Clay RaymondAnatman, not-self, is generally seen as a refutation of atman, self. In Hindu thought, Atman is the ultimate self. Yet the Buddha teaches anatman, not-self, as if a refutation of the doctrine of atman. However, I think anatman is a description of the nature of atman. The nature of self is no-self, as in the self lies beyond any possible individuated 'self.' So Atman/self exists, but its nature is anatman/no-self. It's a description of the same paradox outlined in the heart sutra, emptiness is form, etc.
Like · · February 3 at 3:32pm
Stuffs RedTurtle and 4 others like this.
Robert Healion This teaching is according to some sources a refutation of the soul or a separate sense of I continuing after death. The atman is as complex as emptiness, which is often misconstrued. I see little difference form the perspective of the three turnings, which suggests an identification with a 'thusness'. The atman reinvented. As for emptiness as form, form as emptiness, a bit of a different subject, more of a refutation of absolute self, not an alternative definition of thusness or atman.
February 3 at 6:07pm · Like
Tan Jui Horng I have no idea what Hindu thought is and what their highest stage of cultivation is like, but as long as they're talking about some kind of permanent source where all things come from it or are it, then anatman is a refutation of an existence of that kind of source.
February 3 at 6:19pm · Like
Robert Healion How do you relate thusness, original mind etc with a permance.
February 3 at 6:21pm · Like
Robert Healion Let me answer this: Buddha avoided extremes and avoided these types of questions.
February 3 at 6:26pm · Like
Robert Healion Thusness has much to do with the original teachings of Buddha as atman. expedient means, no a complete in ability to comprehend the original teachings which were based within a Vedanta setting. Buddha was a Hindu and all he postulated is pre propositioned by orthodox Vedanta. Thusness as opposed to original emptiness, was result of relic worship, according to the academics. Strip the sense of soul and something else takes its place, humanity 101.
February 3 at 6:37pm · Like
Robert Healion Not that he postulated Vedanta, He corrected inappropriate view points. If he was here now he would have a similar problem with Buddhism. To many misconceptions postulated as truths.
February 3 at 6:42pm · Like
Robert Healion "This âtmà is truly existent beyond existence and non-existence.
This is truly non-dual beyond dual and non-dual.
This âtmà is the Great Thing (mahàvastu), which is permanent beyond permanent and impermanent, etc., etc.
It is empty of all qualities (nirguna), which means empty of foreign qualities, but not empty (of itself), i.e., not empty of being a truly existing permanent entity (sat); not empty of being non-dual coginition (cit), and not empty of bliss (ànanda). Sat-cit-ànanda is the nature of this âtmà (or non-dual cognition)."
February 3 at 6:59pm · Like
Robert Dominik Both is and isn't (regarding atma) looks like one of the four extremes to me.
February 3 at 8:42pm · Edited · Like
Robert Healion Yes, all views usually are one of four views.
February 3 at 11:06pm · Like
Soh Robert Healion's quote is an excerpt from http://www.byomakusuma.org/.../VedantaVisAVisShentong.aspx - comparing Vedanta, Shentong, and Buddhism in general
Byoma Kusuma Buddhadharma Sangha
www.byomakusuma.org
Although he was from around the 8th century, he became popular among the Hindus ...See More
February 4 at 12:14am · Like · 1 · Remove Preview
Soh Wrote this last year:
A friend and mentor of mine ("Thusness") wrote me this in 2005 (after I sent him a Mahaparinirvana Sutra quotation about the true self). I've come to appreciate and see the truth in his words in recent years.
The Pristine awareness is often mistaken as the 'Self'. It is especially
difficult for one that has intuitively experience the 'Self' to accept
'No-Self'. As I have told you many times that there will come a time when u
will intuitively perceive the 'I' -- the pure sense of Existence but you
must be strong enough to go beyond this experience until the true meaning of
Emptiness becomes clear and thorough. The Pristine Awareness is the
so-called True-Self' but why we do not call it a 'Self' and why Buddhism has
placed so much emphasis on the Emptiness nature? This then is the true
essence of Buddhism. It is needless to stress anything about 'Self' in
Buddhism; there are enough of 'Logies' of the 'I" in Indian Philosophies.
If one wants to know about the experience of 'I AM', go for the Vedas and
Bhagavat Gita. We will not know what Buddha truly taught 2500 years ago if
we buried ourselves in words. Have no doubt that The Dharma Seal is
authentic and not to be confused.
When you have experienced the 'Self' and know that its nature is empty, you
will know why to include this idea of a 'Self' into Buddha-Nature is truly
unnecessary and meaningless. True Buddhism is not about eliminating the
'small Self' but cleansing this so called 'True Self' (Atman) with the
wisdom of Emptiness.
And in March 2006, Thusness said:
<^john^> the different between hinduism and buddhism is they return to the "I AM" and clings to it.
<^john^> always "I" as the source.
<ZeN`n1th> icic
<^john^> but in buddhism it is being replaced by "emptiness nature", there is a purest, an entity, a stage to be gained or achieved is an illusion.
<^john^> there is none. No self to be found. No identity to assumed. Nothing attained.
<ZeN`n1th> oic..
<^john^> this is truly the All.
<^john^> so for a teaching that is so thorough and complete, why must it resort back to a "True Self"?
<ZeN`n1th> hmm but i got a question about just now u say impermanent... but mahayana texts also say tathagathagarbha is permanent right?
<^john^> yes but for other reasons.
<ZeN`n1th> what kind of reasons
<ZeN`n1th> wat u mean
<^john^> first u must know that there is really a very subtle difference between pure subjectivity and emptiness nature.
<ZeN`n1th> icic
<^john^> for one that has experienced in full emptiness nature, does he/she need to create an extra "True Self"?
<ZeN`n1th> so wat difference
<ZeN`n1th> no
<^john^> he already knows and experiences and completely understand the arising cause and conditions of why the "true self" was created...
<^john^> will he still be confused?
<^john^> he knows exactly what is happening, the reality of the 'self'.
<ZeN`n1th> icic..
<^john^> i would say it is due to his compassion to let the other sects have a chance to understand the dharma that he said so.
<^john^> this is what i think.
<^john^> but there is no necessity to preach something extra.
<ZeN`n1th> oic
<^john^> in light of emptiness nature, "True Self" is not necessary.
<ZeN`n1th> icic
<^john^> the so called "purest" is already understood, there is no clinging.
<^john^> there is hearing, no hearer...etc
<^john^> is already beyond "True Self".
<ZeN`n1th> oic
<^john^> yet it exactly knows the stage of "True Self".
<^john^> if there is no hearing...then something is wrong.
<^john^>
<^john^> but there is hearing but no hearer.
<ZeN`n1th> hahaha
<ZeN`n1th> oic
<^john^> put ur time into practice and understanding of no-self and emptiness.
<^john^>
<ZeN`n1th> ok
Malcolm also made a similar statement recently:
" What you are suggesting is already found in Samkhya system. I.e. the twenty four tattvas are not the self aka purusha. Since this system was well known to the Buddha, if that's all his insight was, then his insight is pretty trivial. But Buddha's teachings were novel. Why where they novel? They were novel in the fifth century BCE because of his teaching of dependent origination and emptiness. The refutation of an ultimate self is just collateral damage."
February 4 at 1:06am · Edited · Like · 2
Soh Rob Burbea:
One time the Buddha went to a group of monks and he basically told them not to see Awareness as The Source of all things. So this sense of there being a vast awareness and everything just appears out of that and disappears back into it, beautiful as that is, he told them that’s actually not a skillful way of viewing reality. And that is a very interesting sutta, because it’s one of the only suttas where at the end it doesn’t say the monks rejoiced in his words.
This group of monks didn’t want to hear that. They were quite happy with that level of insight, lovely as it was, and it said the monks did not rejoice in the Buddha’s words. (laughter) And similarly, one runs into this as a teacher, I have to say. This level is so attractive, it has so much of the flavor of something ultimate, that often times people are unbudgeable there.
In the Dzogchen tradition, there’s a very beautiful saying – very simple but very beautiful. And it says, “trust your experience, but keep refining your view.” Trust your experience, but keep refining your view - there’s a lot of wisdom in that, a lot of wisdom.
...
These monks were ex-Samkhya followers that viewed Consciousness or Prakriti as the source or ground of being.
Also related, see Thanissaro's commentary: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.001.than.html
Mulapariyaya Sutta: The Root Sequence
www.accesstoinsight.org
The Buddha taught that clinging to views is one of the four forms of clinging th...See More
February 4 at 1:17am · Edited · Like · 2 · Remove Preview
Soh Robert Healion: "Buddha was a Hindu and all he postulated is pre propositioned by orthodox Vedanta."
I disagree with this and will refer to this well-written article: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/.../madhyamika...
Excerpts:
"...The third problem is that the teachings found in Buddhism do not in any way appear to be a reformation of Hinduism. Anyone who has studied Buddhism (I am not talking about prejudiced Hindu oriented scholars), can see that there is a major paradigm shift between Hinduism and Buddhism; in fact, between all other religious systems and Buddhism. The post modern and new age concept of universalism regarding spirituality, no matter how romantically beautiful, fails miserably when it comes to addressing Buddhism. A paradigm shift cannot and should not be misconstrued as a reformation. Reforms are changes brought about within the same paradigm. Hence, paradigm shifts are changes in the very foundations or parameters. Therefore, the basic foundations of these practices are completely different.
In such cases, it is completely confused thinking to state that one paradigm is a reformation of another. So Sramanism is a system of religion based on a completely different paradigm than the Vedic-Brahmanism or its offspring Hinduism. Therefore, it would be a gross error to say Buddhism is a reformation of Vedic Hinduism or Vedanta as Swami Vivekanda asserts. First of all, what we call Hinduism today, or even in the time of Swami Vivekanada did not exist at the time of the Buddha, which was the Vedic period. Vedic-Brahmanism was heavily influenced by older Sramanic schools and later on by newer ones like Buddhism and Jainism. We find in the ancient Brihadaranyak Upanishad, Gargi (a female) challenging the Brahmin Yagyavalkya. A critical study of the literature clearly shows that the mode of questioning that Gargi applied was very different from the type that many other Brahmins used to question Yagyavalkya. For instance, all the Brahmins used the same style of questioning in that they were simply asking the correct interpretation of some things found in the Vedas. But Gargi challenged the Vedas and thus she could have been a Sramana, even if she were Brahmin by caste. As Yagyavalkya was not able to answer her questions, he had to stop her by saying ‘Do not ask anymore or else your head will fall off’ (Brihadaranyak Upanishad 3.6.1)..."
"...Since the concept of Brahman, the truly existent (paramartha satta) is the very foundation of Hinduism (as a matter of fact some form of an eternal ultimate reality whether it is called God or Nature is the basis of all other religious systems). When Buddhism denies such an ultimate reality (paramartha satta) in any form, it cuts at the very jugular veins of Hinduism and all other Theistic systems. Therefore, it cannot be ontologically, epistemologically, and soteriologically said that Buddhism reforms Hinduism.
The affirmation of a ground (asraya) which is really existent (paramartha satta) and the denial that such an existent ground (satta) can be found anywhere, within or without, immanent or transcendent, are two diametrically opposed paradigms, not simply variation or reformations of each other. The Webster Dictionary defines re-form as ‘to amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuse.’ The example I have given above of an eternal base without which Hinduism in its own language would be called atheistic (Nastik). Therefore, the denial (without any implied affirmation prasajya pratisheda) of such an eternally existing unchanging base by Buddhism cannot be said to be a reformation, but a deconstruction of the very roots of the Hindu thesis. That is why Buddhism is not a reformation of Hinduism but a paradigm shift from the foundations on which Hinduism is based...."
Awakening to Reality: Madhyamika Buddhism Vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta
awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
Thusness/PasserBy's comments to me: I do not want you to have knowledge regardin...See More
February 4 at 1:15am · Like · 2 · Remove Preview
Robert Healion I will read it later as I currently have data restrictions and can only be facebook. However Buddha was trained in Vedanta as it was at that time. He is recognised as one of many offshoots of the then current doctrines. I think the biggest hindrance is following a faith. Buddha correct erroneous thinking. If he was here now he would be correcting erroneous thinking. Both Buddhist and Vedanta.
February 4 at 6:39am · Like · 1
Robert Healion What did Buddha teach... difficult, as there is much additions to the sutras written a few hundred years after his passing. still there is a common theme in all of them compassion patience and a lack of ego. Oh and the advice is still relevant, surprising how little we have changed.
February 4 at 6:42am · Like
Tamara King And Course in Miracles, the world church of suspension of reason and critical thought through koans, thus helping to ensure a compliant people.
February 4 at 6:42am · Like
Tamara King Ego's in all are joined in the collective unconscious and assures a thanatos of human's and a survival of ego itself.
February 4 at 6:44am · Like
Tamara King The winner: mindlessness.
February 4 at 6:44am · Like
Robert Healion “trust your experience, but keep refining your view.” Trust your experience, but keep refining your view - Very Good very Good.
February 4 at 6:48am · Like · 1
Robert Healion (The Pristine awareness is often mistaken as the 'Self'. It is especially difficult for one that has intuitively experience the 'Self' to accept 'No-Self'.)
Drunk on emptiness one feels all is empty, not realising your emptiness is inherently empty.
There are warnings about posting this emptiness or pristine awareness as a thing.
(As I have told you many times that there will come a time when u will intuitively perceive the 'I' -- the pure sense of Existence but you must be strong enough to go beyond this experience until the true meaning of Emptiness becomes clear and thorough.)
I suspect this is refuting the concept of you are an enlightened being. The so called conscious identification with your experience. I am wet I am wet, yet the nature of water is not that I am wet as the wetness is intrinsic to the water. The truly enlightened sees all as enlightened as all are.
(The Pristine Awareness is the so-called True-Self' but why we do not call it a 'Self' and why Buddhism has placed so much emphasis on the Emptiness nature? This then is the true essence of Buddhism. It is needless to stress anything about 'Self' in Buddhism; there are enough of 'Logies' of the 'I" in Indian Philosophies.)
Expedient means. Road maps and recipe’s are helpful if you wish to end up some ware. Seeing a monk on the further shore one asks “How do I cross the river and he replies, You are already across.”
(If one wants to know about the experience of 'I AM', go for the Vedas and Bhagavat Gita. We will not know what Buddha truly taught 2500 years ago if we buried ourselves in words. Have no doubt that The Dharma Seal is authentic and not to be confused.)
The dharma seal, the gateless gate, all empty. So many instructions on this point, yet still confusing.
February 4 at 7:02am · Like
Robert Healion (When you have experienced the 'Self' and know that its nature is empty, you will know why to include this idea of a 'Self' into Buddha-Nature is truly unnecessary and meaningless. True Buddhism is not about eliminating the 'small Self' but cleansing this so called 'True Self' (Atman) with the wisdom of Emptiness)
Very good very good
February 4 at 7:04am · Like
Robert Healion <^john^> the different between hinduism and buddhism is they return to the "I AM" and clings to it.
<^john^> always "I" as the source.
<ZeN`n1th> icic
<^john^> but in buddhism it is being replaced by "emptiness nature", there is a purest, an entity, a stage to be gained or achieved is an illusion.
<^john^> there is none. No self to be found. No identity to assumed. Nothing attained.
<ZeN`n1th> oic
<^john^> this is truly the All
Lacking context. However the ideal of no dual suggest a duality, the ideal of emptiness suggest a vessel of thing. Yet the nature of water is not to think I am wet, wetness is intrinsic to water.
February 4 at 7:07am · Like
Robert Healion <^john^> so for a teaching that is so thorough and complete, why must it resort back to a "True Self"?
<ZeN`n1th> hmm but i got a question about just now u say impermanent... but mahayana texts also say tathagathagarbha is permanent right?
Tathagathagarbha… Oh identify a text where Buddha defines such a beast.
February 4 at 7:11am · Like
Robert Healion The rest appears to be appointing away or at, regardless, there is nothing to point at or away.
(The refutation of an ultimate self is just collateral damage.)
Me thinks Malacom is in a middle. Or a muddle.
February 4 at 7:16am · Like
Robert Healion This group of monks didn’t want to hear that. They were quite happy with that level of insight, lovely as it was, and it said the monks did not rejoice in the Buddha’s words. (laughter) And similarly, one runs into this as a teacher, I have to say. This level is so attractive, it has so much of the flavor of something ultimate, that often times people are unbudgeable there.
Yes busy polishing there treasure there precious living in a dark cave and eating carp guts
February 4 at 7:18am · Unlike · 2
Tamara King I get it.
February 4 at 7:46am · Like
Tamara King I see not-self I think: no mind there.
February 4 at 7:51am · Like
Soh "However Buddha was trained in Vedanta as it was at that time."
No, Advaita Vedanta did not exist in those days. Samkhya existed (and I wouldn't be surprised if one or both of his previous meditation teachers were of Samkhya school, it should be noted that he later left these teachers as he found it insufficient for liberation) - but Samkhya is not Advaita, Jainism existed, some of the materialist and skeptical schools existed. (The six schools: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sama%C3%B1%C3%B1aphala_Sutta...)
How does Samkhya differ from Advaita you might ask? Samkhya is a hard-dualist teaching, it differentiates Pure Consciousness as Soul (Purusha) from the Material world (Prakriti). It posits that each individual person has (or rather, IS) their individual Purusha (Pure Attributeless Consciousness). And that realizing the pure Witnessing Consciousness is liberation. Although Jainism is a little different from Samkhya, there are also similarities - each posits an individual purusha/soul.
To me this is like realizing I AM but not yet reaching impersonality or non-dual insight (as I described in http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/.../experience...). Advaita is different, it is a substantialist-nondual teaching that posits a Self that is a One Universal Consciousness that subsumes all phenomena and all beings into Self and that all conceiving of phenomena as real and separate from Brahman are merely illusory superimpositions on its substratum (like necklace and its gold). This is like refining I AM realization into impersonality and One Mind. Kashmir Shaivism is also the same except it rejects the notion that phenomena are illusory and emphasizes 'realism' - all phenomena are truly real, as Self/Shiva/Consciousness (but this is not something different from what Ramana and Shankara has described as their ultimate/final view).
Yet, all these are still very different from realization of anatta. As I described in my article. Or as Alex Weith puts it: (http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/.../zen-exploration...)
