes contrary (to this). If fire were static and permanent, (its reliance on) fuel (in order to burn) would not be meaningful.

(11) As long as there is a substantially existent (potential for awareness, which is not different from the static “person” or “self” and which has) the function (of causing the “person” to have cognitions), it will never fluctuate (from doing this) until (the “ person”) disintegrates. But, as (you assert that) the “person” exists (staticly, forever), it is unreasonable to say its cognitions ever cease to exist.

(12) You see (the “person” or “self”) as sometimes in the sphere (of having the potential) for having cognitions and at others (actually) having cognitions. Because this is like iron (sometimes being) in a molten state (and at other times not), the “person” becomes something that changes in aspect.

(13) (Now Suppose as you Nyaiyikas say, that the “person” or “self”’s) having consciousness (is due to its relying) on merely (one of its atoms being conjoined with) mind and (also that) the “person” is vast (and as all-pervasive) as space. Well then, because (the vast majority of the infinite “self” is not conjoined with mind), it would appear as though its nature could not be one (that would allow for) having consciousness.

(14) If the “self” existed (as static, partless, and pervasive) to everyone, why shouldn’t you, through (the “self” in) someone else, conceive of him as “me”? It is unreasonable to say (it is because your) very (“self,” although present in someone else,) is obscured by (his) very (“self,” since then the “self” would have parts and not be single).

(15) Any (views, such as those of the Samkhyas, that assert primal matter with an equal proportion of the three constituent) qualities (namely the principles of happiness, suffering, and indifference) as being the creator (of all manifestations of these) and yet not having consciousness of any of these aspects, have no difference whatsoever from those of madmen.

(16) What could be more unreasonable than for (primal matter, as a balance of these three constituent) qualities, to create all aspects, such as houses and so on, and yet not be conscious (of them) as the conscious experiencer (of the fruits of its actions)?

(17) (A “self,” as asserted by you Vaisheshikas, that) has actions cannot (also) be static. And (also), one that extends to all (times and places) cannot have actions (such as coming and going. Thus, your assertions about it are self-contradictory). Further, (a “self”) that did not have actions would be tantamount to its being nonexistent. (Therefore,) why not rejoice in (the fact that there is) no (truly existent) “self”?

(18) Some (such as you Vaisheshikas and Samkhyas) see (the “self”) as extending in everyone. Some, (such as you Jains, observe) the “person” to be merely (the same size as each individual’s) body. While some, (such as you Nyaiyikas, perceive) the “person” to be merely an atom. But those with discriminating awareness see it as non(-truly) existent, (since if it truly existed, everyone should validly see it the same).

(19) Where can there be harm for (a “self” that is) static and permanent, and where can there be liberation for what cannot be harmed? Therefore, liberation is unreasonable for anyone whose “self” is static and permanent.

(20) If there (actually) existed what is known as a (truly existent) “ self,” it would be unreasonable to think there was no (such) “self,” and it would indeed be a lie to say that you could pass beyond sorrow (into nirvana) from a definite understanding of the facts of reality (namely, the voidness of the “self”).

(21) But suppose (you say that although there is no truly existent “self” in recurring samsaric existence, yet the liberated “self” has truly established existence. Well then,) the liberated (“self”) must be non-truly existent, as it previously also was non-truly existent. (This is because) whatever is seen concerning (the voidness of a “self”) that does not possess (any relation with anything else) is explained as being its nature (whether liberated or not).

(22) If nonstaticness (or impermanence meant that things) discontinue completely (after their first moment, then) how could there still be grass and so on? If this (absurd position) were true, there wouldn’t be any naivety occurring in anyone (since, being nonstatic, it too would have disappeared after its first moment).

(23) Even if a (static, truly existent) “self” existed, (it should produce things all by itself. But,) as its bodily form can be seen to arise from (numerous) other (conditions being assembled), can be seen to abide from others (continuing to support it), and can be seen to disintegrate from others (no longer being present, therefore) it can be seen (that such a static and permanent “self” does not exist at all).

(24) Just as a functional sprout arises from a functional seed, likewise all nonstatic (phenomena) are produced from nonstatic (causes, not from a static “self”).

