Thursday, February 20, 2014

Nirvana, Brahman, Compassion

Ram Jayaram
everything being impermanent, why seek nirvana?
- and a related question:
if nothing is permanent/absolute, where is 'the end of suffering' except from a pervasive principle?
Like · · February 16 at 4:11am

    Stuffs RedTurtle and Sruthi Narayanan like this.
    Ram Jayaram (I came across these sensible questions in another group)
    February 16 at 4:12am · Like
    Stuffs RedTurtle That's a good question
    Is nirvana impermanent, or is everything impermanent only in samsara?
    February 16 at 4:31am · Like
    Stuffs RedTurtle I think you pass into Nirvana with no more becoming if I'm not mistaken.
    February 16 at 4:32am · Like
    Stuffs RedTurtle Soh?
    February 16 at 4:36am · Like
    Robert Healion "As I study both the exoteric and the esoteric schools of Buddhism, they maintain that human beings are endowed with Dharma-nature by birth. If this is the case, why did the Buddhas of all ages — undoubtedly in possession of enlightenment — find it necessary to seek enlightenment and engage in spiritual practice?"
    “Practice is enlightenment, enlightenment is practice”
    February 16 at 4:56am · Like · 2
    Stuffs RedTurtle Wisdom is obscured by opinions and preferences?
    February 16 at 5:08am · Like · 1
    Robert Healion the above is Dogen quote which is almost the flip side of the OP. it also add Zen to the group. lol
    February 16 at 5:11am · Like · 1
    Tom Radcliffe All CONDITIONED things are impermanent - Nirvana is the unconditioned. The end of suffering is the ceasing of attachment to CONDITIONED things. It is not a choice to seek or not to seek. All beings seek the end of suffering. Those who have awakened the Way Seeking Mind are conscious of their seeking and that it is the cause of their suffering. As they observe the transience of CONDITIONED things their attachment to them wanes and finally the 'mind' leaps for the unconditioned - Nirvana. It is easy to SAY things are impermanent but the EXPERIENCE of impermanence at depth is shattering - hence the controlled approach in meditation.
    February 16 at 5:30am · Like · 4
    Tom Radcliffe Have a look at the meaning of 'conditioned things' - the aggregates. Look at the meaning of Nirvana - to extinguish.
    February 16 at 5:40am · Edited · Like · 1
    Robert Healion To study the Way is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be enlightened by all things of the universe. To be enlightened by all things of the universe is to cast off the body and mind of the self as well as those of others. Even the traces of enlightenment are wiped out, and life with traceless enlightenment goes on forever and ever. also Dogen
    February 16 at 5:40am · Like · 2
    C Karen Stopford Who said nothing was absolute?
    February 16 at 5:42am · Like
    Tom Radcliffe Yes, I absolutely love this quote and often quote it myself.
    February 16 at 5:42am · Like
    Tom Radcliffe Yes, good point! Who said nothing was absolute Ram?
    February 16 at 5:43am · Like
    Robert Healion apparently Buddhist agree that there is no permanence and no absolute.
    February 16 at 5:44am · Like
    Robert Healion the anatman of the atman
    February 16 at 5:44am · Like
    Soh As Daniel puts it,

    "...Nibbana involves a habitual misperception that no longer occurs.

    Things that happen can't be sustained indefinitely, but things that no longer happen can continue to never happen again."
    February 16 at 5:46am · Like · 1
    Tom Radcliffe We agree on impermanence of conditioned things. However Nirvana is the unconditioned, the deathless, the changeless - the f--king absolute if you want to use that word instead. It cannot be described therefore it is better to examine apparent objects until the background is seen.
    February 16 at 5:47am · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon Though it is not that there is indeed an unconditioned nirvana which abides apart from conditioned phenomena. The 'unconditioned' is merely knowledge of the actual nature of 'conditioned' phenomena. Phenomena [dharmins] are themselves, in essence, unconditioned, their unconditioned nature is their dharmatā.

    The perception of conditioned phenomena only arises as a result of ignorance about the nature of the appearances which are mistaken for conditioned entities. Once their nature is recognized it is then intimately seen that the 'conditioned' has always truly been 'unconditioned'.
    February 16 at 5:47am · Like · 5
    Robert Healion Mind like fire unbound is the dharma talk, good read free on the web, written by a fellow leaky sack
    February 16 at 5:48am · Like
    Tom Radcliffe Once the background is seen there is a tendency to deny objects until it is seen that the background and the objects are one.
    February 16 at 5:48am · Like · 1
    Soh The 'background' is not what Nirvana is, at least in the Buddha's definition.
    February 16 at 5:48am · Like · 1
    Robert Healion What constitutes background
    February 16 at 5:49am · Like
    Soh Also the "the background and the objects are one." is not the realization of anatta. In realization of anatta, you realize there never was a background, background is a reification of a foreground manifestation. There is no background separate or inseparable from the foreground.
    February 16 at 5:51am · Edited · Like · 3
    Robert Healion Using the description of nirvana as mind fire no longer grasping, then the background would be the relative causal conditioning, the tenancies of he mind are no longer being driven by the conditioned response. Now the background and the objects are one. the orange is just an orange. then what is the point in the question what is this, referencing an orange
    February 16 at 5:57am · Like
    Kyle Dixon In this same theme (of the conditioned and unconditioned being nondual), nirvana is the exhaustion of one's ignorance regarding the nature of phenomena. So nirvana is described as a cessation, and what ceases is cause for the further arising and proliferation of delusion regarding the nature of phenomena.

    For this reason, nirvana is said to be 'permanent', because due to the exhaustion of cause for the further proliferation of samsara, samsara no longer has any way to arise. However nirvana is also a conventional designation which is only relevant in relation to the delusion of samsara which has been exhausted, and so nirvana is nothing real that exists in itself either. Neither samsara nor nirvana can be found outside of the mind.

    As Nāgārjuna states:
    "Neither samsara nor nirvana exist;
    instead, nirvana is the thorough knowledge of samsara"

    Tsele Natsok Rangdrol states:
    "You might ask, 'Why wouldn't confusion reoccur as before, after... [liberation has occured]?" This is because no basis [foundation] exists for its re-arising. Samantabhadra's liberation into the basis [wisdom] itself and the yogi liberated through practicing the path are both devoid of any basis [foundation] for reverting back to becoming a cause, just like a person who has recovered from a plague or the fruit of the se tree."

    He then states that the se tree is a particular tree which is poisonous to touch, causing blisters and swelling. However once recovered, one is then immune.