Alex: 'What I realized also is that authoritative self-realized students of direct students of both Ramana Maharishi and Nisargadatta Maharaj called me a 'Jnani', inviting me to give satsangs and write books, while I had not yet understood the simplest core principles of Buddhism. I realized also that the vast majority of Buddhist teachers, East and West, never went beyond the same initial insights (that Adhyashanti calls "an abiding awakening"), confusing the Atma with the ego, assuming that transcending the ego or self-center (ahamkara in Sanskrit) was identical to what the Buddha had called Anatta (Non-Atma).
It would seem therefore that the Buddha had realized the Self at a certain stage of his acetic years (it is not that difficult after all) and was not yet satisfied. As paradoxical as it may seem, his "divide and conquer strategy" aimed at a systematic deconstruction of the Self (Atma, Atta), reduced to -and divided into- what he then called the five aggregates of clinging and the six sense-spheres, does lead to further and deeper insights into the nature of reality. As far as I can tell, this makes me a Buddhist, not because I find Buddhism cool and trendy, but because I am unable to find other teachings and traditions that provide a complete set of tools and strategies aimed at unlocking these ultimate mysteries, even if mystics from various traditions did stumble on the same stages and insights often unknowingly.
.............
Just for the sake of clarification, I would like to make it clear that I never said that "these luminous self-perceiving phenomena which are craving-free and nondual are the Ultimate", if there could still be any ambiguity about that.
On the contrary, I said that what I used to take for an eternal, empty, uncreated, nondual, primordial awareness, source and substance of all things, turned out to be nothing more than the luminous nature of phenomena, themselves empty and ungraspable, somehow crystallized in a very subtle witnessing position. The whole topic of this thread is the deconstruction of this Primordial Awareness, One Mind, Cognizing Emptiness, Self, Atman, Luminous Mind, Tathagatgabha, or whatever we may call it,
As shocking as it may seem, the Buddha was very clear to say that this pure impersonal objectless nondual awareness (that Vedantists called Atma in Sanskrit, Atta in Pali) is still the aggregate of consciousness and that consciousness, as pure and luminous as it can be, does not stand beyond the aggregates.
"Any kind of consciousness whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.'" (Anatta-lakkhana Sutta).'
"Buddha correct erroneous thinking."
Yes, but what I'm saying is that 'correcting' is not the same as 'reforming'. When the entire system is based on an erroneous framework, how can it be said that he is 'reforming' that system? For example, if Buddha said there is no God (not that 'God is not what you think it is'), how can it be 'reforming' Christianity which is founded on the belief in a God? The Buddha never claimed to be reforming anything. He is presenting something radically different from any other teachings.
As I pasted earlier:
"...Since the concept of Brahman, the truly existent (paramartha satta) is the very foundation of Hinduism (as a matter of fact some form of an eternal ultimate reality whether it is called God or Nature is the basis of all other religious systems). When Buddhism denies such an ultimate reality (paramartha satta) in any form, it cuts at the very jugular veins of Hinduism and all other Theistic systems. Therefore, it cannot be ontologically, epistemologically, and soteriologically said that Buddhism reforms Hinduism.
The affirmation of a ground (asraya) which is really existent (paramartha satta) and the denial that such an existent ground (satta) can be found anywhere, within or without, immanent or transcendent, are two diametrically opposed paradigms, not simply variation or reformations of each other. The Webster Dictionary defines re-form as ‘to amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuse.’ The example I have given above of an eternal base without which Hinduism in its own language would be called atheistic (Nastik). Therefore, the denial (without any implied affirmation prasajya pratisheda) of such an eternally existing unchanging base by Buddhism cannot be said to be a reformation, but a deconstruction of the very roots of the Hindu thesis. That is why Buddhism is not a reformation of Hinduism but a paradigm shift from the foundations on which Hinduism is based...."
Samaññaphala Sutta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
The Samaññaphala Sutta is the second discourse (Pali, sutta; Skt., sutra) of all...See More
February 4 at 4:28pm · Edited · Like · 2 · Remove Preview
Soh It couldn't be clearer when Buddha himself stated that he is teaching something radically different from any other teaching:
(from accesstoinsight)
Cula-sihanada Sutta (MN 11) -- The Shorter Discourse on the Lion's Roar {M i 63} [Ñanamoli Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi, trans.] - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.011.ntbb.html , the Buddha declares that only through practicing in accord with the Dhamma can Awakening be realized. His teaching is distinguished from those of other religions and philosophies through its unique rejection of all doctrines of self. [BB]
Cula-sihanada Sutta: The Shorter Discourse on the Lion's Roar
www.accesstoinsight.org
1. Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living at Savatthi in ...See More
February 4 at 3:44pm · Like · 2 · Remove Preview
Soh "
I suspect this is refuting the concept of you are an enlightened being. The so called conscious identification with your experience. I am wet I am wet, yet the nature of water is not that I am wet as the wetness is intrinsic to the water. The truly enlightened sees all as enlightened as all are.
"
No, it's talking about the Pristine Awareness, the so called Atman-Brahman. It is not talking about the refutation of ego which is found in all religions.
Pristine Awareness, the direct realization and apprehension of Pure knowing presence is not wrong, but that is just the aspect of luminous clarity. The luminous clarity must further be realized to be empty - empty of self. Then there is liberation. Otherwise 'aware knowing' becomes reified into a Super-Self, an ultimate Atman-Brahman that is the source and substratum of all phenomena that is changeless and independently existing.
February 4 at 3:53pm · Edited · Like · 1
Soh "Tathagathagarbha… Oh identify a text where Buddha defines such a beast."
Tathagatagarbha texts are late compositions - not from the historical Buddha - but by some group of Mahayana writers some thousand years after the Buddha. Such as the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra (not the pali one). They talk about Buddha-nature as Permanent, Bliss, Self, and Purity. It is in some ways as eternalistic as Vedanta, but there are also ways to interprete the teachings as being not eternalistic.
Some other classes of Mahayana sutras (e.g. Lankavatara Sutra) would later 'refute' its claims by stating that such teachings are merely skillful, expedient means of leading those who fear emptiness to the wisdom of emptiness, no-self and non-arising. Most teachers treat the Tathagatagarbha teaching as expedient, and interpreting those words in a very definitive way will lead to the extreme of eternalism.
February 4 at 3:56pm · Edited · Like
Soh Robert: "What did Buddha teach... difficult, as there is much additions to the sutras written a few hundred years after his passing."
Well, not really, as Malcolm wrote before (emphasis added on second paragraph): "Listen -- you will have to forgive us. These endless discussions about rebirth are tiresome. We don't care. Either you accept it or you don't. If you don't fine. But there is no doubt that rebirth was the Buddha's teaching. People who cannot accept that, cannot accept must of the other teachings of the Buddha.
**And please spare us the "buddhas teachings were not written down until..."First of all, this is false. Worst case scenario, Buddha's teachings were written down 150 years after his parinirvana (dates of Asokha pillars), which best scholarship places 407-400 BCE. But it is very likely that the earliest sutras were being written down within 50 years."**
Robert: "still there is a common theme in all of them compassion patience and a lack of ego. Oh and the advice is still relevant, surprising how little we have changed."
Compassion, patience and lack of ego are important qualities, but still not getting into the core essential doctrines of Buddhism.
Piotr sent me this quote days ago:
Piotr Ludwiński
2/1, 8:29pm
Piotr Ludwiński
http://quotes.justdharma.com/what-is-in-the-mind-of-a.../
(DKR:
So, what makes you a Buddhist? You may not have been born in a Buddhist country or to a Buddhist family, you may not wear robes or shave your head, you may eat meat and idolize Eminem and Paris Hilton. That doesn’t mean you cannot be a Buddhist. In order to be a Buddhist, you must accept that all compounded phenomena are impermanent, all emotions are pain, all things have no inherent existence, and enlightenment is beyond concepts.
It’s not necessary to be constantly and endlessly mindful of these four truths. But they must reside in your mind. You don’t walk around persistently remembering your own name, but when someone asks your name, you remember it instantly. There is no doubt. Anyone who accepts these four seals, even independently of Buddha’s teachings, even never having heard the name Shakyamuni Buddha, can be considered to be on the same path as he.)
Soh
2/1, 8:59pm
Soh
Thanks for the convo. Just read
Yes.. good point by dkr. If buddha doesnt actualize four seals then he is also sentient.. if sentient being actualize four seals then is buddha
Soh
2/1, 9:50pm
Soh
As thusness said before the seals are more impt than the buddha in person
Piotr Ludwiński
2/1, 10:25pm
Piotr Ludwiński
lol
..........
Also, it is important to distinguish "no ego" and "anatta":
"First I do not see Anatta as merely a freeing of personality sort of experience as you mentioned; I see it as that a self/agent, a doer, a thinker, a watcher, etc, cannot be found apart from the moment to moment flow of manifestation or as its commonly expressed as ‘the observer is the observed’; there is no self apart from the arising and ceasing. A very important point here is that Anatta/No-Self is a Dharma Seal, it is the nature of Reality all the time -- and not merely as a state free from personality, ego or the ‘small self’ or a stage to attain. This means that it does not depend on the level of achievement of a practitioner to experience anatta but Reality has always been Anatta and what is important here is the intuitive insight into it as the nature, characteristic, of phenomenon (dharma seal).
To illustrate further due to the importance of this seal, I would like to borrow a quote from the Bahiya Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/.../kn/ud/ud.1.10.irel.html)
‘in the seeing, there is just the seen, no seer’, ‘in the hearing, there is just the heard, no hearer’…
If a practitioner were to feel that he has gone beyond the experiences from ‘I hear sound’ to a stage of ‘becoming sound’ or takes that ‘there is just mere sound’, then this experience is again distorted. For in actual case, there is and always is only sound when hearing; never was there a hearer to begin with. Nothing attained for it is always so."
What is in the Mind of a Buddhist ~ Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche
quotes.justdharma.com
So, what makes you a Buddhist? You may not have been born in a Buddhist country ...See More
February 4 at 6:20pm · Edited · Like · 3 · Remove Preview
Robert Healion The Sramanas
The Buddha belonged to a new movement in philosophy which grew up under the social conditions described in the first section of this chapter. The brahmans were, or had become, a hereditary priesthood, and the earlier philosophers and poets whose work is known to us, being preserved in the Brahmanical literature, were either brahmans or men who became brahmanised, at least posthumously, by being accepted into the ranks of the orthodox. The new movement on the other hand was led by men who were not brahmans, but came from all ranks of society, and who instead of joining the Brahmanical schools set up independent schools. Some brahmans also joined these schools, but they thereby left the Brahmanical tradition and were assimilated into the new movement, which was essentially a classless one.
The philosophers of the new schools were called sramanas. They were men who had contracted out of ordinary society and become wanderers, living either by gleaning what they could in the woods and fields or by begging. Their aim was to discover the truth and attain happiness, or at least peace of mind. Having abandoned all social commitments they were free to spend their time thinking, trying out ascetic practices, studying nature, and of course teaching. They set up schools and trained pupils to remember and disseminate their teachings, and they also lectured in the villages and cities, even before kings if invited. The contents of this public lecturing were extremely diverse, but they tended to be ethical, to instruct people how to live, and the food or even fees they received could be regarded as a justifiable return for the teaching they dispensed.
The sramanas rejected the Veda, and the authority of the brahmans, who claimed to be in possession of revealed truths not knowable by any ordinary human means. They ridiculed the complicated rituals, and tried to show the absurdity of the Veda, as a canon of ultimate truths, by pointing out contradictions in it and drawing attention to some passages which seemed either rather futile or highly unethical, or even completely nonsensical, if supposed to be pronouncements having absolute authority (since a great part of the Veda consists of ancient poetry and legends, this was not very difficult). The sramanas went further than this and declared that the entire Brahmanical system was fraudulent: a conspiracy against the public by the brahmans for the purpose of enriching themselves by charging exorbitant fees for the performance of bogus rites and the giving of futile advice.1
1. The Buddhists have preserved some typical verses to this effect in the Tripitaka (Pali J VI 206-14). The views of the Lokayata School are reported for example in the first chapter of SDS.
In place of this authoritarian tradition the sramanas sought to find satisfactory explanations of the universe and of life by genuine investigations and by reasoning. They believed they could ascertain natural laws by their own efforts, without benefit of authority from the ancients or of supernatural guidance, and that these laws would be absolutely valid and must be accepted because anyone who cared to undertake a proper investigation could verify them.2 In brief, their outlook was that of scientists investigating the nature of the universe, though they were guided by the practical aim of applying the knowledge they gained in the quest for happiness.
February 4 at 8:52pm · Unlike · 1
Robert Healion The Sramanas
The Buddha belonged to a new movement in philosophy which grew up under the social conditions described in the first section of this chapter. The brahmans were, or had become, a hereditary priesthood, and the earlier philosophers and poets whose work is known to us, being preserved in the Brahmanical literature, were either brahmans or men who became brahmanised, at least posthumously, by being accepted into the ranks of the orthodox. The new movement on the other hand was led by men who were not brahmans, but came from all ranks of society, and who instead of joining the Brahmanical schools set up independent schools. Some brahmans also joined these schools, but they thereby left the Brahmanical tradition and were assimilated into the new movement, which was essentially a classless one.
The philosophers of the new schools were called sramanas. They were men who had contracted out of ordinary society and become wanderers, living either by gleaning what they could in the woods and fields or by begging. Their aim was to discover the truth and attain happiness, or at least peace of mind. Having abandoned all social commitments they were free to spend their time thinking, trying out ascetic practices, studying nature, and of course teaching. They set up schools and trained pupils to remember and disseminate their teachings, and they also lectured in the villages and cities, even before kings if invited. The contents of this public lecturing were extremely diverse, but they tended to be ethical, to instruct people how to live, and the food or even fees they received could be regarded as a justifiable return for the teaching they dispensed.
The sramanas rejected the Veda, and the authority of the brahmans, who claimed to be in possession of revealed truths not knowable by any ordinary human means. They ridiculed the complicated rituals, and tried to show the absurdity of the Veda, as a canon of ultimate truths, by pointing out contradictions in it and drawing attention to some passages which seemed either rather futile or highly unethical, or even completely nonsensical, if supposed to be pronouncements having absolute authority (since a great part of the Veda consists of ancient poetry and legends, this was not very difficult). The sramanas went further than this and declared that the entire Brahmanical system was fraudulent: a conspiracy against the public by the brahmans for the purpose of enriching themselves by charging exorbitant fees for the performance of bogus rites and the giving of futile advice.1
1. The Buddhists have preserved some typical verses to this effect in the Tripitaka (Pali J VI 206-14). The views of the Lokayata School are reported for example in the first chapter of SDS.
In place of this authoritarian tradition the sramanas sought to find satisfactory explanations of the universe and of life by genuine investigations and by reasoning. They believed they could ascertain natural laws by their own efforts, without benefit of authority from the ancients or of supernatural guidance, and that these laws would be absolutely valid and must be accepted because anyone who cared to undertake a proper investigation could verify them.2 In brief, their outlook was that of scientists investigating the nature of the universe, though they were guided by the practical aim of applying the knowledge they gained in the quest for happiness.
Out of the sramana movement of the 6th century B.C. a large number of separate schools of philosophy developed. From the many more or less scientific, more or less speculative, systems propounded at least five major organised schools were successful enough to become strongly established and play dominant parts in the history of philosophy in India (and sometimes outside) for at least the next two thousand years. They soon split up into sub-schools and all of them modified their doctrines in the course of time, but despite the later appearance of a few entirely new schools it was those which had originated in the period of the Buddha which thenceforth gave a general direction to Indian philosophy and provided a framework for its discussions. The brahmans of course reacted by developing philosophical systems of their own, meeting the new ideas with adaptations of their doctrines.
In the long run, though apparently not at first, by far the most successful and important of the sramana schools was that founded by the Buddha. At first the Buddha was just one of very many wandering teachers in the Vrji Republic, Magadha and other countries of northern India about 500 B.C. He collected a fair number of followers, though not as many as some of his rivals, and he promulgated a doctrine which has all the main characteristics of the sramana movement, which on the surface at least is just a typical sramana doctrine. He rejected all authority except experience: the student should experiment for himself and see that the teaching is true, not accept it because the Buddha says so. The universe is subject to natural laws only, by studying which one can attain freedom and happiness. The most important laws are laws of causation, moral as well as physical. Transmigration is provided for in that consciousness continues from life to life in accordance with the laws of moral causation. The aim is to end this transmigration and attain final peace. The most essential and characteristic part of the teaching is a scheme of training and study to attain this aim.1 The Buddha here assumes that the aim of all living beings is the attainment of happiness and his teaching is presented as a way of achieving this aim, either absolutely and finally in liberation from transmigration, final peace, or relatively in an improvement of circumstances for those not yet ready to renounce the world. Moral conduct thus follows from the desire for happiness when the laws of moral causation are correctly understood, it is not a duty, as the brahmans maintained.
February 4 at 8:53pm · Like
Robert Healion By his accounts the Vedanta of tody did not exist, it was all precursor, Buddhism evolved in a period before textual records were readily available and so did Vedanta. Today I see a great deal of effort to reject each other, though there is no doubting both are successful, in attainment.
February 4 at 9:04pm · Like
Robert Healion What transpired as too who or what borrowed traditions, is not important, it is the common biases that both traditions use. Similar to language, you can have a verb before the noun or the revers, yet a verb non relationship exist. Both appear to use a method based on sense control, thought control and self inquirer, The yoga sutras of Patanjalia are incorporated and in Tibetan Buddhism Ganesh is recognised.
February 4 at 9:06pm · Like
Robert Healion Vedanta is the science of self based on the teachings of the Vedas, Brahmanism is something different. The Vedas predate the Buddha.
February 4 at 9:08pm · Like
Robert Healion In such cases, it is completely confused thinking to state that one paradigm is a reformation of another. So Sramanism is a system of religion based on a completely different paradigm than the Vedic-Brahmanism or its offspring Hinduism. Sramanism rejected the doctrine of Brahmanism and went it alone. This was in a period of change from traditional society, were cattle were wealth to a monetary society where trade generated wealth. traditional wealth was vested with the Brahamansim.
February 4 at 9:28pm · Edited · Unlike · 2
Robert Healion Vedanta is in essence a series of pointing at the self absolute or away form the self absolute. Buddhism in its essence is similar. One has one tangle of words the other another.
