Talk:Svabhava

Svabhava is a "Mahayana" concept?

I just want to highlight some potential sloppiness and unintentional errors in my recent edit: Based on the PTS Pali-English Dictionary, it does not appear that svabhava is used in the Pali Canon in the way it is used in Mahayana texts. However, based on some Internet-accessible writings by Y. Karunadasa (e.g., BPS Wheel 412/413?) and Red Pine's writing in his book, "The Heart Sutra" (2005), p. 68, it appears that this concept might have first arose with the Sarvastivadins. Thus, is it fair to label this as a "Mahayana" concept or would something else be more accurate (while retaining this editor's current limited understanding that it is not used to denote "intrinsic nature" [permanent stratum] in Theravada canonical texts)?
Sorry for my ignorance and I regret if my edit is erroneous or misleading. Thanks for any correction or corroboration, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 04:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Hallo Larry. Thanks for your very informative posting. It's always a real pleasure to hear from you. I think you are right, and that I need to add a comment in the main article, saying that the term is used in a different way in Theravada Buddhism. Your note is really good, I think - not sloppy at all. Anyway, I'll add a comment now. If you feel unhappy with it, please change it!

Best wishes to you, Larry. From Tony. TonyMPNS 08:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony - You're writing's excellent as always. Thanks, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you, Larry: you do such great work on Wikipedia. And your style of discussion is exemplary. If ever anyone on Wiki knows what the Buddhist teaching of "gentle speech" means in practice - it is you, Larry. No need to reply to this! Warm regards. From Tony. TonyMPNS 16:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

paṭisambhidāmagga 2.10 (suññakathā), has:

"Katamaṃ vipariṇāmasuññaṃ? Jātaṃ rūpaṃ sabhāvena suññaṃ. Vigataṃ rūpaṃ vipariṇatañceva suññañca. Jātā vedanā sabhāvena suññā. Vigatā vedanā vipariṇatā ceva suññā ca … pe … jātā saññā … jātā saṅkhārā … jātaṃ viññāṇaṃ … jātaṃ cakkhu … pe … jāto bhavo sabhāvena suñño. Vigato bhavo vipariṇato ceva suñño ca. Idaṃ vipariṇāmasuññaṃ." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.60.89 (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Tibetan

• Jigtenmig - Classical Tibetan Language Blog "ngo bo is essence, svabhava in Sanskrit". The article says that Svabhava in Tibetan is rang bzhin. How can this be explained?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.193.107 (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Ngo Bo is a part of several compounds, For example, when it is used as a part of the compound 'rang go ngo bo nyid', this is to signify the Hindu concept of a real essence - Brahman, Atman, and Svabhava, which are all different aspects or ways of looking at the same thing - denied by Buddhism. As Murthi correctly said, Buddhism and Hinduism are opposites.

The term Ngo Bo is also used as part of the group Essence, Nature and Compassion (Ngobo, Rangdzin, Tukje) which together make up the Primordial Ground (gzhi or āśraya). I don't think any of these terms is a really a translation of a Sanskrit term, if you were back-translating, you might choose Svabhava for Ngo Bo, but you might also use Nisvabhava, Rupa or other terms. But although my understanding of Tibetan is very limited, the article at Jigtenmig is basically correct as far as I know.

Buddhist terms can be slippery, especially when you are talking about Dzogchen. This is why translating Dzogchen texts can be hellishly difficult. Indigocat (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Fake quote removed; svabhava is emptiness

I just removed a fake quote: " In the Pāli tradition of the Buddhadharma: "To become Brahman is to become highest self-nature (sabhāva)" (Atthakanipata-Att. 5.72)."

The text quoted is not on this topic and does not contain 72 verses (it has only 6) or even 72 lines. The Pali texts do not use either of these terms in this way anywhere. Conservative Hindu commentators often misunderstand, misquote, or even falsify quotes in order to try to prove that the Buddha believed in a God or Soul.

In some of the Hinayana schools, the dharmas or skandhas were considered as really existing, but still in the sense of a process rather than as a 'thing' apart from the heretical Pudgalivadins. Citta were considered by some to exist in an atomistic sense, much as early physicists held that atoms really existed.

In Mahayana, Tantra and Dzogchen, it should be understood that svabhava = tathagatagarbha = emptiness (or strictly speaking Sunyata, which really means Hollowness). In the Pali Canon, Sunyata appears as a synonym for Nirvana and Bodhi. It's an essential in Buddhist philosophy to understand that things can't have a nature unless they do not have a nature. In ALL Buddhism, the non-nature of things is their nature. That's absolutely fundamental. Vajra Sutta: "Beings, beings, O Subhuti, as non-beings have been described by the Tathagata. Thus they are called beings."

Some schools such as Dzogchen, which is not exclusively Buddhist, like to replace the idea of Emptiness with other ideas because the idea of Emptiness itself can be concretised and become a concept. For example, to think that Emptiness means that everything is transitory and dependent, in a scientific way, is to enter into a deeper delusion, as explained by for example Sogyal Rinpoche. Rangdzin is another way of thinking about the same thing. The Yellow Hat schools considered Nyingmpa as heretical because they said that Rigpa was a 'thing' or 'essence'. This is specifically denied by the Dzogchen teachers, such as Dudjom Rinpoche in an appendix to his great 'History and Traditions of the Nyingmapa'.

I consider the content of this Wikipedia page to be rather illinformed and confused. Indigocat (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Svabhava. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041127175124/http://www.orientalia.org:80/printout470.html to http://www.orientalia.org/printout470.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)