    Lopon Tenzin Namdak also explains this principle of immunity:
    "Anyone who follows the teachings of the Buddhas will most likely attain results and purify negative karmic causes. Then that person will be like a man who has caught smallpox in the past; he will never catch it again because he is immune. The sickness of Samsara will never come back. And this is the purpose of following the teachings."
    February 16 at 6:06am · Edited · Unlike · 7
    Ram Jayaram The 'conditioned things' that Tom refers to is based on Samskara, a concept borrowed from Hinduism (no surprise there!). It also refers to the habitual terminologies and ideas that one is used to.. and in a recursive way the buddhist concepts like samsara, nibbana etc etc are themselves part of the same samskara. Therein lies the conundrum that if examined carefully will reveal the hollowness of the core of buddhist philosophy.
    February 16 at 6:00am · Like
    Robert Healion wonderful Kyle and I agree fully.
    February 16 at 6:07am · Edited · Like
    Mardava Christian Palocz Nirvana is also impermanent and empty hence you stop seeking and stay with what is. Since samsara and nirvana are impermanent and empty you stop the wheel of samsara with attachment to nirvana and aversion to samsara realizing the emptiness of both. In this manner also the duality between them is nirvanized, the buddha mind realized and you can have a cup of tea.
    February 16 at 6:05am · Edited · Like · 1
    Steven Rossi The Limitless Plain Is Better Than The Caverns Of Vega
    February 16 at 6:06am · Like
    Robert Healion If nirvana is cessation why would it be also impermanent
    February 16 at 6:06am · Like
    Robert Healion The Limitless Plain Is Better Than The Caverns Of Vega????? Sorry not star wars forum
    February 16 at 6:07am · Like · 1
    Mardava Christian Palocz Because nothing is permanent unless it would have ultimate existence.
    February 16 at 6:08am · Like
    Robert Healion Now the loop logic starts, this is of course conditional and where all including me grasp the relative...
    February 16 at 6:09am · Like · 1
    Mardava Christian Palocz Lets not make it loopy and lets just clarify if we can.
    February 16 at 6:11am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Ram, your idea that samsara and nirvana being concepts themselves, somehow negates what they represent is inaccurate, and is not taking the nature of conventions into consideration. The fact that samsara and nirvana are conventions does not mean they are arbitrary or that liberation isn't something that occurs. On top of that, your premise is missing the point of what nirvana or liberation implies.
    February 16 at 6:11am · Like · 3
    Ram Jayaram yes, i do negate the reality of nirvana (as against samsara)
    February 16 at 6:13am · Like
    Mardava Christian Palocz The dichotomy of samsara nirvana is total dual logic. If we put them in the nagarjunic logic we blow away concepts and we are left seeing clearly.
    February 16 at 6:16am · Edited · Like
    Ram Jayaram this is the biggest hoax that's been perpetrated on humanity, not dissimilar to the concept of god in other religions
    February 16 at 6:13am · Like
    Mardava Christian Palocz Not a hoax a refined way to liberation.
    February 16 at 6:14am · Like
    Ram Jayaram and what is liberation? liberation from what?
    February 16 at 6:16am · Like
    Mardava Christian Palocz Samsara
    February 16 at 6:16am · Like
    Mardava Christian Palocz Hahhha
    February 16 at 6:17am · Like
    Robert Healion Yes ram remove a god and replace it with a philosophy. the primate brain is only good for conceptual reasoning, hence the substitution. but this is also covered in buddas responses, all is impermanence.
    February 16 at 6:18am · Like
    Michael Zaurov Ram, I have to ask again since you did not respond last time I asked. Why do you continue to participate in this dharma discussion group if you disagree with the dharma? You don't seem to have much of an open mind, so are you just here for entertainment or what?
    February 16 at 6:20am · Edited · Like
    Mardava Christian Palocz Liberation is also empty and impermanent.
    February 16 at 6:20am · Like
    Robert Healion Michael your statement suggests that the dharma is permanent and absolute. secondly if you are going to close this group to dissention then your will all turn into nodding parrots, shankrs story of the parrots
    February 16 at 6:21am · Like · 1
    Ram Jayaram i find it amazing that people actually believe in all these made-up things! using philosophical terminlogy, ontology (i.e. the words/concepts you use) bring to reality their existence. This is what happens when you pick up these terms like samsara, nirvana etc and then go running with them
    February 16 at 6:22am · Like
    Ram Jayaram michael, do you have any clue as to what dharma is?
    February 16 at 6:23am · Like
    Michael Zaurov Robert, I am not an admin, nor do I have any interest in closing this group to dissension. I just find it odd that there is a member here who refers to the dharma as a hoax, a made up thing. I just wonder what motivates Ram to post here, that's all.
    February 16 at 6:23am · Like
    Robert Healion And ram what is atman but a made up thing. it matters little who runs around with these aspects, all they do is kick up dust. However but just may be possibly in the dust cloud something may take shape...
    February 16 at 6:24am · Like
    Ram Jayaram the ability to ask fundamental questions is basic to dharma
    February 16 at 6:24am · Like
    Ram Jayaram otherwise it becomes a cult
    February 16 at 6:24am · Like
    Michael Zaurov I think there is a difference between asking fundamental questions and calling the teachings of Buddha a hoax. The latter is pretty insulting and does not create a positive environment for discussing the dharma.
    February 16 at 6:25am · Like
    Robert Healion dharma is a hoax... all dharmas are empty
    February 16 at 6:25am · Like · 2
    Robert Healion Michael Buddha himself also stated test ever trust never.
    February 16 at 6:29am · Like
    Ram Jayaram i gave arguments to support my statement.. go ahead and challenge them.
    February 16 at 6:29am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Ram, you are simultaneously inaccurately objectifying samsara and nirvana due to misunderstanding their implications, and then also negating them altogether due to misunderstanding the implications (and nature) of conventional designations in the context of the dharma.

    But it is starting to become clear why you are opposed to these things, if I misinterpreted them the way you do I would also think they made no sense.
    February 16 at 6:33am · Edited · Unlike · 6
    Ram Jayaram in an earlier thread i suggested to stay away from pali/sanskri/etc words and discuss the gist in plain english. what is samsara and what is nirvana - in plain english please!
    February 16 at 6:33am · Like
    Ram Jayaram and please, no copy-paste, use your own words
    February 16 at 6:34am · Like
    Kyle Dixon I have been using my own words.
    February 16 at 6:37am · Like
    Ram Jayaram catch you guys tomorrow... i am taking part in a half-marathon, so better go to bed.
    February 16 at 6:42am · Like · 1
    Michael Zaurov Robert, I was referring to 'dharma' as the teachings of the buddha. Of course the dharma is empty, but that doesn't mean it is a hoax.

    "Etymologically, the word Dhamma (Sanskrit: Dharma) is derived from the root "dham," meaning "to uphold" or "to support," and the commentary further explains that it is that which upholds or supports the practitioner (of Dhamma) and prevents him or her from falling into states of misery or birth in a woeful existence."
    February 16 at 6:44am · Like
    Robert Healion Michael it was not Buddhist dharma logic you were using to challenge ram with, you were using Buddhist dharma logic to justify your position.
    February 16 at 6:47am · Like
    Michael Zaurov Robert, I have no clue what you are talking about.
    February 16 at 6:52am · Like
    Robert Healion Mardava “The dichotomy of samsara nirvana is total dual logic. If we put them in the nagarjunic logic we blow away concepts and we are left seeing clearly.”

    Interesting and true

    when a frog at the end of a well look at the sky it sees a round globe of light. imagining it to be the pristine unconditioned absolute it croaks something…. . then the confusion begins. This is what nargarjuna is blowing away, a conceptual concept based on a self

    Ending a grasping mind ends this concept as much as lust anger and other conceptual understanding. If what is left has a conceptual understandings then it is not ended.