February 4 at 9:13pm · Like
Tamara King Definitely time for a new paradigm. Hello down there.
February 4 at 9:14pm · Like
Tamara King Time for an intervention
February 4 at 9:15pm · Like
Tamara King It has now become the time when passive acceptance of suffering others is overt sociopathy. The confabulated justifications for the failure to unite as one humanity aren't going to cut it anymore.
February 4 at 9:17pm · Like
Tamara King They are all lies.
February 4 at 9:19pm · Edited · Like
Tamara King YOU are essentially ONE SON of God.
February 4 at 9:18pm · Like
Tamara King Your liver steals meat from your gall bladder.
February 4 at 9:18pm · Like
Soh There is no God in Buddhism
February 4 at 9:19pm · Like
Tamara King There is G0D outside of your headspace
February 4 at 9:20pm · Like
Soh Uniting together for social action is important.. but hmm... kind of going off tangent are we?
February 4 at 9:20pm · Like
Tamara King Your current god is Soh's head
February 4 at 9:21pm · Like
Tamara King The DIVINE doesn't even know you exist pipsqueak
February 4 at 9:21pm · Like
Tamara King who's denying whom?
February 4 at 9:21pm · Like
Robert Healion "...Since the concept of Brahman, the truly existent (paramartha satta) is the very foundation of Hinduism (as a matter of fact some form of an eternal ultimate reality whether it is called God or Nature is the basis of all other religious systems). When Buddhism denies such an ultimate reality (paramartha satta) in any form, it cuts at the very jugular veins of Hinduism and all other Theistic systems. Therefore, it cannot be ontologically, epistemologically, and soteriologically said that Buddhism reforms Hinduism.
Yes the Buddha avoided extremes, but to confuse the teachings of the Buddha with modern Buddhism is another problem. As modern Buddhism is full of extremes. Expident menas is the qualifier to excuse one, but there is no tolerance to the other. The other issues is What are the descriptors of Atman, Beyond Wisdom (ParaPrajana), Sat Chi Annada, Sat an adjective describing expanded consciousness or god, Chit the nature of consciousness, annada, bliss or absence of duka.
An ultimate reality (paramartha satta) in any form, may be denied but the sane problem confronting Hindusim the postulation of a something within the concept of duality is expressed in the Buddhist teachings of emptiness, thusness and original mind.
February 4 at 9:22pm · Like
Soh Tamara King this is a wrong place for you to discuss an external divine God. You should probably find a Christian forum.
February 4 at 9:23pm · Like
Tamara King lol
February 4 at 9:24pm · Like
Tamara King BUDDHA says, ..hahahaha
February 4 at 9:24pm · Like
Robert Healion Ultimately if you deconstruct the notions of ideations surrounding both Vedanta and Buddhism you arrive at a state which is beyond description. hence arguing over one non existent state as opposed to another is pointless. Best just to practice. Practice what? good question I will get back to this after Soh has his say.
February 4 at 9:26pm · Like · 1
Robert Healion Tamara are you smoking
February 4 at 9:32pm · Like
Tamara King I'm not. I'm watching YOUR nightmare that you haven't quite faced.
February 4 at 9:33pm · Like
Tamara King You're bla bla is denial
February 4 at 9:33pm · Like
Tamara King I'm outside your mutual decision for hell.
February 4 at 9:34pm · Like
Tamara King Look at YOUR headlnes
February 4 at 9:34pm · Like
Tamara King In YOUR newspaper
February 4 at 9:34pm · Like
Tamara King You want to be separated from each other
February 4 at 9:35pm · Like
Tamara King You could be cooperating and sharing
February 4 at 9:35pm · Like
Tamara King That's your hell and you will descend further
February 4 at 9:35pm · Like
Robert Healion My nightmare, my dream. Its all subjective. I choose to rattle Soh cage. Good lets see if he is crouching dragon or a hidden tiger. LOL me I ma cave dwelling demon. So bearing my teeth I wish you good night.
February 4 at 9:37pm · Like
Soh "Vedanta is in essence a series of pointing at the self absolute or away form the self absolute. Buddhism in its essence is similar. One has one tangle of words the other another."
Vedanta is in essence a series of pointing at the self absolute. Buddhism in its essence points to the deconstruction of that self-absolute, as Alex Weith elucidated in his article. They are not similar.
February 4 at 11:14pm · Edited · Like
Soh "An ultimate reality (paramartha satta) in any form, may be denied but the sane problem confronting Hindusim the postulation of a something within the concept of duality is expressed in the Buddhist teachings of emptiness, thusness and original mind."
The teachings of emptiness do not postulate ultimate reality, what emptiness means is precisely the refutation of any real existence (svabhava) or ultimate realities - paramartha satta. It is a non-affirming negation of real existence.
The teaching of thusness and original mind does not affirm real existence. For example, what is Buddha-nature and Thusness? The Treatise of Buddha-nature (佛性论) by Bodhisattva Vasubandhu states: "Buddha-nature is the suchness (tathatā) revealed through the two emptinesses of person and phenomenon. Due to suchness there is no ridiculing or ridiculed (i.e. a subject and object). Penetrating this principle one is free from delusional attachments." 佛性者。即是人法二空所顯真如。由真如故。無能罵所罵。通達此理。離虛妄執。 (http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=2416)
Buddha-nature is the union of luminous clarity and emptiness. Buddha-nature, Thusness, is luminous clarity (the quality of Knowing-presence) that is empty of any real existence, and devoid of any duality of perceiver and perceived. It is empty of self/Self. This self-luminosity of 'original mind' is empty of a fixed reference point, or vantage point, such as being a Witness or even a source and substratum for phenomena (even to say that source and substratum is 'inseparable' from phenomena is already erroneous as it posits a substantialist context for content to arise and subside within), rather it is just the self-aware quality of phenomena/mind (noting that 'mind' is empty of mind and merely dharmas) being experienced where it is (where everything is self-luminous and vividly aware/alive in and of itself empty of a background observer), where phenomena can be said to be self-arising and self-felt without a background agent (however even this self-arising is later seen to be ultimately non-arising).
Luminous clarity is empty of being some background substratum and source behind phenomena, rather it is just the luminous cognizance revealing itself as ever only being the shimmering, self-illuminating, empty, dream-like and non-arising phenomena.
What does the Buddha himself say about Thusness/Suchness?
Excerpt from Kalaka Sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/.../an04/an04.024.than.html
"When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer.
Thus, monks, the Tathagata — being the same with regard to all phenomena that can be seen, heard, sensed, & cognized — is 'Such.' And I tell you: There's no other 'Such' higher or more sublime."
There is no indication whatsoever that the "Suchness" or "Thusness" or "Buddha-nature" has anything to do with a metaphysical essence, or an Absolute, but it rather points to the primordial and natural state of mind/experience/phenomena free from reifications and constructions. It is only revealed by the realization and actualization of twofold emptiness of self/Self and dharma.
Dharma Wheel • View topic - The Treatise on Buddha Nature 《佛性論》
www.dharmawheel.net
February 4 at 11:53pm · Edited · Like · 1 · Remove Preview
Soh Buddha-nature is summarized by Thusness here:
For those masters that taught,
“Let thoughts arise and subside,
See the background mirror as perfect and be unaffected.”
With all due respect, they have just “blah” something nice but deluded.
Rather,
See that there is no one behind thoughts.
First, one thought then another thought.
With deepening insight it will later be revealed,
Always just this, One Thought!
Non-arising, luminous yet empty!
- http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/.../on-anatta...
Awakening to Reality: On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness, Maha and Ordinariness, and Spontaneous...
awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
Simple brilliance~thank you for this insightful sharing that is mirrored innerly...See More
February 4 at 11:35pm · Edited · Like · 2 · Remove Preview
Robert Healion This is a reversal of the above point, still front or vback same coin...
The Impact of Early Buddhism on Hindu Thought (with Special Reference to the Bhagavadgiitaa)
K. N. Upadhaya Philosophy East and West Vol.18(1968) pp.163-173Copyright by University of Hawaii Press
Coming to the important words, ideas, and passages of the Giitaa which indicate its familiarity with Buddhism, we may first draw attention to the word niruaa.na, which occurs repeatedly in the Giitaa[12] and which is nowhere to be met with in any of the pre-Buddhist Upani.sads. It seems to have been used for the first time in its technical sense in Buddhism. Again, virtues like niruaira (XI. 55), adue.sa, karu.naa, and maitrii. (XII. 13) also are striking peculiarities of the Giitaa and Buddhism, and these words do not occur in the Upani.sads. Similarly, raaqa and due.sa occur in compounds in the Giitaa (II.64; III. 34; XVIII. 51) just as in Buddhism. The way in which they are used in Giitaa 11.64 and Dhammaoada 369,[13] as well as in Giitaa XVIII.51 and Dhammaoada 377,[14] is similar. The epithets used for a muni in the Giitaa-like aniketa (XII. 19), nirmama (II. 71; III. 30; XII. 13; XVIII. 53), niraa`sii (III. 30; IV. 21), niraa`sraya (IV. 20), niraahaara (II. 59); nai.skarmya (III.4; XVIII. 49), sama du.hkha sukha (II. 15, 38; XII. 13, 18; XIV.24), tulya, nindaa stuti (XII. 19; XIV. 24), tulya maanaapamaana (XIV. 25), etc.-are exactly the same as the corresponding Paali words of early Buddhism.[15] None of these words is traceable in the pre-Buddhist Upani.sads. Then the vices, krodha, mada, dambha, atimaanitaa, and asuuyaa, enumerated in the Giitaa (XVI.3, 4, 10, and 18), are strikingly similar to those listed in the AAmaqandha Sutta. (kodho, made, thambho ... usuyyaa ... maanaatimaano--Sn 43) and people having such vices are alike called naraadhama (Giitaa XVI. 19 and Sn 44).: Again, just as the Buddha regards ~naa.na ya~n~na (D I. 147: Kuu.tadanta Sutta) to be the best of all sacrifices, so also the Giitaa (IV. 33) speaks of the j~naana yaj~na as the best. Similarly, the teachings of samacariyaa in Buddhism (D I. 3; M I. 125-129, 423-424) are well reflected in the teachings of samatua in Giitaa II. 38 and XIV. 24 and 25. Again, the middle path of Buddhism is adopted in the Giitaa while describing the practice of yoga (VI. 11, 16, and 17). The gradual psychological stages in the process of concentration as described in Buddhism (D I. 73; M I. 37)--paamujja.m, piiti, passaddhi, and sukha－are similar to prasaadam, prasannataa `Saanti, and sukha referred to in the Giitaa. (II. 64-66). Then, life has been characterized as suffering in typical Buddhist style ( Giitaa XIII. 8:janmam.rtyujaraauyaadhidu.hkhado.saanudar`sanam).Furthermore, there are a number of passages betraying similarity or close affinity between the Giitaa and the Nikaayas. We list here some of the important ones for illustration:
February 5 at 5:14am · Like
Robert Healion THE PLACE OF BUDDHISM IN INDIAN THOUGHT
by Ananda W. P. Guruge
Introduction
In the Nagarasutta in the Samyutta Nikaya, (SN p.74) the Buddha states,
"As a person discovers an ancient path to a lost city. I have discovered this ancient path leading to Nibbanna.”
Thus the Buddha assumed the role of a re-discoverer rather than that of an original path-finder. What he meant by this statement is subject to interpretation and has given rise to a controversy among students of Buddhism and Indian philosophy.
The Buddhists, who believe that Gotama, the Buddha of the sixth century before Christ, was the twenty-fifth in a line of Buddhas commencing from Dipankara (or the 29th, commencing from Tanhankara), have no difficulty in explaining that the Buddha's reference was to the doctrines of the earlier Buddhas. The Buddhist commentators from very early times accepted this explanation. In fact, one of them, Buddhaghosa, the most illustrious translator of Sinhala commentaries in the fifth century CE, went further and suggested that the Vedas themselves were only a degenerated version of the teachings of Buddha Kassapa, the immediate predecessor of Gotama, the Buddha. But in the absence of reliable historical data, one does not readily accept this Buddhist tradition. So there has been an attempt to review the statement of the Buddha in the light of what is known for certain of Indian philosophy.
Professor Herman Oldenberg in his pioneering work, Buddha, too, was of the same opinion when he said,
"It is certain that Buddhism has acquired as an inheritance from Brahmanism not merely a series of its most important dogmas but what is not less significant to the historian, the bent of its religious thought and feeling, which is more easily comprehended than expressed in words." (p. 53)
Much later, Dr. Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan had been the most ardent supporter of these views. In a foreword written in 1956 to the Government of India publication, "2500 years of Buddhism" (ed. P. V. Bapat), he says,
"The Buddha did not feel that he was announcing a new religion. He was born, grew up and died a Hindu. … Buddhism was an offshoot of the more ancient faith of Hindus, perhaps a schism or a heresy."(pp. ix and xii)
Dr. Radhakrishnan's assessment of the relationship between Buddhism and Brahmanism has undergone a gradual change. In his magnificent work Indian Philosophy in two volumes published in London in 1927 he began the chapter on Buddhism with the statement,
"There is no question that the system of early Buddhism is one of the most original which the history of philosophy presents." (Vol. 1 p. 342)
This is followed by the comment,
"Early Buddhism is not an absolutely original doctrine. It is not a freak in the evolution of Indian thought. Buddha did not break away completely from the spiritual ideas of his age and country. To be in open revolt against the conventional and legalistic religion of the time is one thing; to abandon the living spirit behind it is another." (Vol. I p. 360)
February 5 at 5:42am · Like
Robert Healion ancientbuddhism
K.R. Norman and R.F. Gombrich have mentioned that scholars have often missed the connection of the discourses in the Nikāyas to the Upaniṣads “…it is hard to see why almost all writers about Buddhism accept the statement often made that the Buddha makes no mention of the Upaniṣadic concept of a Universal Self, an ātman or Brahman.” [A Philological Approach to Buddhism – Norman, 1997] “Some of the great modern scholars of Buddhism have said that the Buddha had no direct knowledge of the Vedic texts, but this is certainly wrong. … For many years I have tried to show in my teaching and lecturing that the Buddha presented central parts of his message, concerning kamma and the tilakkhaṇa, as a set of antitheses to brahminical doctrine.” [Recovering the Buddha’s Message – Gombrich, 1988
Ananda Guruge, attempted to correct the overreaching of early writers on Buddhism who claimed that the Buddha was influenced by and taught the aims of the Upaniṣads, by claiming that the Buddha and his followers did not understand the complex emanation theories of the Upaniṣads, and simply knew of the god Brahmā and ātman ‘as a psychological and merely individual factor.’ But this misses the language in the pāḷi texts which point directly to key phrases and concepts of the universal self in the Upaniṣads.
In the Alagaddūpama Sutta (MN.22), the Buddha framed a discussion with bhikkhus on a set of ‘six positions on views’ (chayimāni … diṭṭhiṭṭhānāni) that were held by the untaught commoner (assutavā puthujjano), and through this discussion leveled a sweeping refutation of the of the Upaniṣadic theory of Ātman, Brahman Absolute or ‘The All is Brahman … this self of mine in the heart, that is Brahman’ ‘sarvam khalv idaṃ brahma … eṣa ma ātmāntar hṛdaye etad brahma’ (CU. III, 14:1 & 4). MN.22 was specifically punning on Yājñavalkya’s view in Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad, IV, 5.6.
With reference to this case example and others, K.R. Norman and R.F. Gombrich have soundly argued that the Buddha and his followers were well aware of the brāhmaṇa culture of the time, and that the attā he was refuting as nonexistent (asat) is the dogma of ātman just as we find it in the Upaniṣads.
Read:
A Note on Attā in the Alagaddūpama Sutta, K.R. Norman
A Philological approach to Buddhism, K.R. Norman
Recovering the Buddha’s Message, R.F. GombrichLast edited by ancientbuddhism on Tue Dec 13, 2011 2:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
‘‘Anattani attamāniṃ, passa lokaṃ sadevakaṃ; Niviṭṭhaṃ nāmarūpasmiṃ, idaṃ saccanti maññati.
“See this world with its gods, considering self in what is not-self. Immersed in this mind and body, they imagine this as real.
- Sn. 3.12
February 5 at 5:48am · Unlike · 1
Robert Healion “See this world with its gods, considering self in what is not-self. Immersed in this mind and body, they imagine this as real.
- Sn. 3.12
Granted the above is true, and is maintained in Vedanta as such. “there is no you, no Krishna or shive, they are concepts”…
but I maintain, though I have no scholarly bias for this, this is expedient means,
the prevailing view then and still now is the atman is a little man some ware. This is not what atman means, its relationship to us is similar to thusness, a postulation of a something with respect to awareness. And this is a huge issue… In Vedanta as well as Buddhism, all these conceptual pointing’s have biases in that there is a non-conceptual, emptiness or thusness. Too break this hold one breaks the hand; refute the concept as held of atman.
To break the hold of an empty something one states empty of emptiness. But this refutation of a little self is all that is being refuted
The three turnings end with a postulation that there is a something, I understand it comes late in his teachings. Not a little man in your head..
As stated by Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Let me speak loosely.
In Unbinding you are not conscious. Instead, (you) (are) Aware.
Unbinding is so direct, beyond notions of self and existence.
I resonate with this pointing… However.. You… a little man, no, awareness biased on self, no, what then… a something… then give it an alternative name and call it atman.
What refute the original teachings of the Buddha. Abandon the raft, jettison stage one.
Pointless saying anything else in this regard. Apart from this quote
"If you are not there for even an instant then you are just like a dead person."
A translation of the Sokko-roku Kaien-fusetsu by NORMAN WADDELL
February 5 at 6:14am · Like
Soh "
In the Alagaddūpama Sutta (MN.22), the Buddha framed a discussion with bhikkhus on a set of ‘six positions on views’ (chayimāni … diṭṭhiṭṭhānāni) that were held by the untaught commoner (assutavā puthujjano), and through this discussion leveled a sweeping refutation of the of the Upaniṣadic theory of Ātman, Brahman Absolute or ‘The All is Brahman … this self of mine in the heart, that is Brahman’ ‘sarvam khalv idaṃ brahma … eṣa ma ātmāntar hṛdaye etad brahma’ (CU. III, 14:1 & 4). MN.22 was specifically punning on Yājñavalkya’s view in Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad, IV, 5.6.