(25) (In short,) because functional phenomena come about ( from them, causes) do not become discontinuous, (as you nihilists would assert). And because functional phenomena become annulled (once they have produced an effect, causes) do not become static and permanent, (as you eternalists would assert).

[xenocross]

Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra

Manjusri: What is the root of desire and attachment?

Vimalakirti: Unreal construction is the root of desire.

Manjusri: What is the root of unreal construction?

Vimalakirti: The false concept is its root.

Manjusri: What is the root of the false concept?

Vimalakirti: Base-less-ness.

Manjusri: What it the root of base-less-ness?

Vimalakirti: Manjusri, when something is baseless, how can it have any root? Therefore, all things stand on the root, which is baseless.
..................

The bodhisattva Parigudha declared, "'Self' and 'selflessness' are dualistic. Since the existence of self cannot be perceived, what is there to be made 'selfless'? Thus, the non-dualism of the vision of their nature is the entrance into non-duality."

[Indra]

Penjelasan yg sangat gamblang, lugas, logis, dan telak dari Bro Kelana dan Bro Xenocross

[ryu]

Penjelasan yg sangat gamblang, lugas, logis, dan telak dari Bro Kelana dan Bro Xenocross

dah banyak2 jawaban juga percuma, nanti dijawabnya :

Baca :

http://lirs.ru/do/lanka_eng/Suzuki_Studies_in_the_Lankavatara.pdf

[Indra]

Penjelasan yg sangat gamblang, lugas, logis, dan telak dari Bro Kelana dan Bro Xenocross

dah banyak2 jawaban juga percuma, nanti dijawabnya :

Baca :

http://lirs.ru/do/lanka_eng/Suzuki_Studies_in_the_Lankavatara.pdf

usaha gagal dalam menyama2kan Buddhism vs Hinduism

[adi lim]

Penjelasan yg sangat gamblang, lugas, logis, dan telak dari Bro Kelana dan Bro Xenocross

percuma juga kalau sudah lengkap itu, paling ntar jawabannya, tidak mau tahu apa kata lu orang
pokoknya ada Diri Kecil dan Diri Besar   


 

[xenocross]

http://lirs.ru/do/lanka_eng/Suzuki_Studies_in_the_Lankavatara.pdf

sudah donlod....lagi baca....aku copas dikit dari initial search

Atmavada, 138, theory of ego. Tirthakatmavadopadesatulyas tathagatagarbhopadeso na bhavati (78—18, 79—1), |Jcffe JOVKm ^m^MmnZn (T). "The tathagatagarbha of which I speak is not like the doctrine of the ego maintained by the philosophers."
(hal 388)

The Lankavatara is quite anxious to have us realise that the theory of non-ego does not conflict with that of the Tathagata's Womb (tathagata-garbha), of which mention is made in various connections.3 When the Tathagata-garbha is spoken of as a kind of storage where all the seeds (bija) of the past deeds and psychical activities are preserved, philosophers are apt to take it for an ego-soul. But, says the
Lankavatara, the Tathagata-garbha is empty in its nature yet real, it is Nirvana itself, unborn, without predicates, without affections (apranihita), and, further, it is attained where no false discrimination (nirvikalpa) takes place, where no shadow (nirdbhasa) of particularisation falls. There is nothing here for the Buddhas or Bodhisattvas to take hold of as an ego-soul. They have gone beyond the sphere of
discriminations and judgments, and it is due to their wisdom and skilful device (updda) that they set up all kinds of names and phrases in order to save their followers from mistaken views of reality. Hence the following -,1
"O Mahamati, it is like the potter who, out of a mass of atoms of clay of one kind, produces various kinds of vessels by applying on it his artistic skill and manual labour, knowing how to make use of the stick, water, and string; just so, 0 Mahamati, is the Tathagata who points out the egolessness of things (dharmanairatmya)—the truth transcending everything characteristic of discrimination—by a variety of skilful means, which is joined with Prajna, that is, sometimes by the doctrine of Tathagata-garbha, and sometimes by the doctrine of non-ego, or sometimes like the potter by the aid of words, suggestions, and synonyms. For this reason, O Mahamati, the doctrine of Tathagata-garbha is not the same as the doctrine of ego as advocated by the philosophers. Thus indeed the doctrine of Tathagata-garbha is taught by the Tathagatas in order to induce the philosophers advocating the ego-theory [which latter in a superficial way may be regarded as resembling the Buddhist conception of Tathagata-garbha] and further indeed in order that those who have fallen into the view of discriminating an unreal ego [as real] may become possessed of the realm of the triple emancipation and speedily realise the highest supreme enlightenment.