    I also agree with Kyles logic however as rational as his explanation is it lacks a clear answer to ‘what is this’ , referencing an orange. Which can’t be answered with conceptual referencing

    This paradox of words is a labyrinth similar to quicksand the more you struggle the faster you sink.. the concept of zen is to smash the concepts by smashing through to the underlying substrate in which there is no you no I, the concept of nirvana is an attainment and a practice… with that attainment there is no concepts, no you no I.

    Even the question what is this is conceptual, pointing at the non-existent centre. An answer would need to negate the object as well as a the questioner as a concept, thus you get answers like ‘pulling the boat to shore, the fisherman casts his nets’.
    February 16 at 6:56am · Like · 1
    Steven Rossi 1stBestBudhaContinuousPotential,Nagarjuna,Vasubandhu,Dr Kumarajiva,Tien Tai,Nichiren Is The Heritage Of Budhism
    February 16 at 6:58am · Like
    Robert Healion steven hard to understand you, are you trying to ask a question. or just trying to be trying.
    February 16 at 7:04am · Edited · Like
    Steven Rossi Have You Read The Works Of These Sages?
    February 16 at 7:05am · Like
    Robert Healion some nagarjuna a long time ago. not an expert on Buddhism others here are.
    February 16 at 7:07am · Like
    Steven Rossi Well You Read The Right Thing Then
    February 16 at 7:08am · Like
    Robert Healion My advice for what its worth, is to formulate your question and then post. thank those who respond and if your opinion is different do not attack, ask for clarification. oblique statements tend to ignored as background noise.
    February 16 at 7:11am · Like
    Steven Rossi Hmmmm
    February 16 at 7:14am · Like
    Robert Healion a frog went a walking on a summers day a hmmmm a hmmmm
    February 16 at 7:23am · Like · 1
    Robert Healion time to croak out of here a hmmmm a hmmmm
    February 16 at 7:24am · Like · 1
    Steven Rossi You Know Nagarjuna Was A Lotus Sutra Budhist?
    February 16 at 7:25am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Ram, it is one thing to negate the inherent reality (or validity) of nirvana in relation to samsara, and yet another thing entirely to negate the conventional validity of samsara and nirvana (in the context of the praxis of the buddhadharma).

    The inherency of bondage and liberation must be understood as invalid through direct insight. Negating them preemptively, as in throwing them out altogether is not understanding the intention and meaning behind the teaching. Such conclusions cause a total negation of the means which are applied in order to actualize liberation as a living knowledge.

    What are samsara and nirvana? Samsara is caused by ignorance regarding the nature of phenomena and the subsequent proliferation of habitual patterns which result from that ignorance. So samsara is a species of delusion which is a perpetual misunderstanding of the nature of oneself and phenomena. As a result of this misunderstanding, myriad afflictions arise in the form of tendencies which sustain and further solidify the initial delusion which causes them. This conditioning becomes so thorough and fortified that the very notion of (i) it even being conditioning, and (ii) the prospect that it is possible to see through this conditioning, both appear to be nothing more than fanciful notions. The vast majority of individuals going through their whole lives taking the projections of their conditioned perception as valid, experiencing gain and loss and attempting to find happiness or fulfillment in their confusion. And so they suffer.

    Nirvana on the other hand, is the result of an accurate knowledge regarding the nature of phenomena, and due to this correct understanding, the entire structure of fabricated conditioning (which relied upon ignorance as its foundation) collapses. The accurate knowledge of oneself and phenomena is therefore nothing more than an absence of ignorance, and without the presence of ignorance, the cause for the proliferation of affliction is removed. Nirvana is therefore a cessation of ignorance, which in turn is a cessation of cause for the arising of 'samsara'.

    This 'accurate knowledge' of the nature of phenomena is possible because phenomena are empty by nature. The very perception of conditioned phenomenal persons, places, things (which can either exist or not-exist), is the result of misunderstanding the nature of appearance, and thus perceiving phenomena to be real. Perceiving persons, places, things, and so on, to have an essential core or essence which makes them what they are. When this misunderstanding is seen through, and the resultant habitual tendencies which arose from that delusion are likewise seen through, then there is an exhaustion, an unbinding, a release, an extinguishing, a liberation, a cessation... that is nirvana.

    So the correct understanding of phenomena, reveals that phenomena (as misperceived via ignorance) have never occurred in the way one's ignorance made them appear. And so it is seen that there has never been anything which was bound, nor anything which required liberation. That seeing reveals the unreality of samsara and nirvana, and the definitive and living freedom from samsara [bondage] and nirvana [liberation] is itself liberation.
    February 16 at 8:03am · Edited · Like · 4
    Steven Rossi What Do You Think Of The Lotus Sutra?
    February 16 at 8:05am · Like · 1
    Tom Radcliffe Samskaras are material, feeling, perception, volition and consciousness to be precise.
    February 16 at 9:06am · Like
    Tom Radcliffe Yes Ram - it is all made up. That's right. We have to use words to communicate.
    February 16 at 9:08am · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon The path is only known to have been an illusion from the standpoint of the result. The result is equally illusory.

    Yet if the illusory path is not traversed then the illusory result is not attained.

    This is why it is said there is no basis, path or result, nevertheless a basis, path and result are taught. And the illusion like teacher gives the illusion like teaching to bring about illusion like liberation.
    February 16 at 9:23am · Like · 7
    Stuffs RedTurtle Not illusory as in fake
    But everything is illusory correct?
    February 16 at 9:24am · Like
    Stuffs RedTurtle Saying it's fake, to me, absolutely wrong
    February 16 at 9:24am · Like · 1
    Stuffs RedTurtle Definitely a real path, real liberation, just no person to be liberated and also this whole damn universe is an illusion
    After what I found yesterday from the Jianist and Buddhist cosmos, no one would be able to convince me otherwise; samsara is a bad place
    February 16 at 9:28am · Like
    Stuffs RedTurtle Important to be free from it
    Even if we never go anywhere
    February 16 at 9:30am · Edited · Like
    Kyle Dixon It is both. 'Illusory' means apparent yet unreal. The attainment is non-attainment, it is the direct apperception that the very factors the process is predicated upon are thoroughly unreal.

    That does not negate the attainment though, because that falling away and cessation is itself the liberating insight which brings about release.

    So these paradoxes must be understood correctly, because otherwise the mind can attempt to grasp at this notion, which only results in nihilism, and no liberation occurs.

    Merely deciding the factors the path is predicated upon are invalid is not wisdom. Skillful means [upāya] is crucial.
    February 16 at 9:45am · Like · 4
    Kyle Dixon It also isn't that there is no person to be liberated, but that there is an end to delusion through proper discernment and wisdom insight.

    The self is simply a convention, it isn't anything which can exist or not exist. The person is nothing that has arisen in the first place, and therefore it isn't something which can cease. It is empty, meaning; free from extremes, non-arisen, unborn.