With reference to this case example and others, K.R. Norman and R.F. Gombrich have soundly argued that the Buddha and his followers were well aware of the brāhmaṇa culture of the time, and that the attā he was refuting as nonexistent (asat) is the dogma of ātman just as we find it in the Upaniṣads. "
Well said.
February 5 at 1:44pm · Edited · Like
Soh "
the prevailing view then and still now is the atman is a little man some ware. This is not what atman means, its relationship to us is similar to thusness,"
Have you read what you quote to me above? It is not refuting the 'little man' or ego, it is refutation of an ultimate Upanishadic self.
'Thusness' have nothing to do with atman.
"
The three turnings end with a postulation that there is a something, I understand it comes late in his teachings. Not a little man in your head.."
The third turning talks about luminous clarity and qualities of a Buddha, but all these are understood as fundamentally empty, so there is no postulation of a real existent. The third turning is founded on the first two turnings, it includes them.
"
As stated by Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Let me speak loosely.
In Unbinding you are not conscious. Instead, (you) (are) Aware.
Unbinding is so direct, beyond notions of self and existence.
"
Now, I do not know whether Stian has a tendency to substantialize but it could very well be that he is substantializing Awareness subconsciously, or not (most often yes, until deep insight of twofold emptiness).
Nevertheless 'you are aware' is not postulating 'you exist as a changeless, independent Self'. There is nothing wrong with Awareness, it is simply empty of a changeless, independent Self. Therefore that particular statement by Stian is not really wrong. The 'you are' could be understood as convention, even 'Awareness' is to be understood as empty-convention. That 'Awareness' must be understood in terms of Bahiya Sutta, not as some background Witness, source or substratum, but as the very aggregates themselves.
February 5 at 1:57pm · Edited · Like
Soh "
I resonate with this pointing… However.. You… a little man, no, awareness biased on self, no, what then… a something… then give it an alternative name and call it atman.
"
Buddha's teaching does not only refute some egoic self.
In the Brahmajali Sutta, he refuted Sixty-Two types of self-view. One of them is the notion that all the thoughts and feelings and perceptions are impermanent, but Consciousness is unchanging:
"49. "In the fourth case, owing to what, with reference to what, are some honorable recluses and brahmins eternalists in regard to some things and non-eternalists in regard to other things, proclaiming the self and the world to be partly eternal and partly non-eternal?
"Herein, bhikkhus, recluse or a certain brahmin is a rationalist, an investigator. He declares his view — hammered out by reason, deduced from his investigations, following his own flight of thought — thus: 'That which is called "the eye," "the ear," "the nose," "the tongue," and "the body" — that self is impermanent, unstable, non-eternal, subject to change. But that which is called "mind" (citta) or "mentality" (mano) or "consciousness" (viññāṇa) — that self is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and it will remain the same just like eternity itself.'
"This, bhikkhus, is the fourth case."
And as you quoted to me:
"In the Alagaddūpama Sutta (MN.22), the Buddha framed a discussion with bhikkhus on a set of ‘six positions on views’ (chayimāni … diṭṭhiṭṭhānāni) that were held by the untaught commoner (assutavā puthujjano), and through this discussion leveled a sweeping refutation of the of the Upaniṣadic theory of Ātman, Brahman Absolute or ‘The All is Brahman … this self of mine in the heart, that is Brahman’ ‘sarvam khalv idaṃ brahma … eṣa ma ātmāntar hṛdaye etad brahma’ (CU. III, 14:1 & 4). MN.22 was specifically punning on Yājñavalkya’s view in Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad, IV, 5.6.
With reference to this case example and others, K.R. Norman and R.F. Gombrich have soundly argued that the Buddha and his followers were well aware of the brāhmaṇa culture of the time, and that the attā he was refuting as nonexistent (asat) is the dogma of ātman just as we find it in the Upaniṣads. "
February 5 at 1:55pm · Like
Robert Healion I will admit Soh that to argue this is difficult as ultimately it is pointless as to what the ultimate reality is, and the knowledge bases you have dwarfs mine. I do refute the concept of a self, however, Buddhism is resplendent with the concept of a something that experiences or as a temporary receptacle or holds.
February 5 at 8:01pm · Like
Soh My view and insight does not leave any traces of an 'ultimate reality' (paramatha satta), or any self-existing sort of reality.
As the Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñapāramitā Sutra states: "Nirvāṇa is an illusion. Even if there is anything greater than Nirvāṇa, that too will be only an illusion."
Even in Dzogchen, as Malcolm points out, even 'rigpa' (knowledge) is empty and illusory, also the basis is empty and illusory.
Consciousness has never been denied, but also it is never equated with a self/Self or an agent/knower/experiencer behind experience. As Thusness puts it before, the process (hearing/sound, seeing/sight, etc etc) itself rolls and knows, no knower is needed (or truly exists).
Furthermore in http://www.leighb.com/mn38.htm :
Then the Blessed One said: "Sati, is it true, that such an pernicious view has arisen to you. ‘As I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else’?"
"Yes, venerable sir, as I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else."
"Sati, what is that consciousness?"
"Venerable sir, it is that which feels and experiences, that which reaps the results of good and evil actions done here and there."
"Foolish man, to whom do you know me having taught the Dhamma like this. Haven’t I taught, in various ways that consciousness is dependently arisen. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet you, foolish man, on account of your wrong view, you misrepresent me, as well as destroy yourself and accumulate much demerit, for which you will suffer for a long time."
MN 38 - Longer Discourse on the Destruction of Craving
www.leighb.com
Once the Blessed One was living at Savatthi in Jeta's grove, Anathapindika's par...See More
February 5 at 9:05pm · Edited · Like · Remove Preview
Robert Healion I also agree with: My view and insight does not leave any traces of an 'ultimate reality' (paramatha satta), or any self-existing sort of reality. (for these to exist there has to be a substance for them to enact with.
As the Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñapāramitā Sutra states: "Nirvāṇa is an illusion. Even if there is anything greater than Nirvāṇa, that too will be only an illusion."
(Nirvana = blowing out, or end of the tendency of mind to grasp. A refutation of mind. Samsara is also refuted In this statement.)
Haven’t I taught, in various ways that consciousness is dependently arisen. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. (description of I-consciousness as evident from the explanation the preceded it. "Venerable sir, it is that which feels and experiences, that which reaps the results of good and evil actions done here and there.").
Consciousness has never been denied, but also it is never equated with a self/Self or an agent/knower/experiencer behind experience.
(Here there is a differentiation of consciousness, consciousness as I or as awareness. Distinction in the sense of physical/mental self, as opposed to a non-physical/mental)
As Thusness puts it before, the process (hearing/sound, seeing/sight, etc etc) itself rolls or knows, no knower is needed (or truly exists).
(These are senses and as such only exist in relation to a self.)
In the heart sutra it is I-consciousness that is negated. Awareness is a term I prefer, however to be aware is to have a viewer of this awareness. The analogy I use is wetness to be wet you are separate form the wetness, yet water whose nature is wet can never be aware of its wetness, (without separating itself form itself).
To refute everything is postulating a black emptiness, nihilistic reality. To cling to something is to identify a something. I see Buddha’s teaching in accord with avoidance of these two extremes. To postulate anything is for the ‘water to separate into something and wetness.’
Malcolm also made a similar statement recently: … dependent origination and emptiness. is just collateral damage."
I do not see The refutation of an ultimate self as collateral damage and I do not like the analogy of dependent origination in relation to emptiness apart from an aid in understanding. I see them emptiness and refutation, as core aspects of the teaching.
Dharma seal, to whom is the seal applied. All dharma’s are including the Buddha’s, empty of what, someone to read and understand them. To deny a realty and then to construct the self-same reality as a means of refutation is absurd. out of sequence..
The third turning talks about luminous clarity and qualities of a Buddha, but all these are understood as fundamentally empty, so there is no postulation of a real existent. The third turning is founded on the first two turnings, it includes them.
(So to whom is this luminous clarity, and what is a Buddha apart from the awakened one, If Buddha refuted the existence of an absolute self then he refutes these qualities.
And if this non-existence is underpinned by a series of qualities then it suddenly pops into existence.
So what I consider a core potion.
So Atman/self exists, but its nature is anatman/no-self. It's a description of the same paradox outlined in the heart sutra, emptiness is form, etc.
(parallel to non-dual, though to be non-dual implies a ‘wetness’ hence a faulty view of things. Emptiness implies a wetness, to escape this empty of empty, I have sighted this but not sure if it is textual. And finally can anything exist, well if it is defined as beyond existence then perhaps it can. But this illogical.)
However the statement: "This âtmà is truly existent beyond existence and non-existence.
This is truly non-dual beyond dual and non-dual.
This âtmà is the Great Thing (mahàvastu), which is permanent beyond permanent and impermanent, etc., etc.
It is empty of all qualities (nirguna), which means empty of foreign qualities, but not empty (of itself), i.e., not empty of being a truly existing permanent entity (sat); not empty of being non-dual coginition (cit), and not empty of bliss (ànanda). Sat-cit-ànanda is the nature of this âtmà (or non-dual cognition)."
(Is more slippery the a jellyfish, but if you are following Vedanta it is as real as a thusness)
…… secondary to the above.
Have you read what you quote to me above? It is not refuting the 'little man' or ego, it is refutation of an ultimate Upanishadic self.
(Yes and Buddha was aware of this, but, negating the argument; the common view is still and most probably the homology, and reading the above suggest Buddha was refuting the common view. Not all his teachings were based in the absolute. In fact if this argument was presented to him his response would be to question who is presenting the argument or simialr).
Vedanta is in essence a series of pointing at the self-absolute. Buddhism in its essence points to the deconstruction of that self-absolute, (Wonderful however in order to deconstruct this absolute self it cannot postulate a nihilistic reality. What then postulate a half empty to deny a half full. Or a visible, invisible thing to deny an invisible, visible thing)
Too me and to you the caution is from Haukin,
“Do not take a piece of solid emptiness and fix it firmly in the ground somewhere as a post for tethering argument’s and ideations too?”
February 5 at 10:35pm · Edited · Like
Robert Healion thanks for your responses however it is Late, and aware of thusness advice, good night...
February 5 at 10:37pm · Edited · Like
Soh "So to whom is this luminous clarity, and what is a Buddha apart from the awakened one, If Buddha refuted the existence of an absolute self then he refutes these qualities."
'To whom' is a wrong question based on a false assumption that a 'Self' or 'Agent' exists to which perception/experience occurs to. As I wrote: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/.../flawed-mode-of...
I have seen that when I say "awareness/luminosity is only everything", or "sensation is self-luminous", a doubt or question may arise in some. That questioner may ask then, "What is it that knows the experience of luminosity, but yet itself is never experienced"?
This question is not at all unfamiliar to me, I spent two years in the past practicing self inquiry day and night - who am I? Who is aware? Before birth what am I? Who is dragging this corpse along? To whom is this I-thought occuring? Who is the source? Etc etc (it all comes down to who is the source?). In fact self inquiry was vital for my self-realization (the realization of I AMness).
But there are two points to this:
1. One must realize that the current way of enquiry prevents the practitioner from intuitively realizing the non-arising nature of whatever arises.
The gnosis should not be understood this way such as "beyond", "changelessness", etc - understanding this way does not mean the practitioner realizes "something" superior; instead one is falling prey to his/her existing dualistic and inherent mode of enquiry rather than truly and directly pointing the way of immense intelligence.
2. The second point is that, when all enquiries and views are exhausted, how is it understood?
In other words, the way and system of enquiry already defined what you are going to experience. Therefore the mind must realize and see the futility of such mode of enquiry and any form of establishment.
This is why self inquiry is rejected by Buddha (though I advise it for beginners as it is a very potent, powerful, and direct path to Self-Realization, it is still a provisional method that has to be dropped later for further penetration into anatta, etc) as it is based on a not-so-hidden assumption that a self must exist, so the enquiry reinforces the sense of a subjective knower, it affects and prevents the complete experience of awareness.
As Buddha said in MN2: "And what are the ideas fit for attention that he does not attend to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen fermentation of sensuality does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of sensuality is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of becoming does not arise in him, and arisen fermentation of becoming is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of ignorance does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of ignorance is abandoned. These are the ideas fit for attention that he does not attend to. Through his attending to ideas unfit for attention and through his not attending to ideas fit for attention, both unarisen fermentations arise in him, and arisen fermentations increase.
"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'
"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress."
(Continued in URL)
Awakening to Reality: Flawed Mode of Enquiry
awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
February 5 at 10:45pm · Edited · Like · Remove Preview
Soh "Wonderful however in order to deconstruct this absolute self it cannot postulate a nihilistic reality. What then postulate a half empty to deny a half full. Or a visible, invisible thing to deny an invisible, visible thing"
Emptiness does not postulate a nihilistic reality. It is a non-affirming negation of any real existence.
"The great 11th Nyingma scholar Rongzom points out that only Madhyamaka accepts that its critical methodology "harms itself", meaning that Madhyamaka uses non-affirming negations to reject the positions of opponents, but does not resort to affirming negations to support a position of its own. Since Madhyamaka, as Buddhapalita states "does not propose the non-existence of existents, but instead rejects claims for the existence of existents", there is no true Madhyamaka position since there is no existent found about which a Madhyamaka position could be formulated; likewise there is no false Madhyamaka position since there is no existent found about which a Madhyamaka position could be rejected."
~ Malcolm
February 5 at 10:43pm · Like
Soh "
(These are senses and as such only exist in relation to a self.)
"
Nope. Anatta realization is that in sensing there is only self-luminous sensation without sensor. In feeling, just feeling without feeler. In seeing, just scenery without seer... etc etc
February 5 at 10:46pm · Like
Robert Healion Hunting rabbits with horns is not the same as chasing horny rabbits. I understand your argument Soh. however there has been is a pea under my matrass and it disturbs my sleep. Alas I console my self with the quote great doubt great enlightenment. Thank you for your tireless efforts...
February 6 at 5:03am · Like
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Robert said:
(...) to be aware is to have a viewer of this awareness. The analogy I use is wetness to be wet you are separate form the wetness, yet water whose nature is wet can never be aware of its wetness, (without separating itself form itself).
(...) To cling to something is to identify a something. I see Buddha’s teaching in accord with avoidance of these two extremes. To postulate anything is for the ‘water to separate into something and wetness.’
Yes
I read much good stuff on this group today. I want to point it out when I see it, but it's complicated and often devolve into long discussions, missing the simple essence.
Cessation is so empty that from the perspective of mind it is a total nonoccurrence*. When I recall cessation, it seems like a gap, a complete shutting off, "no one home"—so totally, you must understand, that it is as if it actually did not happen. A duration of complete unconscious black-out.
And it seems like that because it is like that. It is complete unconsciousness. But unconsciousness is *NOTHING* like what you think it is.
Consciousness as a state of continual conscious impression is kept alive only for so long as it is "fed its food". The food of consciousness is the complete range of your experiences. The variety and multiplicity of your everyday experience is just this consciousness when it is well-fed.
The range of experience, the All, are the senses, which are the sensory organs, sensory data and the ensuing consciousnesses.
In other words, consciousness is dependent on the fabrication (literally "making shit up") of objects in contradistinction to subjects.
Each and every minuscule conscious impression together equal the state of a sentient being.
The whole realm of conditioned phenomena, or simply phenomenallity or experience, is one object after the other deriving its identity by a sufficient set of objects which it is not, i.e. identity by exclusion. Objects, however, DO NOT derive their identity by some kind of self-sufficient mark evident in/on the object itself—which means that no such "itself" can be found.
Anyway, all this, while good insights, is only tangentially related to cessation. The discourse of emptiness can very quickly get way, way too discursive. The proof is in the pudding and the pudding is non-discursive, direct realization.
Back to the point:
In cessation one is not conscious—consciousness is a fully conditioned phenomena and cessation is unconditioned. One is not aware that one is aware, which echoes what Robert wrote. (In a sense one is only aware of awareness—that's a different formulation that needs different elaboration.)
This state is unconscious, disembodied, senseless and thoughtless. This is all clear-cut supported by the root definition of dependent origination.
But do not mistakenly believe that it is like being asleep or dead or like being blind, deaf, stupid etc.
___
* It is not correct to say that in cessation, 'mind' is absent, because in cessation notions like presence-and-absence are absent (which, as you can see, is paradoxical and demonstrates the limits of language). It seems better to say that it is "like fire unbound", but this suggests a something which, even though it is unbound, it must somehow *be* (i.e. present) so as to be unbound, and therefore it is not non-arisen, but real.
Words and concepts are totally defined only in relation to other words and concepts. This means that words and concepts are wholly dependent on other words and concepts. In other words, words and concepts are conditioned. And what is conditioned is totally "out-of-realm" with 'what' is unconditioned.
February 7 at 12:02am · Edited · Like · 1
Nicholas Mason That wasn't it.
February 6 at 11:54pm · Like
Nicholas Mason
Nicholas Mason's photo.
February 6 at 11:58pm · Like · 2
Nicholas Mason http://dharmaoverground.org/.../3153137;jsessionid...
If one thinks a full buddha is bound to a perception or to seeing the world a specific way, one is reducing the state of a buddha to the state of a deva or hearer. A full buddha or awareness-holder can visually see anything as anything, can hear anything as anything etc. Buddhas do not awake to a find non-dream, they awaken to find the dream-summit of lucidity and potentiality. There is no ultimate, real, and preset non-dream to escape to. This is the emptiness of experience. Therefor it is also referring to achievements such as mahaparinirvana etc. If experience were not empty on the subtlest level, then the practices related to controlling & emanating phenomena like vision would be impossible.
This subtlety is lost to course contemplatives who are bound by karmic traces to perceive a persistent, seemingly substantive hallucination. For average contemplatives only practicing for the sake of their own liberation, the emptiness of experience generally matters only in terms of removing suffering. Though if one merely reaches liberation from course & subtle suffering, do not project that the vision etc works the same as a full buddha/awareness-holder.
In other words, if one is unable to see a dog as a human, a human as a gorilla or skeleton etc, then one has not yet come close to the subtlest emptiness of experience. Let alone actually accomplished & stabilized it (thus one absolutely still has karmic traces). If one cannot reach even minor distortions in one's experience, vajra hairs, basic 2-d lattices and symbols, etc then one has not even begun exposing the mind to the platonic superpositions/emptiness of experience available.