For this reason the Tathagatas who are Arhats and Fully-enlightened Ones talk of the doctrine of Tathagata-garbha which is thus to be differentiated from the egotheory of the philosophers. Therefore, O Mahamati, in order to keep thyself away from the ego-theory of the philosophers thou shouldst seek the doctrine of the Tathagatagarbha that is based on non-ego.

"Pudgala (soul)> Samtati (continuity), Skandha (aggregate) , Pratyaya (causation) , Anu (atom) , Pradhana (supreme soul), Isvara (god), Kartri (creator ) :—some such ideas are entertained by the philosophers, but they are mere constructions of mind."1
(hal 137-139)

[xenocross]

akhirnya ketemu diri kecil dan besar....

The Citta and the Alayavijnana and the Atman Along with the conception of Citta there was that of the Vijnana system, and also the deepening of the ego-idea. Early Buddhists denied the reality of an ego-substance, which was in accordance with their psychology, but the idea of ego was not necessarily the same as the assertion of selfwill or egotism; even when self-will was destroyed, the idea remained. What was destroyed was the lower self and not the higher self, the smaller self and not the larger self; for the
annihilation of the lower and smaller self was only possible through the assertion of the higher and larger one. Buddhists never thought of putting an end to whatever might go under the name of self. The idea of ego-substance (atman) was inimical to the development of the higher centre of the individual, nor was it in harmony with the experience of their religious life. How is the question of the higher life to be solved, then ? Where is it to be placed in the system of the Vijflanas? With this question an absolute Citta came to be separated from the empirical ego, and this absolute Citta to be identified with the Alaya, which was now made the foundation of the whole Vijnana group. So we have " cittam-alayavijnanam"1 and this then furnishes the reason of the inner realisation as taking place in the Tathagata-garbha.2
The philosophers take the Tathagatagarbha, or the Alayavijnana3 for the ego, that is, the lower,
narrower, empirical ego, which is, however, far from the teaching of the Buddha. The real immaculate ego, suddhisatydtman, going beyond the grasp of relative knowledge, cannot so easily be understood and so readily be asserted as is done by the ignorant. We thus read (gg. 757-771) :

"Born or unborn, the Mind always remains pure: those who reason" about the existence of an ego-substance—why do they not prove it by illustrations? (744).

"Those who vainly reason without understanding the truth are lost in the jungle of the Vijnanas, running about here and there and trying to justify their view of egosubstance (745).

' ' The self realised in your inmost consciousness appears in its purity, this is the Tathagata-garbha which is not the realm of those given up to mere reasoning (746).

"When the Skandhas are analysed, there is that which apprehends and that which is apprehended; by understanding this aspect of relativity, true knowledge is born (747).

"The philosophers think that the Alaya or where the Garbha is oriented, is the seat of thought and one with the self: but such are not the teachings declared [by the Buddhas] (748).
(hal 254-255)



The following noted stanza quoted whenever there is an allusion to the philosophy of the Yogacara is taken from the Chinese Sandhi-nirmocana-sutra:

' ' The Adana-Vijnana is deep and subtle,
Where all the seeds are evolved like a stream;
I do not elucidate this for the ignorant,
For they are apt to imagine it an ego-substance."
(hal 258)

[Indra]

For this reason the Tathagatas who are Arhats and Fully-enlightened Ones talk of the doctrine of Tathagata-garbha which is thus to be differentiated from the egotheory of the philosophers. Therefore, O Mahamati, in order to keep thyself away from the ego-theory of the philosophers thou shouldst seek the doctrine of the Tathagatagarbha that is based on non-ego.

"Pudgala (soul)> Samtati (continuity), Skandha (aggregate) , Pratyaya (causation) , Anu (atom) , Pradhana (supreme soul), Isvara (god), Kartri (creator ) :—some such ideas are entertained by the philosophers, but they are mere constructions of mind."1
(hal 137-139)

jadi bahkan rujukan ini pun mengatakan TIDAK ADA DIRI