    In the buddhadharma there is only ignorance or wisdom.
    February 16 at 9:57am · Like · 2
    Stuffs RedTurtle Sorry, "person"= self
    February 16 at 10:06am · Like
    Stuffs RedTurtle I forget people can't tell what I'm insinuating
    February 16 at 10:06am · Like
    Kyle Dixon No worries I understood. 'Self' and 'person' are synonymous terms in the way I was using them too.
    February 16 at 10:21am · Like
    Mardava Christian Palocz Samsara and Nirvana are not two. It is the mind that goes from extreme to extreme, and if it hears it is not two it imagines or concludes it is one. Nonduality negates their difference, and this doesn't mean they are the same. Madhyamika would avoid either extreme.
    February 16 at 10:40am · Like
    C Karen Stopford Or perhaps emptiness at the core?
    February 16 at 10:42am · Like · 1
    Stuffs RedTurtle Ok, now I just realized I'm am the knowing...
    February 16 at 11:24am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Mardava, they are non-dual, because the conditioned and the unconditioned are non-dual [advaya]. The unconditioned nature [dharmatā] of a given phenomenon [dharmin] is naturally implied due to the fact that there is nothing which isn't empty. It is only ignorance of the nature of phenomena which gives rise to grasping and reification, causing the apparent phenomenon to take on the guise of being a conditioned phenomenal entity.

    So samsara and nirvana are non-dual, because when the definitive nature of samsara is recognized, it is intimately known that it only ever seemed to arise as a result of ignorance, and indeed was precisely ignorance. When that ignorance ceases, then there is correct knowledge and wisdom is made apparent.

    Important to define 'non-dual' accurately in the context of the buddhadharma. Samsara and nirvana are 'non-dual' [advaya] because the conditioned [relative nature] and the unconditioned [ultimate nature] are simply the incorrect or correct cognition of the same thing or appearance. So this is different than non-dual as non-duality [advaita]. Advaya and advaita both mean 'non-dual', however both are drastically different. Non-dual in the context of the buddhadharma is advaya, non-dual in the context of sanātanadharma and traditions of that ilk, is advaita.
    February 16 at 11:28am · Edited · Like
    Kyle Dixon I would be careful Stuffs, 'I am the knowing' is considered to be true in Hindu Vedanta and trika traditions, however would not be true according to the buddhadharma.
    February 16 at 11:29am · Like
    Stuffs RedTurtle The knowing is a sense, yes?
    February 16 at 11:31am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Knowing' isn't a sense in and of itself, there may be sensations which are associated with the knowing, such as tactile sensations which are usually attributed to the feeling of presence and so on. However the knowing in itself is not really a sense.

    The factor of knowing appears as mind [skt. citta, tib. sems] for sentient beings, and then appears as wisdom [skt. jñāna, tib. ye shes] for buddhas. In either case though it is not said that one 'is' the knowing, because for buddhism there is nothing that we truly are. Though at the same time it is important to discover what our nature truly is.
    February 16 at 11:41am · Like
    Stuffs RedTurtle Not as in a sense like eye sight, but a sense of knowing, like knowing a sensation, I am definitely aware of a sensation with my feet on the floor
    February 16 at 11:44am · Like
    Stuffs RedTurtle But because I am this knowing not the body's component parts, it's not my sensation, just a sensation
    February 16 at 11:45am · Like
    Stuffs RedTurtle Pain still sucks though, but I know what sufferring is has a whole new meaning, now I see why Buddha taught it first
    February 16 at 11:51am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Stuffs, other systems, philosophies and traditions may agree that you are the knowing, for example the other group you posted in does posit a 'knowing-known'. Even though Buddhism does not, other places will, so you may get contradictory answers and it's important to be mindful of the fact that there are lots of different views out there. Which is nice, variety is the spice of life, but you'll have to find what resonates with you and what doesn't. There are many different paths, and while not all end up in the same place, as long as there is suffering being alleviated in one form or another it is all good.
    February 16 at 12:14pm · Like · 1
    Stuffs RedTurtle No it's not thier view: I reached deep into the pit of my soul so to speak deep down in my intuition, into my gut, into what I know.
    I thought about it when I said
    "I forget that people don't know what I am insinuating" and I found who that "who" is, who knows what "I" mean. It's not the individual, nor necessarily God, but it's who knows
    February 16 at 12:19pm · Like · 1
    Stuffs RedTurtle The cessation of stress, that is a big clue to who the cessation of stress it's for; not the person Steph, geez
    February 16 at 12:39pm · Like
    Michael Zaurov Stuffs RedTurtle, have you read Sohs ebook? Particularly the chapter on I AM might be useful for you right now
    February 16 at 12:49pm · Edited · Like · 1
    Stuffs RedTurtle Ok I'll go over it again
    February 16 at 12:57pm · Like
    Robert Healion " Steven Rossi You Know Nagarjuna Was A Lotus Sutra Budhist? What Do You Think Of The Lotus Sutra?"

    I assume you are refereeing to nagarjuna has came to clear misconceptions on the part of emptiness. As such the strength of this teachings he has been referred to as the second Buddha. as for the lotus sutra I am fond of the short form. I have never read the longer form as lacking in time. As such I can not compare apart for a few quotes here and there.

    From Wiki 'The Lotus Sūtra also indicates (in Chapter 4) that emptiness (śūnyatā) is not the ultimate vision to be attained by the aspirant Bodhisattva: the attainment of Buddha Wisdom is indicated to be a bliss-bestowing treasure that transcends seeing all as merely empty or merely labeled.'
    February 16 at 12:58pm · Like · 1
    Stuffs RedTurtle Will you link it Michael? I don't think I am everything, but if I am anything, it's the knowing
    If the I am presence is just a sensation, because the knowing isn't the thought producer, they are dependently originated then that's cool
    February 16 at 1:06pm · Like
    Michael Zaurov
    February 16 at 1:14pm · Like
    Robert HealionKyle Dixon Mardava, they are non-dual, because the conditioned and the unconditioned are non-dual [advaya]. The unconditioned nature [dharmatā] of a given phenomenon [dharmin] is naturally implied due to the fact that there is nothing which isn't empty. It is only ignorance of the nature of phenomena which gives rise to grasping and reification, causing the apparent phenomenon to take on the guise of being a conditioned phenomenal entity.’

    Advaya not- two or non-dual is an expression which is as all concepts, rooted in the conditioned, though it is not pointing at conditioned phenomena. That would be the same as positing emptiness as an external factor as it exists and is empty. Non dual is posting a not two, not one. Conceptually it does not exist.

    The misconception of non-dual arises over the misconception of atman. As a small man behind the consciousness it is false; as a concept analogous to luminous mind or thusness etc is closer to the truth. Dose the atman exist only in so much as emptiness exist.

    The desire to attain Buddha hood is a form of monism. If you state there are many Buddha’s and you take your place you are in dualism. The western land, hoping I got that direction right, is postulating a palace or concept. If you state there is nothing then you are in nihilism. Non-dual is an apparent escape from that . However posting a ‘ism’ is also a misconception.

    Considering two systems of thought superimposing alternative descriptions of the same attainment. Can you compare, not necessarily. As the conditioned mind will refer back to familiar ground and find error. Best to stay in familiar ground.
    February 16 at 1:20pm · Like
    Soh Stuff RedTurtle: What is sensation in relation to knowing? Do you feel that knowing is separate from sensation as a background, or is sensation contained in that knowing, or is sensation self-knowing, or..?