February 7 at 5:09am · Like · 2
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Indeed, Nicholas. In my comment I'm specifically describing cessation.
February 8 at 12:49am · Like · 1
Like · · February 3 at 3:32pm
Stuffs RedTurtle and 4 others like this.
Robert Healion This teaching is according to some sources a refutation of the soul or a separate sense of I continuing after death. The atman is as complex as emptiness, which is often misconstrued. I see little difference form the perspective of the three turnings, which suggests an identification with a 'thusness'. The atman reinvented. As for emptiness as form, form as emptiness, a bit of a different subject, more of a refutation of absolute self, not an alternative definition of thusness or atman.
February 3 at 6:07pm · Like
Tan Jui Horng I have no idea what Hindu thought is and what their highest stage of cultivation is like, but as long as they're talking about some kind of permanent source where all things come from it or are it, then anatman is a refutation of an existence of that kind of source.
February 3 at 6:19pm · Like
Robert Healion How do you relate thusness, original mind etc with a permance.
February 3 at 6:21pm · Like
Robert Healion Let me answer this: Buddha avoided extremes and avoided these types of questions.
February 3 at 6:26pm · Like
Robert Healion Thusness has much to do with the original teachings of Buddha as atman. expedient means, no a complete in ability to comprehend the original teachings which were based within a Vedanta setting. Buddha was a Hindu and all he postulated is pre propositioned by orthodox Vedanta. Thusness as opposed to original emptiness, was result of relic worship, according to the academics. Strip the sense of soul and something else takes its place, humanity 101.
February 3 at 6:37pm · Like
Robert Healion Not that he postulated Vedanta, He corrected inappropriate view points. If he was here now he would have a similar problem with Buddhism. To many misconceptions postulated as truths.
February 3 at 6:42pm · Like
Robert Healion "This âtmà is truly existent beyond existence and non-existence.
This is truly non-dual beyond dual and non-dual.
This âtmà is the Great Thing (mahàvastu), which is permanent beyond permanent and impermanent, etc., etc.
It is empty of all qualities (nirguna), which means empty of foreign qualities, but not empty (of itself), i.e., not empty of being a truly existing permanent entity (sat); not empty of being non-dual coginition (cit), and not empty of bliss (ànanda). Sat-cit-ànanda is the nature of this âtmà (or non-dual cognition)."
February 3 at 6:59pm · Like
Robert Dominik Both is and isn't (regarding atma) looks like one of the four extremes to me.
February 3 at 8:42pm · Edited · Like
Robert Healion Yes, all views usually are one of four views.
February 3 at 11:06pm · Like
Soh Robert Healion's quote is an excerpt from http://www.byomakusuma.org/.../VedantaVisAVisShentong.aspx - comparing Vedanta, Shentong, and Buddhism in general
Byoma Kusuma Buddhadharma Sangha
www.byomakusuma.org
Although he was from around the 8th century, he became popular among the Hindus ...See More
February 4 at 12:14am · Like · 1 · Remove Preview
Soh Wrote this last year:
A friend and mentor of mine ("Thusness") wrote me this in 2005 (after I sent him a Mahaparinirvana Sutra quotation about the true self). I've come to appreciate and see the truth in his words in recent years.
The Pristine awareness is often mistaken as the 'Self'. It is especially
difficult for one that has intuitively experience the 'Self' to accept
'No-Self'. As I have told you many times that there will come a time when u
will intuitively perceive the 'I' -- the pure sense of Existence but you
must be strong enough to go beyond this experience until the true meaning of
Emptiness becomes clear and thorough. The Pristine Awareness is the
so-called True-Self' but why we do not call it a 'Self' and why Buddhism has
placed so much emphasis on the Emptiness nature? This then is the true
essence of Buddhism. It is needless to stress anything about 'Self' in
Buddhism; there are enough of 'Logies' of the 'I" in Indian Philosophies.
If one wants to know about the experience of 'I AM', go for the Vedas and
Bhagavat Gita. We will not know what Buddha truly taught 2500 years ago if
we buried ourselves in words. Have no doubt that The Dharma Seal is
authentic and not to be confused.
When you have experienced the 'Self' and know that its nature is empty, you
will know why to include this idea of a 'Self' into Buddha-Nature is truly
unnecessary and meaningless. True Buddhism is not about eliminating the
'small Self' but cleansing this so called 'True Self' (Atman) with the
wisdom of Emptiness.
And in March 2006, Thusness said:
<^john^> the different between hinduism and buddhism is they return to the "I AM" and clings to it.
<^john^> always "I" as the source.
<ZeN`n1th> icic
<^john^> but in buddhism it is being replaced by "emptiness nature", there is a purest, an entity, a stage to be gained or achieved is an illusion.
<^john^> there is none. No self to be found. No identity to assumed. Nothing attained.
<ZeN`n1th> oic..
<^john^> this is truly the All.
<^john^> so for a teaching that is so thorough and complete, why must it resort back to a "True Self"?
<ZeN`n1th> hmm but i got a question about just now u say impermanent... but mahayana texts also say tathagathagarbha is permanent right?
<^john^> yes but for other reasons.
<ZeN`n1th> what kind of reasons
<ZeN`n1th> wat u mean
<^john^> first u must know that there is really a very subtle difference between pure subjectivity and emptiness nature.
<ZeN`n1th> icic
<^john^> for one that has experienced in full emptiness nature, does he/she need to create an extra "True Self"?
<ZeN`n1th> so wat difference
<ZeN`n1th> no
<^john^> he already knows and experiences and completely understand the arising cause and conditions of why the "true self" was created...
<^john^> will he still be confused?
<^john^> he knows exactly what is happening, the reality of the 'self'.
<ZeN`n1th> icic..
<^john^> i would say it is due to his compassion to let the other sects have a chance to understand the dharma that he said so.
<^john^> this is what i think.
<^john^> but there is no necessity to preach something extra.
<ZeN`n1th> oic
<^john^> in light of emptiness nature, "True Self" is not necessary.
<ZeN`n1th> icic
<^john^> the so called "purest" is already understood, there is no clinging.
<^john^> there is hearing, no hearer...etc
<^john^> is already beyond "True Self".
<ZeN`n1th> oic
<^john^> yet it exactly knows the stage of "True Self".
<^john^> if there is no hearing...then something is wrong.
<^john^>
<^john^> but there is hearing but no hearer.
<ZeN`n1th> hahaha
<ZeN`n1th> oic
<^john^> put ur time into practice and understanding of no-self and emptiness.
<^john^>
<ZeN`n1th> ok
Malcolm also made a similar statement recently:
" What you are suggesting is already found in Samkhya system. I.e. the twenty four tattvas are not the self aka purusha. Since this system was well known to the Buddha, if that's all his insight was, then his insight is pretty trivial. But Buddha's teachings were novel. Why where they novel? They were novel in the fifth century BCE because of his teaching of dependent origination and emptiness. The refutation of an ultimate self is just collateral damage."
February 4 at 1:06am · Edited · Like · 2
Soh Rob Burbea:
One time the Buddha went to a group of monks and he basically told them not to see Awareness as The Source of all things. So this sense of there being a vast awareness and everything just appears out of that and disappears back into it, beautiful as that is, he told them that’s actually not a skillful way of viewing reality. And that is a very interesting sutta, because it’s one of the only suttas where at the end it doesn’t say the monks rejoiced in his words.
This group of monks didn’t want to hear that. They were quite happy with that level of insight, lovely as it was, and it said the monks did not rejoice in the Buddha’s words. (laughter) And similarly, one runs into this as a teacher, I have to say. This level is so attractive, it has so much of the flavor of something ultimate, that often times people are unbudgeable there.
In the Dzogchen tradition, there’s a very beautiful saying – very simple but very beautiful. And it says, “trust your experience, but keep refining your view.” Trust your experience, but keep refining your view - there’s a lot of wisdom in that, a lot of wisdom.
...
These monks were ex-Samkhya followers that viewed Consciousness or Prakriti as the source or ground of being.
Also related, see Thanissaro's commentary: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.001.than.html
Mulapariyaya Sutta: The Root Sequence
www.accesstoinsight.org
The Buddha taught that clinging to views is one of the four forms of clinging th...See More
February 4 at 1:17am · Edited · Like · 2 · Remove Preview
Soh Robert Healion: "Buddha was a Hindu and all he postulated is pre propositioned by orthodox Vedanta."
I disagree with this and will refer to this well-written article: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/.../madhyamika...
Excerpts:
"...The third problem is that the teachings found in Buddhism do not in any way appear to be a reformation of Hinduism. Anyone who has studied Buddhism (I am not talking about prejudiced Hindu oriented scholars), can see that there is a major paradigm shift between Hinduism and Buddhism; in fact, between all other religious systems and Buddhism. The post modern and new age concept of universalism regarding spirituality, no matter how romantically beautiful, fails miserably when it comes to addressing Buddhism. A paradigm shift cannot and should not be misconstrued as a reformation. Reforms are changes brought about within the same paradigm. Hence, paradigm shifts are changes in the very foundations or parameters. Therefore, the basic foundations of these practices are completely different.
In such cases, it is completely confused thinking to state that one paradigm is a reformation of another. So Sramanism is a system of religion based on a completely different paradigm than the Vedic-Brahmanism or its offspring Hinduism. Therefore, it would be a gross error to say Buddhism is a reformation of Vedic Hinduism or Vedanta as Swami Vivekanda asserts. First of all, what we call Hinduism today, or even in the time of Swami Vivekanada did not exist at the time of the Buddha, which was the Vedic period. Vedic-Brahmanism was heavily influenced by older Sramanic schools and later on by newer ones like Buddhism and Jainism. We find in the ancient Brihadaranyak Upanishad, Gargi (a female) challenging the Brahmin Yagyavalkya. A critical study of the literature clearly shows that the mode of questioning that Gargi applied was very different from the type that many other Brahmins used to question Yagyavalkya. For instance, all the Brahmins used the same style of questioning in that they were simply asking the correct interpretation of some things found in the Vedas. But Gargi challenged the Vedas and thus she could have been a Sramana, even if she were Brahmin by caste. As Yagyavalkya was not able to answer her questions, he had to stop her by saying ‘Do not ask anymore or else your head will fall off’ (Brihadaranyak Upanishad 3.6.1)..."
"...Since the concept of Brahman, the truly existent (paramartha satta) is the very foundation of Hinduism (as a matter of fact some form of an eternal ultimate reality whether it is called God or Nature is the basis of all other religious systems). When Buddhism denies such an ultimate reality (paramartha satta) in any form, it cuts at the very jugular veins of Hinduism and all other Theistic systems. Therefore, it cannot be ontologically, epistemologically, and soteriologically said that Buddhism reforms Hinduism.
The affirmation of a ground (asraya) which is really existent (paramartha satta) and the denial that such an existent ground (satta) can be found anywhere, within or without, immanent or transcendent, are two diametrically opposed paradigms, not simply variation or reformations of each other. The Webster Dictionary defines re-form as ‘to amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuse.’ The example I have given above of an eternal base without which Hinduism in its own language would be called atheistic (Nastik). Therefore, the denial (without any implied affirmation prasajya pratisheda) of such an eternally existing unchanging base by Buddhism cannot be said to be a reformation, but a deconstruction of the very roots of the Hindu thesis. That is why Buddhism is not a reformation of Hinduism but a paradigm shift from the foundations on which Hinduism is based...."
Awakening to Reality: Madhyamika Buddhism Vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta
awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
Thusness/PasserBy's comments to me: I do not want you to have knowledge regardin...See More
February 4 at 1:15am · Like · 2 · Remove Preview
Robert Healion I will read it later as I currently have data restrictions and can only be facebook. However Buddha was trained in Vedanta as it was at that time. He is recognised as one of many offshoots of the then current doctrines. I think the biggest hindrance is following a faith. Buddha correct erroneous thinking. If he was here now he would be correcting erroneous thinking. Both Buddhist and Vedanta.
February 4 at 6:39am · Like · 1
Robert Healion What did Buddha teach... difficult, as there is much additions to the sutras written a few hundred years after his passing. still there is a common theme in all of them compassion patience and a lack of ego. Oh and the advice is still relevant, surprising how little we have changed.
February 4 at 6:42am · Like
Tamara King And Course in Miracles, the world church of suspension of reason and critical thought through koans, thus helping to ensure a compliant people.
February 4 at 6:42am · Like
Tamara King Ego's in all are joined in the collective unconscious and assures a thanatos of human's and a survival of ego itself.
February 4 at 6:44am · Like
Tamara King The winner: mindlessness.
February 4 at 6:44am · Like
Robert Healion “trust your experience, but keep refining your view.” Trust your experience, but keep refining your view - Very Good very Good.
February 4 at 6:48am · Like · 1
Robert Healion (The Pristine awareness is often mistaken as the 'Self'. It is especially difficult for one that has intuitively experience the 'Self' to accept 'No-Self'.)
Drunk on emptiness one feels all is empty, not realising your emptiness is inherently empty.
There are warnings about posting this emptiness or pristine awareness as a thing.
(As I have told you many times that there will come a time when u will intuitively perceive the 'I' -- the pure sense of Existence but you must be strong enough to go beyond this experience until the true meaning of Emptiness becomes clear and thorough.)
I suspect this is refuting the concept of you are an enlightened being. The so called conscious identification with your experience. I am wet I am wet, yet the nature of water is not that I am wet as the wetness is intrinsic to the water. The truly enlightened sees all as enlightened as all are.
(The Pristine Awareness is the so-called True-Self' but why we do not call it a 'Self' and why Buddhism has placed so much emphasis on the Emptiness nature? This then is the true essence of Buddhism. It is needless to stress anything about 'Self' in Buddhism; there are enough of 'Logies' of the 'I" in Indian Philosophies.)
Expedient means. Road maps and recipe’s are helpful if you wish to end up some ware. Seeing a monk on the further shore one asks “How do I cross the river and he replies, You are already across.”
(If one wants to know about the experience of 'I AM', go for the Vedas and Bhagavat Gita. We will not know what Buddha truly taught 2500 years ago if we buried ourselves in words. Have no doubt that The Dharma Seal is authentic and not to be confused.)
The dharma seal, the gateless gate, all empty. So many instructions on this point, yet still confusing.
February 4 at 7:02am · Like
Robert Healion (When you have experienced the 'Self' and know that its nature is empty, you will know why to include this idea of a 'Self' into Buddha-Nature is truly unnecessary and meaningless. True Buddhism is not about eliminating the 'small Self' but cleansing this so called 'True Self' (Atman) with the wisdom of Emptiness)
Very good very good
February 4 at 7:04am · Like
Robert Healion <^john^> the different between hinduism and buddhism is they return to the "I AM" and clings to it.
<^john^> always "I" as the source.
<ZeN`n1th> icic
<^john^> but in buddhism it is being replaced by "emptiness nature", there is a purest, an entity, a stage to be gained or achieved is an illusion.
<^john^> there is none. No self to be found. No identity to assumed. Nothing attained.
<ZeN`n1th> oic
<^john^> this is truly the All
Lacking context. However the ideal of no dual suggest a duality, the ideal of emptiness suggest a vessel of thing. Yet the nature of water is not to think I am wet, wetness is intrinsic to water.
February 4 at 7:07am · Like
Robert Healion <^john^> so for a teaching that is so thorough and complete, why must it resort back to a "True Self"?
<ZeN`n1th> hmm but i got a question about just now u say impermanent... but mahayana texts also say tathagathagarbha is permanent right?
Tathagathagarbha… Oh identify a text where Buddha defines such a beast.
February 4 at 7:11am · Like
Robert Healion The rest appears to be appointing away or at, regardless, there is nothing to point at or away.
(The refutation of an ultimate self is just collateral damage.)
Me thinks Malacom is in a middle. Or a muddle.
February 4 at 7:16am · Like
Robert Healion This group of monks didn’t want to hear that. They were quite happy with that level of insight, lovely as it was, and it said the monks did not rejoice in the Buddha’s words. (laughter) And similarly, one runs into this as a teacher, I have to say. This level is so attractive, it has so much of the flavor of something ultimate, that often times people are unbudgeable there.
Yes busy polishing there treasure there precious living in a dark cave and eating carp guts
February 4 at 7:18am · Unlike · 2
Tamara King I get it.
February 4 at 7:46am · Like
Tamara King I see not-self I think: no mind there.
February 4 at 7:51am · Like
Soh "However Buddha was trained in Vedanta as it was at that time."
No, Advaita Vedanta did not exist in those days. Samkhya existed (and I wouldn't be surprised if one or both of his previous meditation teachers were of Samkhya school, it should be noted that he later left these teachers as he found it insufficient for liberation) - but Samkhya is not Advaita, Jainism existed, some of the materialist and skeptical schools existed. (The six schools: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sama%C3%B1%C3%B1aphala_Sutta...)
How does Samkhya differ from Advaita you might ask? Samkhya is a hard-dualist teaching, it differentiates Pure Consciousness as Soul (Purusha) from the Material world (Prakriti). It posits that each individual person has (or rather, IS) their individual Purusha (Pure Attributeless Consciousness). And that realizing the pure Witnessing Consciousness is liberation. Although Jainism is a little different from Samkhya, there are also similarities - each posits an individual purusha/soul.
To me this is like realizing I AM but not yet reaching impersonality or non-dual insight (as I described in http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/.../experience...). Advaita is different, it is a substantialist-nondual teaching that posits a Self that is a One Universal Consciousness that subsumes all phenomena and all beings into Self and that all conceiving of phenomena as real and separate from Brahman are merely illusory superimpositions on its substratum (like necklace and its gold). This is like refining I AM realization into impersonality and One Mind. Kashmir Shaivism is also the same except it rejects the notion that phenomena are illusory and emphasizes 'realism' - all phenomena are truly real, as Self/Shiva/Consciousness (but this is not something different from what Ramana and Shankara has described as their ultimate/final view).
Yet, all these are still very different from realization of anatta. As I described in my article. Or as Alex Weith puts it: (http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/.../zen-exploration...)
Alex: 'What I realized also is that authoritative self-realized students of direct students of both Ramana Maharishi and Nisargadatta Maharaj called me a 'Jnani', inviting me to give satsangs and write books, while I had not yet understood the simplest core principles of Buddhism. I realized also that the vast majority of Buddhist teachers, East and West, never went beyond the same initial insights (that Adhyashanti calls "an abiding awakening"), confusing the Atma with the ego, assuming that transcending the ego or self-center (ahamkara in Sanskrit) was identical to what the Buddha had called Anatta (Non-Atma).
It would seem therefore that the Buddha had realized the Self at a certain stage of his acetic years (it is not that difficult after all) and was not yet satisfied. As paradoxical as it may seem, his "divide and conquer strategy" aimed at a systematic deconstruction of the Self (Atma, Atta), reduced to -and divided into- what he then called the five aggregates of clinging and the six sense-spheres, does lead to further and deeper insights into the nature of reality. As far as I can tell, this makes me a Buddhist, not because I find Buddhism cool and trendy, but because I am unable to find other teachings and traditions that provide a complete set of tools and strategies aimed at unlocking these ultimate mysteries, even if mystics from various traditions did stumble on the same stages and insights often unknowingly.
.............
Just for the sake of clarification, I would like to make it clear that I never said that "these luminous self-perceiving phenomena which are craving-free and nondual are the Ultimate", if there could still be any ambiguity about that.
On the contrary, I said that what I used to take for an eternal, empty, uncreated, nondual, primordial awareness, source and substance of all things, turned out to be nothing more than the luminous nature of phenomena, themselves empty and ungraspable, somehow crystallized in a very subtle witnessing position. The whole topic of this thread is the deconstruction of this Primordial Awareness, One Mind, Cognizing Emptiness, Self, Atman, Luminous Mind, Tathagatgabha, or whatever we may call it,
As shocking as it may seem, the Buddha was very clear to say that this pure impersonal objectless nondual awareness (that Vedantists called Atma in Sanskrit, Atta in Pali) is still the aggregate of consciousness and that consciousness, as pure and luminous as it can be, does not stand beyond the aggregates.
"Any kind of consciousness whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.'" (Anatta-lakkhana Sutta).'
"Buddha correct erroneous thinking."
Yes, but what I'm saying is that 'correcting' is not the same as 'reforming'. When the entire system is based on an erroneous framework, how can it be said that he is 'reforming' that system? For example, if Buddha said there is no God (not that 'God is not what you think it is'), how can it be 'reforming' Christianity which is founded on the belief in a God? The Buddha never claimed to be reforming anything. He is presenting something radically different from any other teachings.
As I pasted earlier:
"...Since the concept of Brahman, the truly existent (paramartha satta) is the very foundation of Hinduism (as a matter of fact some form of an eternal ultimate reality whether it is called God or Nature is the basis of all other religious systems). When Buddhism denies such an ultimate reality (paramartha satta) in any form, it cuts at the very jugular veins of Hinduism and all other Theistic systems. Therefore, it cannot be ontologically, epistemologically, and soteriologically said that Buddhism reforms Hinduism.
The affirmation of a ground (asraya) which is really existent (paramartha satta) and the denial that such an existent ground (satta) can be found anywhere, within or without, immanent or transcendent, are two diametrically opposed paradigms, not simply variation or reformations of each other. The Webster Dictionary defines re-form as ‘to amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuse.’ The example I have given above of an eternal base without which Hinduism in its own language would be called atheistic (Nastik). Therefore, the denial (without any implied affirmation prasajya pratisheda) of such an eternally existing unchanging base by Buddhism cannot be said to be a reformation, but a deconstruction of the very roots of the Hindu thesis. That is why Buddhism is not a reformation of Hinduism but a paradigm shift from the foundations on which Hinduism is based...."
Samaññaphala Sutta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
The Samaññaphala Sutta is the second discourse (Pali, sutta; Skt., sutra) of all...See More
February 4 at 4:28pm · Edited · Like · 2 · Remove Preview
Soh It couldn't be clearer when Buddha himself stated that he is teaching something radically different from any other teaching:
(from accesstoinsight)
Cula-sihanada Sutta (MN 11) -- The Shorter Discourse on the Lion's Roar {M i 63} [Ñanamoli Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi, trans.] - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.011.ntbb.html , the Buddha declares that only through practicing in accord with the Dhamma can Awakening be realized. His teaching is distinguished from those of other religions and philosophies through its unique rejection of all doctrines of self. [BB]
Cula-sihanada Sutta: The Shorter Discourse on the Lion's Roar
www.accesstoinsight.org
1. Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living at Savatthi in ...See More
February 4 at 3:44pm · Like · 2 · Remove Preview
Soh "
I suspect this is refuting the concept of you are an enlightened being. The so called conscious identification with your experience. I am wet I am wet, yet the nature of water is not that I am wet as the wetness is intrinsic to the water. The truly enlightened sees all as enlightened as all are.
"
No, it's talking about the Pristine Awareness, the so called Atman-Brahman. It is not talking about the refutation of ego which is found in all religions.
Pristine Awareness, the direct realization and apprehension of Pure knowing presence is not wrong, but that is just the aspect of luminous clarity. The luminous clarity must further be realized to be empty - empty of self. Then there is liberation. Otherwise 'aware knowing' becomes reified into a Super-Self, an ultimate Atman-Brahman that is the source and substratum of all phenomena that is changeless and independently existing.
February 4 at 3:53pm · Edited · Like · 1
Soh "Tathagathagarbha… Oh identify a text where Buddha defines such a beast."
Tathagatagarbha texts are late compositions - not from the historical Buddha - but by some group of Mahayana writers some thousand years after the Buddha. Such as the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra (not the pali one). They talk about Buddha-nature as Permanent, Bliss, Self, and Purity. It is in some ways as eternalistic as Vedanta, but there are also ways to interprete the teachings as being not eternalistic.
Some other classes of Mahayana sutras (e.g. Lankavatara Sutra) would later 'refute' its claims by stating that such teachings are merely skillful, expedient means of leading those who fear emptiness to the wisdom of emptiness, no-self and non-arising. Most teachers treat the Tathagatagarbha teaching as expedient, and interpreting those words in a very definitive way will lead to the extreme of eternalism.
February 4 at 3:56pm · Edited · Like
Soh Robert: "What did Buddha teach... difficult, as there is much additions to the sutras written a few hundred years after his passing."
Well, not really, as Malcolm wrote before (emphasis added on second paragraph): "Listen -- you will have to forgive us. These endless discussions about rebirth are tiresome. We don't care. Either you accept it or you don't. If you don't fine. But there is no doubt that rebirth was the Buddha's teaching. People who cannot accept that, cannot accept must of the other teachings of the Buddha.
**And please spare us the "buddhas teachings were not written down until..."First of all, this is false. Worst case scenario, Buddha's teachings were written down 150 years after his parinirvana (dates of Asokha pillars), which best scholarship places 407-400 BCE. But it is very likely that the earliest sutras were being written down within 50 years."**
Robert: "still there is a common theme in all of them compassion patience and a lack of ego. Oh and the advice is still relevant, surprising how little we have changed."
Compassion, patience and lack of ego are important qualities, but still not getting into the core essential doctrines of Buddhism.
Piotr sent me this quote days ago:
Piotr Ludwiński
2/1, 8:29pm
Piotr Ludwiński
http://quotes.justdharma.com/what-is-in-the-mind-of-a.../
(DKR:
So, what makes you a Buddhist? You may not have been born in a Buddhist country or to a Buddhist family, you may not wear robes or shave your head, you may eat meat and idolize Eminem and Paris Hilton. That doesn’t mean you cannot be a Buddhist. In order to be a Buddhist, you must accept that all compounded phenomena are impermanent, all emotions are pain, all things have no inherent existence, and enlightenment is beyond concepts.
It’s not necessary to be constantly and endlessly mindful of these four truths. But they must reside in your mind. You don’t walk around persistently remembering your own name, but when someone asks your name, you remember it instantly. There is no doubt. Anyone who accepts these four seals, even independently of Buddha’s teachings, even never having heard the name Shakyamuni Buddha, can be considered to be on the same path as he.)
Soh
2/1, 8:59pm
Soh
Thanks for the convo. Just read
Yes.. good point by dkr. If buddha doesnt actualize four seals then he is also sentient.. if sentient being actualize four seals then is buddha
Soh
2/1, 9:50pm
Soh
As thusness said before the seals are more impt than the buddha in person
Piotr Ludwiński
2/1, 10:25pm
Piotr Ludwiński
lol
..........
Also, it is important to distinguish "no ego" and "anatta":
"First I do not see Anatta as merely a freeing of personality sort of experience as you mentioned; I see it as that a self/agent, a doer, a thinker, a watcher, etc, cannot be found apart from the moment to moment flow of manifestation or as its commonly expressed as ‘the observer is the observed’; there is no self apart from the arising and ceasing. A very important point here is that Anatta/No-Self is a Dharma Seal, it is the nature of Reality all the time -- and not merely as a state free from personality, ego or the ‘small self’ or a stage to attain. This means that it does not depend on the level of achievement of a practitioner to experience anatta but Reality has always been Anatta and what is important here is the intuitive insight into it as the nature, characteristic, of phenomenon (dharma seal).
To illustrate further due to the importance of this seal, I would like to borrow a quote from the Bahiya Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/.../kn/ud/ud.1.10.irel.html)
‘in the seeing, there is just the seen, no seer’, ‘in the hearing, there is just the heard, no hearer’…
If a practitioner were to feel that he has gone beyond the experiences from ‘I hear sound’ to a stage of ‘becoming sound’ or takes that ‘there is just mere sound’, then this experience is again distorted. For in actual case, there is and always is only sound when hearing; never was there a hearer to begin with. Nothing attained for it is always so."
What is in the Mind of a Buddhist ~ Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche
quotes.justdharma.com
So, what makes you a Buddhist? You may not have been born in a Buddhist country ...See More
February 4 at 6:20pm · Edited · Like · 3 · Remove Preview
Robert Healion The Sramanas
The Buddha belonged to a new movement in philosophy which grew up under the social conditions described in the first section of this chapter. The brahmans were, or had become, a hereditary priesthood, and the earlier philosophers and poets whose work is known to us, being preserved in the Brahmanical literature, were either brahmans or men who became brahmanised, at least posthumously, by being accepted into the ranks of the orthodox. The new movement on the other hand was led by men who were not brahmans, but came from all ranks of society, and who instead of joining the Brahmanical schools set up independent schools. Some brahmans also joined these schools, but they thereby left the Brahmanical tradition and were assimilated into the new movement, which was essentially a classless one.
The philosophers of the new schools were called sramanas. They were men who had contracted out of ordinary society and become wanderers, living either by gleaning what they could in the woods and fields or by begging. Their aim was to discover the truth and attain happiness, or at least peace of mind. Having abandoned all social commitments they were free to spend their time thinking, trying out ascetic practices, studying nature, and of course teaching. They set up schools and trained pupils to remember and disseminate their teachings, and they also lectured in the villages and cities, even before kings if invited. The contents of this public lecturing were extremely diverse, but they tended to be ethical, to instruct people how to live, and the food or even fees they received could be regarded as a justifiable return for the teaching they dispensed.
The sramanas rejected the Veda, and the authority of the brahmans, who claimed to be in possession of revealed truths not knowable by any ordinary human means. They ridiculed the complicated rituals, and tried to show the absurdity of the Veda, as a canon of ultimate truths, by pointing out contradictions in it and drawing attention to some passages which seemed either rather futile or highly unethical, or even completely nonsensical, if supposed to be pronouncements having absolute authority (since a great part of the Veda consists of ancient poetry and legends, this was not very difficult). The sramanas went further than this and declared that the entire Brahmanical system was fraudulent: a conspiracy against the public by the brahmans for the purpose of enriching themselves by charging exorbitant fees for the performance of bogus rites and the giving of futile advice.1
1. The Buddhists have preserved some typical verses to this effect in the Tripitaka (Pali J VI 206-14). The views of the Lokayata School are reported for example in the first chapter of SDS.
In place of this authoritarian tradition the sramanas sought to find satisfactory explanations of the universe and of life by genuine investigations and by reasoning. They believed they could ascertain natural laws by their own efforts, without benefit of authority from the ancients or of supernatural guidance, and that these laws would be absolutely valid and must be accepted because anyone who cared to undertake a proper investigation could verify them.2 In brief, their outlook was that of scientists investigating the nature of the universe, though they were guided by the practical aim of applying the knowledge they gained in the quest for happiness.
February 4 at 8:52pm · Unlike · 1
Robert Healion The Sramanas
The Buddha belonged to a new movement in philosophy which grew up under the social conditions described in the first section of this chapter. The brahmans were, or had become, a hereditary priesthood, and the earlier philosophers and poets whose work is known to us, being preserved in the Brahmanical literature, were either brahmans or men who became brahmanised, at least posthumously, by being accepted into the ranks of the orthodox. The new movement on the other hand was led by men who were not brahmans, but came from all ranks of society, and who instead of joining the Brahmanical schools set up independent schools. Some brahmans also joined these schools, but they thereby left the Brahmanical tradition and were assimilated into the new movement, which was essentially a classless one.
The philosophers of the new schools were called sramanas. They were men who had contracted out of ordinary society and become wanderers, living either by gleaning what they could in the woods and fields or by begging. Their aim was to discover the truth and attain happiness, or at least peace of mind. Having abandoned all social commitments they were free to spend their time thinking, trying out ascetic practices, studying nature, and of course teaching. They set up schools and trained pupils to remember and disseminate their teachings, and they also lectured in the villages and cities, even before kings if invited. The contents of this public lecturing were extremely diverse, but they tended to be ethical, to instruct people how to live, and the food or even fees they received could be regarded as a justifiable return for the teaching they dispensed.
The sramanas rejected the Veda, and the authority of the brahmans, who claimed to be in possession of revealed truths not knowable by any ordinary human means. They ridiculed the complicated rituals, and tried to show the absurdity of the Veda, as a canon of ultimate truths, by pointing out contradictions in it and drawing attention to some passages which seemed either rather futile or highly unethical, or even completely nonsensical, if supposed to be pronouncements having absolute authority (since a great part of the Veda consists of ancient poetry and legends, this was not very difficult). The sramanas went further than this and declared that the entire Brahmanical system was fraudulent: a conspiracy against the public by the brahmans for the purpose of enriching themselves by charging exorbitant fees for the performance of bogus rites and the giving of futile advice.1
1. The Buddhists have preserved some typical verses to this effect in the Tripitaka (Pali J VI 206-14). The views of the Lokayata School are reported for example in the first chapter of SDS.
In place of this authoritarian tradition the sramanas sought to find satisfactory explanations of the universe and of life by genuine investigations and by reasoning. They believed they could ascertain natural laws by their own efforts, without benefit of authority from the ancients or of supernatural guidance, and that these laws would be absolutely valid and must be accepted because anyone who cared to undertake a proper investigation could verify them.2 In brief, their outlook was that of scientists investigating the nature of the universe, though they were guided by the practical aim of applying the knowledge they gained in the quest for happiness.
Out of the sramana movement of the 6th century B.C. a large number of separate schools of philosophy developed. From the many more or less scientific, more or less speculative, systems propounded at least five major organised schools were successful enough to become strongly established and play dominant parts in the history of philosophy in India (and sometimes outside) for at least the next two thousand years. They soon split up into sub-schools and all of them modified their doctrines in the course of time, but despite the later appearance of a few entirely new schools it was those which had originated in the period of the Buddha which thenceforth gave a general direction to Indian philosophy and provided a framework for its discussions. The brahmans of course reacted by developing philosophical systems of their own, meeting the new ideas with adaptations of their doctrines.
In the long run, though apparently not at first, by far the most successful and important of the sramana schools was that founded by the Buddha. At first the Buddha was just one of very many wandering teachers in the Vrji Republic, Magadha and other countries of northern India about 500 B.C. He collected a fair number of followers, though not as many as some of his rivals, and he promulgated a doctrine which has all the main characteristics of the sramana movement, which on the surface at least is just a typical sramana doctrine. He rejected all authority except experience: the student should experiment for himself and see that the teaching is true, not accept it because the Buddha says so. The universe is subject to natural laws only, by studying which one can attain freedom and happiness. The most important laws are laws of causation, moral as well as physical. Transmigration is provided for in that consciousness continues from life to life in accordance with the laws of moral causation. The aim is to end this transmigration and attain final peace. The most essential and characteristic part of the teaching is a scheme of training and study to attain this aim.1 The Buddha here assumes that the aim of all living beings is the attainment of happiness and his teaching is presented as a way of achieving this aim, either absolutely and finally in liberation from transmigration, final peace, or relatively in an improvement of circumstances for those not yet ready to renounce the world. Moral conduct thus follows from the desire for happiness when the laws of moral causation are correctly understood, it is not a duty, as the brahmans maintained.
February 4 at 8:53pm · Like
Robert Healion By his accounts the Vedanta of tody did not exist, it was all precursor, Buddhism evolved in a period before textual records were readily available and so did Vedanta. Today I see a great deal of effort to reject each other, though there is no doubting both are successful, in attainment.
February 4 at 9:04pm · Like
Robert Healion What transpired as too who or what borrowed traditions, is not important, it is the common biases that both traditions use. Similar to language, you can have a verb before the noun or the revers, yet a verb non relationship exist. Both appear to use a method based on sense control, thought control and self inquirer, The yoga sutras of Patanjalia are incorporated and in Tibetan Buddhism Ganesh is recognised.
February 4 at 9:06pm · Like
Robert Healion Vedanta is the science of self based on the teachings of the Vedas, Brahmanism is something different. The Vedas predate the Buddha.
February 4 at 9:08pm · Like
Robert Healion In such cases, it is completely confused thinking to state that one paradigm is a reformation of another. So Sramanism is a system of religion based on a completely different paradigm than the Vedic-Brahmanism or its offspring Hinduism. Sramanism rejected the doctrine of Brahmanism and went it alone. This was in a period of change from traditional society, were cattle were wealth to a monetary society where trade generated wealth. traditional wealth was vested with the Brahamansim.
February 4 at 9:28pm · Edited · Unlike · 2
Robert Healion Vedanta is in essence a series of pointing at the self absolute or away form the self absolute. Buddhism in its essence is similar. One has one tangle of words the other another.
February 4 at 9:13pm · Like
Tamara King Definitely time for a new paradigm. Hello down there.