    Also what is the realization and experience of 'knowing' exactly like?
    February 16 at 1:36pm · Edited · Like · 1
    Robert Healion Now postulating something else beyond emptiness is pointless. Though postulating all concepts including emptiness is false, using the arbitrary expedient means to explain emptiness as a doctrine is allowable.

    So then is also allowable to have a conditional posting of Buddha as an object of devotion, if so can one not postulate Bahaman or Shiva or Krishna provided they are conditional on an understanding that they do not exist. As a stepping stone to cross delusion.
    February 16 at 1:36pm · Like · 1
    Soh Ram: If you are genuinely interested in what Nirvana is, it can't be better expressed than in - scroll down halfway

    Nirvana is the termination of passion, aggression and delusion. But that article has much more to say about it.
    Awakening to Reality: Great Resource of Buddha's Teachings
    very interesting articlesomewhat reminds me of u.g. krishnamurtis talkse.g. talk...See More
    February 16 at 1:41pm · Like · 1 · Remove Preview
    Robert Healion This concept a ‘description of the non-existence non-permanent non-absolute’. Is also conditional. It has to be otherwise we are descending into as Malcolm states lala Buddha land.

    Who describes it who reads it. Vedanta has a very clear teaching, to describe the tagged ‘absolute’ requires silence. Al l conditional descriptions are inaccurate. I suspect your logic is heading the same way. However, croak croak looking up out of the well of conditional phenomena what do you see, a small round luminous… not the absolute.
    February 16 at 1:42pm · Like
    Stuffs RedTurtle The sensation doesn't seem to be separate from the knowing of it , I'll have to look at this more thanks Soh, doesn't seem to be an I in the middle of any of those sense impressions though, just that they are there and they are known
    February 16 at 1:46pm · Edited · Like
    Stuffs RedTurtle Like an endless succession of them
    February 16 at 1:46pm · Like
    Stuffs RedTurtle But like the knowing is a sense of knowing; like above I am aware of intention
    February 16 at 1:48pm · Like
    Stuffs RedTurtle Craving and other mental continuum too
    February 16 at 1:48pm · Like
    Robert Healion This is an interesting article on nirvana by a Thanissaro Bhikkhu a forest tradition based on explanations within there linage.

    ‘Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu, also known as Ajaan Geoff (born 1949), is an American Theravada Buddhist monk of the Dhammayut Order (Dhammayutika Nikaya), Thai forest kammatthana tradition. He is currently the abbot of Metta Forest Monastery in San Diego County. Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu is a notably skilled and prolific translator of the Pāli Canon.[1] He is also the author of many free Dhamma books.[2]’
    February 16 at 1:48pm · Like
    Kyle Dixon Robert, here is some info on advaya from Acharya Mahayogi Sridhar Rana Rinpoche:

    "So here too we can find two different parameters for two different paradigms using similar words. Now let us investigate some of the Sanskrit words shared by both paradigms. One word that has created great confusion is 'non- dualism'. First of all, Hindu Vedanta is Advaita, and Madhyamika, Advaya. Even though they are sometimes used interchangeably by both systems, their meanings are, as used in the two paradigms, different. In Hindu Vedanta, 'non dualism' (advaita) means 'one without a second' (dvitiyam nasti) as interpreted by Sankara Chandogya Upanishad. Also Chandogya 6.2.1 states very clearly ‘Sad eva….Asid ekam eva advitiyam,’ that is ‘the one and only really existent (sat), the only one, one without a second.’ The Chandogya Upanishad predates the Buddha by a couple of centuries- many scholars place it between 800BC and 1200BC. What does this mean? That there is only Brahman, which really exists and nothing else really exists. In other words, the world does not exist at all, it is only an illusion. The true English word for this is 'Monism', which according to the Webster Dictionary is ‘the view that there is only one kind of ultimate substance.’ Swami Vivekanda himself uses the exact word 'Monism' for his Advaita Vedanta (The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Volume 3, Buddhistic India). Since, as we have already seen, there isn’t any kind of ultimate substance according to the Madhyamika Buddhism, the meaning of advaya (non-dualism) cannot be like in Hinduism.

    The Madhyamika scriptures very clearly define Advaya as ‘dvaya anta mukta’, that is ‘free from the two extremes’ of existing and non-existing. The extremes are the extreme of eternalism (saswatanta) to which the Hindu Vedantic Atman-Brahman fall (the Buddhist Tathagatagarbha is not a synonym for the Hindu Atman-Brahman and should not fall into this category. Therefore it should not be interpreted as really existing (sat). On the contrary according to the Pragyaparamita Sutras and in the interpretation of the Yogeshwar Virupa, Tathagatagarbha is a synonym for emptiness), and Nihilism (ucchedanta) into which many materialistic systems like Charvak fall. But it goes deeper. Non dual knowledge (advaya jnana) is the state of mind which is soteriologically free from grasping at the two extremes of knowing in terms of 'is' and 'is not' and is itself ontologically free from 'existing' or 'non existing' (which is the same as saying it is empty). Because it is non conceptual (avikalpa), free from conceptual proliferation (nisprapancha), beyond thoughts (acintya), inexpressible (unabhilapya) and free from the four extremes (chatuskoti vinirmukta), it is the true meaning of emptiness."
    February 16 at 1:59pm · Like · 1
    Justin Struble "Ram: If you are genuinely interested in what Nirvana is, it can't be better expressed than in - scroll down halfway

    Nirvana is the termination of passion, aggression and delusion. But that article has much more to say about it."

    That is a very good treatment:

    "the recognition of cessation"


    "the recognition of release"

    from here:

    for me both of those articles are pointing EXACTLY to the same "release" that thanissaro covers in chapter 7 of his book "the paradox of becoming" ..

    February 16 at 2:40pm · Like · 1
    John Tan Sometimes I wonder why must the topic frequently oscillate between emptiness and preserving an indestructible essence.

    Perhaps after experiencing the boundless brilliance, the aliveness, we feel deep down we must somehow exist in a true, solid and substantial way. The more we experience our radiance clarity, the more difficult for us to let go. This I understand. Maybe we should channel some bits of our time and energy towards understanding the relationship between compassion and emptiness.

    When watching Garchen Rinpoche movie that Piotr sent me, it seems that to Garchen Rinpoche, nothing matters more than sentient beings. Whether there “is or isn’t” an essence seems to be a non-issue; if there is, he would joyfully and generously sacrifice for the benefits of sentient beings when needed. This is what I gathered from the movie.

    I am beginning to see why Nagarjuna asserted that emptiness is the womb of compassion.

    I am beginning to understand without the awakening of Boddhichitta, there is no true realization of emptiness.

    I am beginning to see why Boddhichitta and wisdom are the cause of Buddhahood.

    May Boddhichitta be awaken in our authentic mindstreams.