February 4 at 9:14pm · Like
Tamara King Time for an intervention
February 4 at 9:15pm · Like
Tamara King It has now become the time when passive acceptance of suffering others is overt sociopathy. The confabulated justifications for the failure to unite as one humanity aren't going to cut it anymore.
February 4 at 9:17pm · Like
Tamara King They are all lies.
February 4 at 9:19pm · Edited · Like
Tamara King YOU are essentially ONE SON of God.
February 4 at 9:18pm · Like
Tamara King Your liver steals meat from your gall bladder.
February 4 at 9:18pm · Like
Soh There is no God in Buddhism
February 4 at 9:19pm · Like
Tamara King There is G0D outside of your headspace
February 4 at 9:20pm · Like
Soh Uniting together for social action is important.. but hmm... kind of going off tangent are we?
February 4 at 9:20pm · Like
Tamara King Your current god is Soh's head
February 4 at 9:21pm · Like
Tamara King The DIVINE doesn't even know you exist pipsqueak
February 4 at 9:21pm · Like
Tamara King who's denying whom?
February 4 at 9:21pm · Like
Robert Healion "...Since the concept of Brahman, the truly existent (paramartha satta) is the very foundation of Hinduism (as a matter of fact some form of an eternal ultimate reality whether it is called God or Nature is the basis of all other religious systems). When Buddhism denies such an ultimate reality (paramartha satta) in any form, it cuts at the very jugular veins of Hinduism and all other Theistic systems. Therefore, it cannot be ontologically, epistemologically, and soteriologically said that Buddhism reforms Hinduism.
Yes the Buddha avoided extremes, but to confuse the teachings of the Buddha with modern Buddhism is another problem. As modern Buddhism is full of extremes. Expident menas is the qualifier to excuse one, but there is no tolerance to the other. The other issues is What are the descriptors of Atman, Beyond Wisdom (ParaPrajana), Sat Chi Annada, Sat an adjective describing expanded consciousness or god, Chit the nature of consciousness, annada, bliss or absence of duka.
An ultimate reality (paramartha satta) in any form, may be denied but the sane problem confronting Hindusim the postulation of a something within the concept of duality is expressed in the Buddhist teachings of emptiness, thusness and original mind.
February 4 at 9:22pm · Like
Soh Tamara King this is a wrong place for you to discuss an external divine God. You should probably find a Christian forum.
February 4 at 9:23pm · Like
Tamara King lol
February 4 at 9:24pm · Like
Tamara King BUDDHA says, ..hahahaha
February 4 at 9:24pm · Like
Robert Healion Ultimately if you deconstruct the notions of ideations surrounding both Vedanta and Buddhism you arrive at a state which is beyond description. hence arguing over one non existent state as opposed to another is pointless. Best just to practice. Practice what? good question I will get back to this after Soh has his say.
February 4 at 9:26pm · Like · 1
Robert Healion Tamara are you smoking
February 4 at 9:32pm · Like
Tamara King I'm not. I'm watching YOUR nightmare that you haven't quite faced.
February 4 at 9:33pm · Like
Tamara King You're bla bla is denial
February 4 at 9:33pm · Like
Tamara King I'm outside your mutual decision for hell.
February 4 at 9:34pm · Like
Tamara King Look at YOUR headlnes
February 4 at 9:34pm · Like
Tamara King In YOUR newspaper
February 4 at 9:34pm · Like
Tamara King You want to be separated from each other
February 4 at 9:35pm · Like
Tamara King You could be cooperating and sharing
February 4 at 9:35pm · Like
Tamara King That's your hell and you will descend further
February 4 at 9:35pm · Like
Robert Healion My nightmare, my dream. Its all subjective. I choose to rattle Soh cage. Good lets see if he is crouching dragon or a hidden tiger. LOL me I ma cave dwelling demon. So bearing my teeth I wish you good night.
February 4 at 9:37pm · Like
Soh "Vedanta is in essence a series of pointing at the self absolute or away form the self absolute. Buddhism in its essence is similar. One has one tangle of words the other another."
Vedanta is in essence a series of pointing at the self absolute. Buddhism in its essence points to the deconstruction of that self-absolute, as Alex Weith elucidated in his article. They are not similar.
February 4 at 11:14pm · Edited · Like
Soh "An ultimate reality (paramartha satta) in any form, may be denied but the sane problem confronting Hindusim the postulation of a something within the concept of duality is expressed in the Buddhist teachings of emptiness, thusness and original mind."
The teachings of emptiness do not postulate ultimate reality, what emptiness means is precisely the refutation of any real existence (svabhava) or ultimate realities - paramartha satta. It is a non-affirming negation of real existence.
The teaching of thusness and original mind does not affirm real existence. For example, what is Buddha-nature and Thusness? The Treatise of Buddha-nature (佛性论) by Bodhisattva Vasubandhu states: "Buddha-nature is the suchness (tathatā) revealed through the two emptinesses of person and phenomenon. Due to suchness there is no ridiculing or ridiculed (i.e. a subject and object). Penetrating this principle one is free from delusional attachments." 佛性者。即是人法二空所顯真如。由真如故。無能罵所罵。通達此理。離虛妄執。 (http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=2416)
Buddha-nature is the union of luminous clarity and emptiness. Buddha-nature, Thusness, is luminous clarity (the quality of Knowing-presence) that is empty of any real existence, and devoid of any duality of perceiver and perceived. It is empty of self/Self. This self-luminosity of 'original mind' is empty of a fixed reference point, or vantage point, such as being a Witness or even a source and substratum for phenomena (even to say that source and substratum is 'inseparable' from phenomena is already erroneous as it posits a substantialist context for content to arise and subside within), rather it is just the self-aware quality of phenomena/mind (noting that 'mind' is empty of mind and merely dharmas) being experienced where it is (where everything is self-luminous and vividly aware/alive in and of itself empty of a background observer), where phenomena can be said to be self-arising and self-felt without a background agent (however even this self-arising is later seen to be ultimately non-arising).
Luminous clarity is empty of being some background substratum and source behind phenomena, rather it is just the luminous cognizance revealing itself as ever only being the shimmering, self-illuminating, empty, dream-like and non-arising phenomena.
What does the Buddha himself say about Thusness/Suchness?
Excerpt from Kalaka Sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/.../an04/an04.024.than.html
"When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer.
Thus, monks, the Tathagata — being the same with regard to all phenomena that can be seen, heard, sensed, & cognized — is 'Such.' And I tell you: There's no other 'Such' higher or more sublime."
There is no indication whatsoever that the "Suchness" or "Thusness" or "Buddha-nature" has anything to do with a metaphysical essence, or an Absolute, but it rather points to the primordial and natural state of mind/experience/phenomena free from reifications and constructions. It is only revealed by the realization and actualization of twofold emptiness of self/Self and dharma.
Dharma Wheel • View topic - The Treatise on Buddha Nature 《佛性論》
www.dharmawheel.net
February 4 at 11:53pm · Edited · Like · 1 · Remove Preview
Soh Buddha-nature is summarized by Thusness here:
For those masters that taught,
“Let thoughts arise and subside,
See the background mirror as perfect and be unaffected.”
With all due respect, they have just “blah” something nice but deluded.
Rather,
See that there is no one behind thoughts.
First, one thought then another thought.
With deepening insight it will later be revealed,
Always just this, One Thought!
Non-arising, luminous yet empty!
- http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/.../on-anatta...
Awakening to Reality: On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness, Maha and Ordinariness, and Spontaneous...
awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
Simple brilliance~thank you for this insightful sharing that is mirrored innerly...See More
February 4 at 11:35pm · Edited · Like · 2 · Remove Preview
Robert Healion This is a reversal of the above point, still front or vback same coin...
The Impact of Early Buddhism on Hindu Thought (with Special Reference to the Bhagavadgiitaa)
K. N. Upadhaya Philosophy East and West Vol.18(1968) pp.163-173Copyright by University of Hawaii Press
Coming to the important words, ideas, and passages of the Giitaa which indicate its familiarity with Buddhism, we may first draw attention to the word niruaa.na, which occurs repeatedly in the Giitaa[12] and which is nowhere to be met with in any of the pre-Buddhist Upani.sads. It seems to have been used for the first time in its technical sense in Buddhism. Again, virtues like niruaira (XI. 55), adue.sa, karu.naa, and maitrii. (XII. 13) also are striking peculiarities of the Giitaa and Buddhism, and these words do not occur in the Upani.sads. Similarly, raaqa and due.sa occur in compounds in the Giitaa (II.64; III. 34; XVIII. 51) just as in Buddhism. The way in which they are used in Giitaa 11.64 and Dhammaoada 369,[13] as well as in Giitaa XVIII.51 and Dhammaoada 377,[14] is similar. The epithets used for a muni in the Giitaa-like aniketa (XII. 19), nirmama (II. 71; III. 30; XII. 13; XVIII. 53), niraa`sii (III. 30; IV. 21), niraa`sraya (IV. 20), niraahaara (II. 59); nai.skarmya (III.4; XVIII. 49), sama du.hkha sukha (II. 15, 38; XII. 13, 18; XIV.24), tulya, nindaa stuti (XII. 19; XIV. 24), tulya maanaapamaana (XIV. 25), etc.-are exactly the same as the corresponding Paali words of early Buddhism.[15] None of these words is traceable in the pre-Buddhist Upani.sads. Then the vices, krodha, mada, dambha, atimaanitaa, and asuuyaa, enumerated in the Giitaa (XVI.3, 4, 10, and 18), are strikingly similar to those listed in the AAmaqandha Sutta. (kodho, made, thambho ... usuyyaa ... maanaatimaano--Sn 43) and people having such vices are alike called naraadhama (Giitaa XVI. 19 and Sn 44).: Again, just as the Buddha regards ~naa.na ya~n~na (D I. 147: Kuu.tadanta Sutta) to be the best of all sacrifices, so also the Giitaa (IV. 33) speaks of the j~naana yaj~na as the best. Similarly, the teachings of samacariyaa in Buddhism (D I. 3; M I. 125-129, 423-424) are well reflected in the teachings of samatua in Giitaa II. 38 and XIV. 24 and 25. Again, the middle path of Buddhism is adopted in the Giitaa while describing the practice of yoga (VI. 11, 16, and 17). The gradual psychological stages in the process of concentration as described in Buddhism (D I. 73; M I. 37)--paamujja.m, piiti, passaddhi, and sukha－are similar to prasaadam, prasannataa `Saanti, and sukha referred to in the Giitaa. (II. 64-66). Then, life has been characterized as suffering in typical Buddhist style ( Giitaa XIII. 8:janmam.rtyujaraauyaadhidu.hkhado.saanudar`sanam).Furthermore, there are a number of passages betraying similarity or close affinity between the Giitaa and the Nikaayas. We list here some of the important ones for illustration:
February 5 at 5:14am · Like
Robert Healion THE PLACE OF BUDDHISM IN INDIAN THOUGHT
by Ananda W. P. Guruge
Introduction
In the Nagarasutta in the Samyutta Nikaya, (SN p.74) the Buddha states,
"As a person discovers an ancient path to a lost city. I have discovered this ancient path leading to Nibbanna.”
Thus the Buddha assumed the role of a re-discoverer rather than that of an original path-finder. What he meant by this statement is subject to interpretation and has given rise to a controversy among students of Buddhism and Indian philosophy.
The Buddhists, who believe that Gotama, the Buddha of the sixth century before Christ, was the twenty-fifth in a line of Buddhas commencing from Dipankara (or the 29th, commencing from Tanhankara), have no difficulty in explaining that the Buddha's reference was to the doctrines of the earlier Buddhas. The Buddhist commentators from very early times accepted this explanation. In fact, one of them, Buddhaghosa, the most illustrious translator of Sinhala commentaries in the fifth century CE, went further and suggested that the Vedas themselves were only a degenerated version of the teachings of Buddha Kassapa, the immediate predecessor of Gotama, the Buddha. But in the absence of reliable historical data, one does not readily accept this Buddhist tradition. So there has been an attempt to review the statement of the Buddha in the light of what is known for certain of Indian philosophy.
Professor Herman Oldenberg in his pioneering work, Buddha, too, was of the same opinion when he said,
"It is certain that Buddhism has acquired as an inheritance from Brahmanism not merely a series of its most important dogmas but what is not less significant to the historian, the bent of its religious thought and feeling, which is more easily comprehended than expressed in words." (p. 53)
Much later, Dr. Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan had been the most ardent supporter of these views. In a foreword written in 1956 to the Government of India publication, "2500 years of Buddhism" (ed. P. V. Bapat), he says,
"The Buddha did not feel that he was announcing a new religion. He was born, grew up and died a Hindu. … Buddhism was an offshoot of the more ancient faith of Hindus, perhaps a schism or a heresy."(pp. ix and xii)
Dr. Radhakrishnan's assessment of the relationship between Buddhism and Brahmanism has undergone a gradual change. In his magnificent work Indian Philosophy in two volumes published in London in 1927 he began the chapter on Buddhism with the statement,
"There is no question that the system of early Buddhism is one of the most original which the history of philosophy presents." (Vol. 1 p. 342)
This is followed by the comment,
"Early Buddhism is not an absolutely original doctrine. It is not a freak in the evolution of Indian thought. Buddha did not break away completely from the spiritual ideas of his age and country. To be in open revolt against the conventional and legalistic religion of the time is one thing; to abandon the living spirit behind it is another." (Vol. I p. 360)
February 5 at 5:42am · Like
Robert Healion ancientbuddhism
K.R. Norman and R.F. Gombrich have mentioned that scholars have often missed the connection of the discourses in the Nikāyas to the Upaniṣads “…it is hard to see why almost all writers about Buddhism accept the statement often made that the Buddha makes no mention of the Upaniṣadic concept of a Universal Self, an ātman or Brahman.” [A Philological Approach to Buddhism – Norman, 1997] “Some of the great modern scholars of Buddhism have said that the Buddha had no direct knowledge of the Vedic texts, but this is certainly wrong. … For many years I have tried to show in my teaching and lecturing that the Buddha presented central parts of his message, concerning kamma and the tilakkhaṇa, as a set of antitheses to brahminical doctrine.” [Recovering the Buddha’s Message – Gombrich, 1988
Ananda Guruge, attempted to correct the overreaching of early writers on Buddhism who claimed that the Buddha was influenced by and taught the aims of the Upaniṣads, by claiming that the Buddha and his followers did not understand the complex emanation theories of the Upaniṣads, and simply knew of the god Brahmā and ātman ‘as a psychological and merely individual factor.’ But this misses the language in the pāḷi texts which point directly to key phrases and concepts of the universal self in the Upaniṣads.
In the Alagaddūpama Sutta (MN.22), the Buddha framed a discussion with bhikkhus on a set of ‘six positions on views’ (chayimāni … diṭṭhiṭṭhānāni) that were held by the untaught commoner (assutavā puthujjano), and through this discussion leveled a sweeping refutation of the of the Upaniṣadic theory of Ātman, Brahman Absolute or ‘The All is Brahman … this self of mine in the heart, that is Brahman’ ‘sarvam khalv idaṃ brahma … eṣa ma ātmāntar hṛdaye etad brahma’ (CU. III, 14:1 & 4). MN.22 was specifically punning on Yājñavalkya’s view in Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad, IV, 5.6.
With reference to this case example and others, K.R. Norman and R.F. Gombrich have soundly argued that the Buddha and his followers were well aware of the brāhmaṇa culture of the time, and that the attā he was refuting as nonexistent (asat) is the dogma of ātman just as we find it in the Upaniṣads.
Read:
A Note on Attā in the Alagaddūpama Sutta, K.R. Norman
A Philological approach to Buddhism, K.R. Norman
Recovering the Buddha’s Message, R.F. GombrichLast edited by ancientbuddhism on Tue Dec 13, 2011 2:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
‘‘Anattani attamāniṃ, passa lokaṃ sadevakaṃ; Niviṭṭhaṃ nāmarūpasmiṃ, idaṃ saccanti maññati.
“See this world with its gods, considering self in what is not-self. Immersed in this mind and body, they imagine this as real.
- Sn. 3.12
February 5 at 5:48am · Unlike · 1
Robert Healion “See this world with its gods, considering self in what is not-self. Immersed in this mind and body, they imagine this as real.
- Sn. 3.12
Granted the above is true, and is maintained in Vedanta as such. “there is no you, no Krishna or shive, they are concepts”…
but I maintain, though I have no scholarly bias for this, this is expedient means,
the prevailing view then and still now is the atman is a little man some ware. This is not what atman means, its relationship to us is similar to thusness, a postulation of a something with respect to awareness. And this is a huge issue… In Vedanta as well as Buddhism, all these conceptual pointing’s have biases in that there is a non-conceptual, emptiness or thusness. Too break this hold one breaks the hand; refute the concept as held of atman.
To break the hold of an empty something one states empty of emptiness. But this refutation of a little self is all that is being refuted
The three turnings end with a postulation that there is a something, I understand it comes late in his teachings. Not a little man in your head..
As stated by Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Let me speak loosely.
In Unbinding you are not conscious. Instead, (you) (are) Aware.
Unbinding is so direct, beyond notions of self and existence.
I resonate with this pointing… However.. You… a little man, no, awareness biased on self, no, what then… a something… then give it an alternative name and call it atman.
What refute the original teachings of the Buddha. Abandon the raft, jettison stage one.
Pointless saying anything else in this regard. Apart from this quote
"If you are not there for even an instant then you are just like a dead person."
A translation of the Sokko-roku Kaien-fusetsu by NORMAN WADDELL
February 5 at 6:14am · Like
Soh "
In the Alagaddūpama Sutta (MN.22), the Buddha framed a discussion with bhikkhus on a set of ‘six positions on views’ (chayimāni … diṭṭhiṭṭhānāni) that were held by the untaught commoner (assutavā puthujjano), and through this discussion leveled a sweeping refutation of the of the Upaniṣadic theory of Ātman, Brahman Absolute or ‘The All is Brahman … this self of mine in the heart, that is Brahman’ ‘sarvam khalv idaṃ brahma … eṣa ma ātmāntar hṛdaye etad brahma’ (CU. III, 14:1 & 4). MN.22 was specifically punning on Yājñavalkya’s view in Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad, IV, 5.6.
With reference to this case example and others, K.R. Norman and R.F. Gombrich have soundly argued that the Buddha and his followers were well aware of the brāhmaṇa culture of the time, and that the attā he was refuting as nonexistent (asat) is the dogma of ātman just as we find it in the Upaniṣads. "
Well said.