    Homage to Boddhichitta.
    February 16 at 6:31pm · Edited · Unlike · 10
    Viorica Doina Neacsu Beautiful comment John Tan! Thank you

    It was amazing to realize that because of "emptiness" we can talk about "emptiness" and be interconnected. Because of "emptiness" the birds are singing and the sun rises... Emptiness is compassion, opens the heart wide... and every moment is a miracle...
    February 16 at 6:13pm · Like · 1
    Robert Healion Kyle This is attributed to Buddha.. 5. Buddha is inspired by and has great respect for the Vedic and the Upanisadic seers whom he calls ‘the true knowers of the Veda and the Vedanta (Vedagu; Skt. Vedajna and Vedantagu; Skt. Vedântajna)’. He was opposed to the karma-kanda of the Veda. The Upanisads and the Gïtà also voice this opposition.1 Buddha calls himself ‘a critical analyst’ (vibhajja-vàdï; vibhajyavàdï in Sanskrit) opposed to all dogmatism (ekamsar vàdo; Skt. ekàmsha-vàda)2. He admits that the Upanisadic seers had realised the non-dual Absolute which he himself has realised. But he emphasised his own realisation and preached to his disciples the spiritual path by which he had realised the Absolute, the Nirvana. The Upanisadic seers identified the Absolute with the Pure Self (Àtmà) and realised it by universalisation of the ground-reality of the ‘I’; Buddha took the word àtmà in the sense of the finite relational self, the projection of avidyâ, and identified the Absolute with Nirvana and realised it by annihilation of the finite ‘I’ (anâtma). In spite of the difference in the paths, the goal realised is the same, the non-dual Absolute. The Vedanta also condemns the finite jiva, the locus of the notion of ‘I’ and the ‘mine’, as projection of avidyâ and Buddha admits the reality of the non-dual Absolute as Nirvàna, though he does not use the word Àtmà for it. Hence the view that Buddha founded a new metaphysics of anàtma-vàda in direct opposition to the atma-vàda tradition of the Upanisads is extremely misleading. We shall discuss it in detail later on.3
    February 16 at 8:32pm · Like
    Chandradhar Sharma
    M.A, D.Phil., D.Litt., Acharya. Formerly Professor of Philosophy University of Jabalpur
    ISBN : 978-81-208-1312-0
    February 16 at 8:33pm · Like
    Robert Healion Nothing wrong with Vedanta nothing wrong with Buddhism both work. Vedanta has clear disadvantages to Buddhism as they lack a formal structure for development. Buddhism is superior in this respect. Vedanta dose promote devotion which that Spanish chap Ellis states for Buddhism has the greatest no of claimants to liberation. I suspect they avoid the mind trap and in devotion there is capacity for stilling and absorption meditation. But be clear on this intellectual reasoning will not get it.. That warning is abundant. even from Buddha himself.
    February 16 at 8:38pm · Like
    Robert Healion John Tan ... Maybe we should channel some bits of our time and energy towards understanding the relationship between compassion and emptiness.
    What a great idea. practice as opposed to ....
    February 16 at 8:52pm · Like
    Piotr Ludwiński "and has great respect for the Vedic and the Upanisadic seers whom he calls ‘the true knowers of the Veda and the Vedanta "

    No such idea in Buddhist sources.

    " Buddha took the word àtmà in the sense of the finite relational self, the projection of avidyâ, and identified the Absolute with Nirvana"

    No such thing as Absolute in Buddhadharma.

    No such thing as:
    - false finite relational self [FALSE]
    - nfinite non-dual self absolute [TRUE]

    " and realised it by annihilation of the finite ‘I’ (anâtma)"

    No such thing as "annihliation of finite "I"" in Buddhadharma

    " In spite of the difference in the paths, the goal realised is the same, the non-dual Absolute. "

    no such thing as "non-dual Absolute" in Buddhadharma

    "and Buddha admits the reality of the non-dual Absolute as Nirvàna, though he does not use the word Àtmà for it."

    again no such thing as "reality of the non-dual Absolute" in Buddhadharma

    "Hence the view that Buddha founded a new metaphysics of anàtma-vàda in direct opposition to the atma-vàda tradition of the Upanisads is extremely misleading."

    what is extremely misleading is bullshit that has been quoted above

    February 16 at 9:09pm · Edited · Like
    Soh Yeah he just made that up. Buddha never ever aluded to someone else during those days as having an equal realisation as him
    February 16 at 9:21pm · Like · 2
    Robert Healion Points taken however these are the people that define knowledge in an academic sense. Not necessarily in a practice sense. And fact is often determined by jungle Book Logic, “we all say so there for it is so”.

    Secondly define a text on Buddhism that includes the finer points of metaphysics. How many people have an intellectual understanding capable of grasping any of this.

    And finally the majority of the original texts were burned by the Moguls, there are many translations into Tibetan and Chinse that have not made it to academia, so there may be some delay in adjusting concepts.

    This is from his introduction.
    Buddha knows and accepts this Upanisadic advaitavada and preaches it in the light of his own experience. His anatmavada is the denial only of the false notion of the ‘I’ and the ‘mine’ (nirahahkara-nirmama-vada) which Vedanta also accepts. Buddha does not expressly identify the Absolute with the pure Self, though this implication is clearly there, for if the non-self (anatma) is perishable (anitya) and miserable (duhkha) that which is eternal and supreme bliss must be the true Self. Buddha identifies the Absolute with Nirvana and uses the same or similar epithets for it which the Upanisads use for Brahma or Atma which is identified with Moksa (Brahmabhavo hi Moksah). The Upanisadic seers and Buddha both believe that the Absolute is at once transcendent to thought and immanent in phenomena. Both take Avidya, the beginningless cosmic Ignorance as the root-cause of phenomenal existence and suffering. Both believe that thought is fraught with inherent contradictions and cannot reveal the Real which can be realised only through immediate spiritual experience. Both prefer the negative dialectic for indirecdy pointing to the inexpressible Real. For both silence is the language of the Real.
    February 16 at 10:10pm · Like
    Robert Healion this is the elephant "what did Buddha mean". His anatmavada is the denial only of the false notion of the ‘I’ and the ‘mine’ (nirahahkara-nirmama-vada) which Vedanta also accepts.
    February 16 at 10:12pm · Like · 1
    Robert Healion
    (Brahma,vihāra) Subha Sutta The Discourse to Subha (on the Divine Abodes) | M 99/2:196-209
    Theme: Godliness is within us
    Translated by Piya Tan ©2007, 2011

    The parable of the man from Naḷakāra,gāma167
    22.1 When this was said, the brahmin youth Subha Todeyya,putta, said this to the Blessed One:
    ‘This I’ve heard, master Gotama: that master Gotama knows the path to companionship [communion]
    with Brahmā.”168
    “Now what do you think, young brahmin, is Naḷakāra,gāma near here or far from here?”
    “It is near here, not far from here, master Gotama.”
    22.2 “Now what do you think, young brahmin? Suppose there were a man here who was born and
    raised in Naḷakāra,gāma. And someone who until then had never entered Naḷakāra,gāma, were to ask him
    the way. Would this man, born and bred in Naḷakāra,gāma, be slow or lost [hesitant or at a loss]?”
    “Certainly not, master Gotama.”
    “And why not?”
    “Because, master Gotama, being born and bred here, he would very well know all the paths.”
    22.3 “Young brahmin, that man, born and bred in Naḷakāra,gāma, on being asked the way, [207]
    might indeed be slow or lost,
    but the Tathāgata on being asked about the brahma world and how to get there, would certainly not be
    slow or lost.
    22.4 For, young brahmin, I know Brahmā, too, the Brahmā world, and the path to the brahma world,
    and the way of practice whereby one arises in the brahma world.”169
    February 16 at 10:17pm · Like
    Robert Healion Subha invites the Buddha to teach
    22.5 When this was said, the brahmin youth Subha Todeyya,putta said this to the Blessed One:
    23 “This I’ve heard—that the recluse Gotama shows [teaches] the path to companionship with Brahmā.”
    “In that case, young brahmin, listen, pay close attention, I will speak.”
    “Yes, good sir,” the brahmin youth replied in assent to the Blessed One.
    The Blessed One said this:
    The divine abodes
    24.1 “And what, young brahmin, is the path to companionship with Brahmā?171
    Here, young brahmin, a monk,172
    with a heart of lovingkindness, he dwells suffusing one quarter, the second, the third, the fourth.
    Thus above, below, across, everywhere and to everyone as well as to himself, he dwells suffusing the
    whole world with lovingkindness that is vast, exalted, boundless, without hate, without ill will.
    24.3 Just as a mighty conch-blower, young brahmin, might with little difficulty make a proclamation
    to the four quarters,
    even so by this cultivation,173 young brahmin, by this liberation of the mind through lovingkindness,
    any karma done in a limited way174 neither remains nor persists here.175
    This, young brahmin, is the path to companionship with Brahmā.
    25.1 (2) THE CULTIVATION OF COMPASSION. Furthermore, young brahmin, with a heart of compassion,
    he dwells suffusing one quarter, the second, the third, the fourth. Thus above, below, across, everywhere
    and to everyone as well as to himself, he dwells suffusing the whole world with compassion that is
    vast, exalted, boundless, without hate, without ill will.
    25.2 Just as a mighty conch-blower, young brahmin, might with little difficulty make a proclamation
    to the four quarters,
    even so by this cultivation, young brahmin, by this liberation of the mind through compassion, any
    limited karma that was done neither remains nor persists here.
    This, too, young brahmin, is the path to companionship with Brahmā.
    February 16 at 10:22pm · Like
    Robert Healion apparently two translations
    February 16 at 10:23pm · Edited · Like
    Stuffs RedTurtle Maybe there is a misunderstanding
    I remember reading that Buddha said deluded beings see the absolute and think that they are god

    Union with Brahma is a low aim for a monk

    Two things there: so emptiness I think is a further realization after the "true self" no?
    February 16 at 10:26pm · Like · 1
    Mardava Christian Palocz Brahma and Brahman are two different things.
    February 16 at 10:27pm · Like · 1
    Steven Rossi Brahma Is My Great Grandfather On My Mothers Side
    February 16 at 10:28pm · Like
    Stuffs RedTurtle I wish I had that book so I could see what he said
    February 16 at 10:33pm · Like
    Soh "Buddha does not expressly identify the Absolute with the pure Self, though this implication is clearly there, for if the non-self (anatma) is perishable (anitya) and miserable (duhkha) that which is eternal and supreme bliss must be the true Self."

    No, this is not the case, as stated before from Walpola Rahula’s “What the Buddha Taught” –

    Those who want to find a ‘Self’ in Buddhism argue as follows: It is true that the Buddha analyses being into matter, sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness, and says that none of these things is self. But he does not say that there is no self at all in man or anywhere else, apart from these aggregates.

    This position is untenable for two reasons:

    One is that, according to the Buddha’s teaching, a being is composed only of these Five Aggregates, and nothing more. Nowhere has he said that there was anything more than these Five Aggregates in a being.

    The second reason is that the Buddha denied categorically, in unequivocal terms, in more than one place, the existence of Ātman, Soul, Self, or Ego within man or without, or anywhere else in the universe. Let us take some examples.
    In the Dhammapada there are three verses extremely important and essential in the Buddha’s teaching. They are nos. 5, 6 and 7 of chapter XX (or verses 277, 278, 279).
    The first two verses say:

    ‘All conditioned things are impermanent’ (Sabbe SAṂKHĀRĀ aniccā), and ‘All conditioned things are dukkha’ (Sabbe SAṂKHĀRĀ dukkhā).

    The third verse says:

    ‘All dhammas are without self’ (Sabbe DHAMMĀ anattā).[132]
    Here it should be carefully observed that in the first two verses the word saṁkhārā ‘conditioned things’ is used. But in its place in the third verse the word dhammā is used. Why didn’t the third verse use the word saṃkhārā ‘conditioned things’ as the previous two verses, and why did it use the term dhammā instead? Here lies the crux of the whole matter.

    The term saṃkhāra[133] denotes the Five Aggregates, all conditioned, interdependent, relative things and states, both physical and mental. If the third verse said: ‘All saṃkhārā (conditioned things) are without self’, then one might think that, although conditioned things are without self, yet there may be a Self outside conditioned things, outside the Five Aggregates. It is in order to avoid misunderstanding that the term dhammā is used in the third verse.

    The term dhamma is much wider than saṃkhāra. There is no term in Buddhist terminology wider than dhamma. It includes not only the conditioned things and states, but also the non-conditioned, the Absolute, Nirvāṇa. There is nothing in the universe or outside, good or bad, conditioned or non-conditioned, relative or absolute, which is not included in this term. Therefore, it is quite clear that, according to this statement: ‘All dhammas are without Self’, there is no Self, no Ātman, not only in the Five Aggregates, but nowhere else too outside them or apart from them.[134]

    This means, according to the Theravāda teaching, that there is no self either in the individual (puggala) or in dhammas. The Mahāyāna Buddhist philosophy maintains exactly the same position, without the slightest difference, on this point, putting emphasis on dharma-nairātmya as well as on pudgala- nairātmya.

    In the Alagaddūpama-sutta of the Majjhima-nikāya, addressing his disciples, the Buddha said: ‘O bhikkhus, accept a soul-theory (Attavāda) in the acceptance of which there would not arise grief, lamentation, suffering, distress and tribulation. But, do you see, O bhikkhus, such a soul-theory in the acceptance of which there would not arise grief, lamentation, suffering, distress and tribulation?’
    ‘Certainly not, Sir.’

    ‘Good, O bhikkhus. I, too, O bhikkhus, do not see a soul-theory, in the acceptance of which there would not arise grief, lamentation, suffering, distress and tribulation.’[135]

    If there had been any soul-theory which the Buddha had accepted, he would certainly have explained it here, because he asked the bhikkhus to accept that soul-theory which did not produce suffering. But in the Buddha’s view, there is no such soul theory, and any soul-theory, whatever it may be, however subtle and sublime, is false and imaginary, creating all kinds of problems, producing in its train grief, lamentation, suffering, distress, tribulation and trouble.
    Continuing the discourse the Buddha said in the same sutta:
    ‘O bhikkhus, when neither self nor anything pertaining to self can truly and really be found, this speculative view: “The universe is that Ātman (Soul); I shall be that after death, permanent, abiding, ever-lasting, unchanging, and I shall exist as such for eternity” – is it not wholly and completely foolish?’[136]

    Here the Buddha explicitly states that an Ātman, or Soul, or Self, is nowhere to be found in reality, and it is foolish to believe that there is such a thing.

    Those who seek a self in the Buddha’s teaching quote a few examples which they first translate wrongly, and then misinterpret. One of them is the well-known line Attā hi attano nātho from the Dhammapada (XII, 4, or verse 160), which is translated as ‘Self is the lord of self’, and then interpreted to mean that the big Self is the lord of the small self.