February 5 at 1:44pm · Edited · Like
Soh "
the prevailing view then and still now is the atman is a little man some ware. This is not what atman means, its relationship to us is similar to thusness,"
Have you read what you quote to me above? It is not refuting the 'little man' or ego, it is refutation of an ultimate Upanishadic self.
'Thusness' have nothing to do with atman.
"
The three turnings end with a postulation that there is a something, I understand it comes late in his teachings. Not a little man in your head.."
The third turning talks about luminous clarity and qualities of a Buddha, but all these are understood as fundamentally empty, so there is no postulation of a real existent. The third turning is founded on the first two turnings, it includes them.
"
As stated by Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Let me speak loosely.
In Unbinding you are not conscious. Instead, (you) (are) Aware.
Unbinding is so direct, beyond notions of self and existence.
"
Now, I do not know whether Stian has a tendency to substantialize but it could very well be that he is substantializing Awareness subconsciously, or not (most often yes, until deep insight of twofold emptiness).
Nevertheless 'you are aware' is not postulating 'you exist as a changeless, independent Self'. There is nothing wrong with Awareness, it is simply empty of a changeless, independent Self. Therefore that particular statement by Stian is not really wrong. The 'you are' could be understood as convention, even 'Awareness' is to be understood as empty-convention. That 'Awareness' must be understood in terms of Bahiya Sutta, not as some background Witness, source or substratum, but as the very aggregates themselves.
February 5 at 1:57pm · Edited · Like
Soh "
I resonate with this pointing… However.. You… a little man, no, awareness biased on self, no, what then… a something… then give it an alternative name and call it atman.
"
Buddha's teaching does not only refute some egoic self.
In the Brahmajali Sutta, he refuted Sixty-Two types of self-view. One of them is the notion that all the thoughts and feelings and perceptions are impermanent, but Consciousness is unchanging:
"49. "In the fourth case, owing to what, with reference to what, are some honorable recluses and brahmins eternalists in regard to some things and non-eternalists in regard to other things, proclaiming the self and the world to be partly eternal and partly non-eternal?
"Herein, bhikkhus, recluse or a certain brahmin is a rationalist, an investigator. He declares his view — hammered out by reason, deduced from his investigations, following his own flight of thought — thus: 'That which is called "the eye," "the ear," "the nose," "the tongue," and "the body" — that self is impermanent, unstable, non-eternal, subject to change. But that which is called "mind" (citta) or "mentality" (mano) or "consciousness" (viññāṇa) — that self is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and it will remain the same just like eternity itself.'
"This, bhikkhus, is the fourth case."
And as you quoted to me:
"In the Alagaddūpama Sutta (MN.22), the Buddha framed a discussion with bhikkhus on a set of ‘six positions on views’ (chayimāni … diṭṭhiṭṭhānāni) that were held by the untaught commoner (assutavā puthujjano), and through this discussion leveled a sweeping refutation of the of the Upaniṣadic theory of Ātman, Brahman Absolute or ‘The All is Brahman … this self of mine in the heart, that is Brahman’ ‘sarvam khalv idaṃ brahma … eṣa ma ātmāntar hṛdaye etad brahma’ (CU. III, 14:1 & 4). MN.22 was specifically punning on Yājñavalkya’s view in Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad, IV, 5.6.
With reference to this case example and others, K.R. Norman and R.F. Gombrich have soundly argued that the Buddha and his followers were well aware of the brāhmaṇa culture of the time, and that the attā he was refuting as nonexistent (asat) is the dogma of ātman just as we find it in the Upaniṣads. "
February 5 at 1:55pm · Like
Robert Healion I will admit Soh that to argue this is difficult as ultimately it is pointless as to what the ultimate reality is, and the knowledge bases you have dwarfs mine. I do refute the concept of a self, however, Buddhism is resplendent with the concept of a something that experiences or as a temporary receptacle or holds.
February 5 at 8:01pm · Like
Soh My view and insight does not leave any traces of an 'ultimate reality' (paramatha satta), or any self-existing sort of reality.
As the Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñapāramitā Sutra states: "Nirvāṇa is an illusion. Even if there is anything greater than Nirvāṇa, that too will be only an illusion."
Even in Dzogchen, as Malcolm points out, even 'rigpa' (knowledge) is empty and illusory, also the basis is empty and illusory.
Consciousness has never been denied, but also it is never equated with a self/Self or an agent/knower/experiencer behind experience. As Thusness puts it before, the process (hearing/sound, seeing/sight, etc etc) itself rolls and knows, no knower is needed (or truly exists).
Furthermore in http://www.leighb.com/mn38.htm :
Then the Blessed One said: "Sati, is it true, that such an pernicious view has arisen to you. ‘As I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else’?"
"Yes, venerable sir, as I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else."
"Sati, what is that consciousness?"
"Venerable sir, it is that which feels and experiences, that which reaps the results of good and evil actions done here and there."
"Foolish man, to whom do you know me having taught the Dhamma like this. Haven’t I taught, in various ways that consciousness is dependently arisen. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet you, foolish man, on account of your wrong view, you misrepresent me, as well as destroy yourself and accumulate much demerit, for which you will suffer for a long time."
MN 38 - Longer Discourse on the Destruction of Craving
www.leighb.com
Once the Blessed One was living at Savatthi in Jeta's grove, Anathapindika's par...See More
February 5 at 9:05pm · Edited · Like · Remove Preview
Robert Healion I also agree with: My view and insight does not leave any traces of an 'ultimate reality' (paramatha satta), or any self-existing sort of reality. (for these to exist there has to be a substance for them to enact with.
As the Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñapāramitā Sutra states: "Nirvāṇa is an illusion. Even if there is anything greater than Nirvāṇa, that too will be only an illusion."
(Nirvana = blowing out, or end of the tendency of mind to grasp. A refutation of mind. Samsara is also refuted In this statement.)
Haven’t I taught, in various ways that consciousness is dependently arisen. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. (description of I-consciousness as evident from the explanation the preceded it. "Venerable sir, it is that which feels and experiences, that which reaps the results of good and evil actions done here and there.").
Consciousness has never been denied, but also it is never equated with a self/Self or an agent/knower/experiencer behind experience.
(Here there is a differentiation of consciousness, consciousness as I or as awareness. Distinction in the sense of physical/mental self, as opposed to a non-physical/mental)
As Thusness puts it before, the process (hearing/sound, seeing/sight, etc etc) itself rolls or knows, no knower is needed (or truly exists).
(These are senses and as such only exist in relation to a self.)
In the heart sutra it is I-consciousness that is negated. Awareness is a term I prefer, however to be aware is to have a viewer of this awareness. The analogy I use is wetness to be wet you are separate form the wetness, yet water whose nature is wet can never be aware of its wetness, (without separating itself form itself).
To refute everything is postulating a black emptiness, nihilistic reality. To cling to something is to identify a something. I see Buddha’s teaching in accord with avoidance of these two extremes. To postulate anything is for the ‘water to separate into something and wetness.’
Malcolm also made a similar statement recently: … dependent origination and emptiness. is just collateral damage."
I do not see The refutation of an ultimate self as collateral damage and I do not like the analogy of dependent origination in relation to emptiness apart from an aid in understanding. I see them emptiness and refutation, as core aspects of the teaching.
Dharma seal, to whom is the seal applied. All dharma’s are including the Buddha’s, empty of what, someone to read and understand them. To deny a realty and then to construct the self-same reality as a means of refutation is absurd. out of sequence..
The third turning talks about luminous clarity and qualities of a Buddha, but all these are understood as fundamentally empty, so there is no postulation of a real existent. The third turning is founded on the first two turnings, it includes them.
(So to whom is this luminous clarity, and what is a Buddha apart from the awakened one, If Buddha refuted the existence of an absolute self then he refutes these qualities.
And if this non-existence is underpinned by a series of qualities then it suddenly pops into existence.
So what I consider a core potion.
So Atman/self exists, but its nature is anatman/no-self. It's a description of the same paradox outlined in the heart sutra, emptiness is form, etc.
(parallel to non-dual, though to be non-dual implies a ‘wetness’ hence a faulty view of things. Emptiness implies a wetness, to escape this empty of empty, I have sighted this but not sure if it is textual. And finally can anything exist, well if it is defined as beyond existence then perhaps it can. But this illogical.)
However the statement: "This âtmà is truly existent beyond existence and non-existence.
This is truly non-dual beyond dual and non-dual.
This âtmà is the Great Thing (mahàvastu), which is permanent beyond permanent and impermanent, etc., etc.
It is empty of all qualities (nirguna), which means empty of foreign qualities, but not empty (of itself), i.e., not empty of being a truly existing permanent entity (sat); not empty of being non-dual coginition (cit), and not empty of bliss (ànanda). Sat-cit-ànanda is the nature of this âtmà (or non-dual cognition)."
(Is more slippery the a jellyfish, but if you are following Vedanta it is as real as a thusness)
…… secondary to the above.
Have you read what you quote to me above? It is not refuting the 'little man' or ego, it is refutation of an ultimate Upanishadic self.
(Yes and Buddha was aware of this, but, negating the argument; the common view is still and most probably the homology, and reading the above suggest Buddha was refuting the common view. Not all his teachings were based in the absolute. In fact if this argument was presented to him his response would be to question who is presenting the argument or simialr).
Vedanta is in essence a series of pointing at the self-absolute. Buddhism in its essence points to the deconstruction of that self-absolute, (Wonderful however in order to deconstruct this absolute self it cannot postulate a nihilistic reality. What then postulate a half empty to deny a half full. Or a visible, invisible thing to deny an invisible, visible thing)
Too me and to you the caution is from Haukin,
“Do not take a piece of solid emptiness and fix it firmly in the ground somewhere as a post for tethering argument’s and ideations too?”
February 5 at 10:35pm · Edited · Like
Robert Healion thanks for your responses however it is Late, and aware of thusness advice, good night...
February 5 at 10:37pm · Edited · Like
Soh "So to whom is this luminous clarity, and what is a Buddha apart from the awakened one, If Buddha refuted the existence of an absolute self then he refutes these qualities."
'To whom' is a wrong question based on a false assumption that a 'Self' or 'Agent' exists to which perception/experience occurs to. As I wrote: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/.../flawed-mode-of...
I have seen that when I say "awareness/luminosity is only everything", or "sensation is self-luminous", a doubt or question may arise in some. That questioner may ask then, "What is it that knows the experience of luminosity, but yet itself is never experienced"?
This question is not at all unfamiliar to me, I spent two years in the past practicing self inquiry day and night - who am I? Who is aware? Before birth what am I? Who is dragging this corpse along? To whom is this I-thought occuring? Who is the source? Etc etc (it all comes down to who is the source?). In fact self inquiry was vital for my self-realization (the realization of I AMness).
But there are two points to this:
1. One must realize that the current way of enquiry prevents the practitioner from intuitively realizing the non-arising nature of whatever arises.
The gnosis should not be understood this way such as "beyond", "changelessness", etc - understanding this way does not mean the practitioner realizes "something" superior; instead one is falling prey to his/her existing dualistic and inherent mode of enquiry rather than truly and directly pointing the way of immense intelligence.
2. The second point is that, when all enquiries and views are exhausted, how is it understood?
In other words, the way and system of enquiry already defined what you are going to experience. Therefore the mind must realize and see the futility of such mode of enquiry and any form of establishment.
This is why self inquiry is rejected by Buddha (though I advise it for beginners as it is a very potent, powerful, and direct path to Self-Realization, it is still a provisional method that has to be dropped later for further penetration into anatta, etc) as it is based on a not-so-hidden assumption that a self must exist, so the enquiry reinforces the sense of a subjective knower, it affects and prevents the complete experience of awareness.
As Buddha said in MN2: "And what are the ideas fit for attention that he does not attend to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen fermentation of sensuality does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of sensuality is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of becoming does not arise in him, and arisen fermentation of becoming is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of ignorance does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of ignorance is abandoned. These are the ideas fit for attention that he does not attend to. Through his attending to ideas unfit for attention and through his not attending to ideas fit for attention, both unarisen fermentations arise in him, and arisen fermentations increase.
"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'
"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress."
(Continued in URL)
Awakening to Reality: Flawed Mode of Enquiry
awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
February 5 at 10:45pm · Edited · Like · Remove Preview
Soh "Wonderful however in order to deconstruct this absolute self it cannot postulate a nihilistic reality. What then postulate a half empty to deny a half full. Or a visible, invisible thing to deny an invisible, visible thing"
Emptiness does not postulate a nihilistic reality. It is a non-affirming negation of any real existence.
"The great 11th Nyingma scholar Rongzom points out that only Madhyamaka accepts that its critical methodology "harms itself", meaning that Madhyamaka uses non-affirming negations to reject the positions of opponents, but does not resort to affirming negations to support a position of its own. Since Madhyamaka, as Buddhapalita states "does not propose the non-existence of existents, but instead rejects claims for the existence of existents", there is no true Madhyamaka position since there is no existent found about which a Madhyamaka position could be formulated; likewise there is no false Madhyamaka position since there is no existent found about which a Madhyamaka position could be rejected."
~ Malcolm
February 5 at 10:43pm · Like
Soh "
(These are senses and as such only exist in relation to a self.)
"
Nope. Anatta realization is that in sensing there is only self-luminous sensation without sensor. In feeling, just feeling without feeler. In seeing, just scenery without seer... etc etc
February 5 at 10:46pm · Like
Robert Healion Hunting rabbits with horns is not the same as chasing horny rabbits. I understand your argument Soh. however there has been is a pea under my matrass and it disturbs my sleep. Alas I console my self with the quote great doubt great enlightenment. Thank you for your tireless efforts...
February 6 at 5:03am · Like
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Robert said:
(...) to be aware is to have a viewer of this awareness. The analogy I use is wetness to be wet you are separate form the wetness, yet water whose nature is wet can never be aware of its wetness, (without separating itself form itself).
(...) To cling to something is to identify a something. I see Buddha’s teaching in accord with avoidance of these two extremes. To postulate anything is for the ‘water to separate into something and wetness.’
Yes
I read much good stuff on this group today. I want to point it out when I see it, but it's complicated and often devolve into long discussions, missing the simple essence.
Cessation is so empty that from the perspective of mind it is a total nonoccurrence*. When I recall cessation, it seems like a gap, a complete shutting off, "no one home"—so totally, you must understand, that it is as if it actually did not happen. A duration of complete unconscious black-out.
And it seems like that because it is like that. It is complete unconsciousness. But unconsciousness is *NOTHING* like what you think it is.
Consciousness as a state of continual conscious impression is kept alive only for so long as it is "fed its food". The food of consciousness is the complete range of your experiences. The variety and multiplicity of your everyday experience is just this consciousness when it is well-fed.
The range of experience, the All, are the senses, which are the sensory organs, sensory data and the ensuing consciousnesses.
In other words, consciousness is dependent on the fabrication (literally "making shit up") of objects in contradistinction to subjects.
Each and every minuscule conscious impression together equal the state of a sentient being.
The whole realm of conditioned phenomena, or simply phenomenallity or experience, is one object after the other deriving its identity by a sufficient set of objects which it is not, i.e. identity by exclusion. Objects, however, DO NOT derive their identity by some kind of self-sufficient mark evident in/on the object itself—which means that no such "itself" can be found.
Anyway, all this, while good insights, is only tangentially related to cessation. The discourse of emptiness can very quickly get way, way too discursive. The proof is in the pudding and the pudding is non-discursive, direct realization.
Back to the point:
In cessation one is not conscious—consciousness is a fully conditioned phenomena and cessation is unconditioned. One is not aware that one is aware, which echoes what Robert wrote. (In a sense one is only aware of awareness—that's a different formulation that needs different elaboration.)
This state is unconscious, disembodied, senseless and thoughtless. This is all clear-cut supported by the root definition of dependent origination.
But do not mistakenly believe that it is like being asleep or dead or like being blind, deaf, stupid etc.
___
* It is not correct to say that in cessation, 'mind' is absent, because in cessation notions like presence-and-absence are absent (which, as you can see, is paradoxical and demonstrates the limits of language). It seems better to say that it is "like fire unbound", but this suggests a something which, even though it is unbound, it must somehow *be* (i.e. present) so as to be unbound, and therefore it is not non-arisen, but real.
Words and concepts are totally defined only in relation to other words and concepts. This means that words and concepts are wholly dependent on other words and concepts. In other words, words and concepts are conditioned. And what is conditioned is totally "out-of-realm" with 'what' is unconditioned.
February 7 at 12:02am · Edited · Like · 1
Nicholas Mason That wasn't it.
February 6 at 11:54pm · Like
Nicholas Mason
Nicholas Mason's photo.
February 6 at 11:58pm · Like · 2
Nicholas Mason http://dharmaoverground.org/.../3153137;jsessionid...
If one thinks a full buddha is bound to a perception or to seeing the world a specific way, one is reducing the state of a buddha to the state of a deva or hearer. A full buddha or awareness-holder can visually see anything as anything, can hear anything as anything etc. Buddhas do not awake to a find non-dream, they awaken to find the dream-summit of lucidity and potentiality. There is no ultimate, real, and preset non-dream to escape to. This is the emptiness of experience. Therefor it is also referring to achievements such as mahaparinirvana etc. If experience were not empty on the subtlest level, then the practices related to controlling & emanating phenomena like vision would be impossible.
This subtlety is lost to course contemplatives who are bound by karmic traces to perceive a persistent, seemingly substantive hallucination. For average contemplatives only practicing for the sake of their own liberation, the emptiness of experience generally matters only in terms of removing suffering. Though if one merely reaches liberation from course & subtle suffering, do not project that the vision etc works the same as a full buddha/awareness-holder.
In other words, if one is unable to see a dog as a human, a human as a gorilla or skeleton etc, then one has not yet come close to the subtlest emptiness of experience. Let alone actually accomplished & stabilized it (thus one absolutely still has karmic traces). If one cannot reach even minor distortions in one's experience, vajra hairs, basic 2-d lattices and symbols, etc then one has not even begun exposing the mind to the platonic superpositions/emptiness of experience available.
February 7 at 5:09am · Like · 2
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Indeed, Nicholas. In my comment I'm specifically describing cessation.
February 8 at 12:49am · Like · 1
No comments:
Post a Comment