    First of all, this translation is incorrect. Attā here does not mean self in the sense of soul. In Pali the word attā is generally used as a reflexive or indefinite pronoun, except in a few cases where it specifically and philosophically refers to the soul-theory, as we have seen above. But in general usage, as in the XII chapter in the Dhammapada where this line occurs, and in many other places, it is used as a reflexive or indefinite pronoun meaning ‘myself’, ‘yourself’, ‘himself’, ‘one’, ‘oneself’, etc.[137]

    Next, the word nātho does not mean ‘lord’, but ‘refuge’, ‘support’, ‘help’, ‘protection’.[138] Therefore, Attā hi attano nātho really means ‘One is one’s own refuge’ or ‘One is one’s own help’ or ‘support’. It has nothing to do with any metaphysical soul or self. It simply means that you have to rely on yourself, and not on others.

    Another example of the attempt to introduce idea of self into the Buddha’s teaching is in the well-known words Attidīpā viharatha, attasaraṇā anaññasaraṇā, which are taken out of context in the Mahāparinibbāna-sutta.[139]This phrase literally means: ‘Dwell making yourselves your island (support), making yourselves your refuge, and not anyone else as your refuge.’[140] Those who wish to see a self in Buddhism interpret the words attadīpā and attasaraṇā ‘taking self as a lamp’, ‘taking self as a refuge’.[141]

    We cannot understand the full meaning and significance of the advice of the Buddha to Ānanda, unless we take into consideration the background and the context in which these words were spoken.”
    The Doctrine of No Soul - Walpola Rahula: What the Buddha Taught
    Walpola Rahula's introduction to Buddhism: What the Buddha Taught.
    February 16 at 10:51pm · Edited · Like · 1 · Remove Preview
    Soh Except I wouldn't even call 'Nirvana' as an 'Absolute'. Nirvana means cessation.
    February 16 at 10:51pm · Like
    Soh "Brahma and Brahman are two different things."

    Yes indeed. Buddha is talking about the cultivation of the four brahma viharas - compassion, loving kindness, joy and equanimity. The cultivation of these factors will lead to rebirth in the brahma realms, a very high mundane heaven where its inhabitants who are celestial beings (devas) enjoy a very long life in the bliss of mental absorption, but not eternal, for like millions or billions of years (you can check that out). Buddha is not talking about Brahman.

    Brahmā in Buddhism is the name for a type of exalted passionless deity (deva), of which there are several in Buddhist cosmology.
    Brahmā (Buddhism) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Brahmā in Buddhism is the name for a type of exalted passionless deity (deva), of which there are several in Buddhist cosmology.
    February 16 at 10:58pm · Edited · Like · 1 · Remove Preview
    Stuffs RedTurtle What is Brahman then?
    I was confusing it with Bhrahmin
    February 16 at 10:56pm · Like
    Soh Brahman, Brahmin, and Brahma have different meanings. Brahman refers to the Supreme Self. Brahmin (or Brahmana) refers to an individual belonging to the Hindu priest, artists, teachers, technicians class (varna or pillar of the society) and also to an individual belonging to the Brahmin tribe/caste into which an individual is born; while the word Brahma refers to the creative aspect of the universal consciousness or God. -
    Brahmin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Brahmin (/ˈbrɑːmɪn/; also called Brahmana; from the Sanskritbrāhmaṇaब्राह्मण) are traditional Hindu societies of India, Nepal and The Far East.
    February 16 at 10:59pm · Like · 1 · Remove Preview
    Soh In particular, for Buddhism, 'Brahma' is not seen as 'the creative aspect of the universal consciousness or God'. Brahma is referring to the deities in the Brahma plane/realms, or sometimes it means Maha Brahma - the highest deity in the 1st jhana brahma plane who deluded thought of himself as creator. There are altogether 8 jhana planes in the brahma realms.
    February 16 at 11:25pm · Edited · Like · 1
    Stuffs RedTurtle Cool thanks!:)
    February 17 at 12:00am · Like
    Mardava Christian Palocz actually, in a sutra the buddha spoke with brahma.
    February 17 at 12:13am · Unlike · 2
    Tom Radcliffe Yes, but only in a sutra.
    February 17 at 12:30am · Like
    Piotr Ludwiński " Buddha knows and accepts this Upanisadic advaitavada and preaches it in the light of his own experience. His anatmavada is the denial only of the false notion of the ‘I’ and the ‘mine’ (nirahahkara-nirmama-vada) which Vedanta also accepts."

    He can delude himself if he likes

    Fools who think that anatta teaching and atman teaching are in accordance with each other should really understand what is denied as "I" and "mine" in context of sankhya/yoga/vedanta

    What is to be seen with discernment "This is not me, this is not mine" in these systems is prakriti - both unmanifested and manifested prakriti.

    But not purusha.

    Never purusha.

    Purusha in these systems is "our core". Innermost essence.

    For example in yoga when there is cessation of chitta vritti one comes to realization "purusha is not buddhi" which is equal for them to realizing "I, Purusha, am not Prakriti".

    All three mentioned work for same goal.

    "Brahman" of vedanta is really just another term for "Purusha" and vedanta rolls on same assumptions that sankhya and yoga do.

    So fools who say these teachings are "leading to same realization" have no understanding of basics of both teachings.

    The most important thing is as Soh pointed out in Buddhadharma our entire experential existence is described in terms of five aggregates; and all of them are to be seen with discernment "this is impermanent; being impermanent it's unsatisfactory, being unsatisfactory it's not me/not I/not mine".

    But in above mentioned teachings what is to be seen as not-I and not-mine is prakriti; and from the very beginning there already is root assumption that purusha exists as self-existing, unchanging absolute and one's own final identity. And that unconditioned is APART from conditioned.

    Purusha-Prakriti split is so deeply conditioning such reificationists that they are either unwilling or which is more tragic unable to study and understand most basic points of buddhism.

    Their minds cannot see out of box that assumes there is OTHER reality that is NOT impermanent experience. They MUST have unconditioned self-existing reality that is apart from imperfection of everyday life. In other words they are blind escapists who escape from suffering to imagined absolute. And monistic vedanta goes even further and denies "prakriti" as mere illusion imposed on "purusha" (there named "brahman") and for them only that absolute exists as one reality - one-without-second That is taking that deluded grasping as far as one can; because one reduces whole reality to one's imagined absolute.
    February 17 at 5:27am · Edited · Like · 2
    Stuffs RedTurtle I wish people used simple terms;
    What is purusha?
    February 17 at 5:25am · Like · 1
    Stuffs RedTurtle Purusha is Rigpa, the inner knowing? The supreme consciousness? The highest self?
    February 17 at 5:31am · Like
    Piotr Ludwiński The fact that you ask is one thing I tried to imply in my post; if one is unfamiliar with these basic principles of sankhya and yoga any kind of discussion about "brahman vs sunyata" is useless and confusing. And most people who I see engaged in these fallacious disputes that try to subsume buddhadharma into eternalistic doctrines are apparently lacking understanding of basic principles of both sankhya/yoga/vedanta and buddhadharma; people who were conditioned by world-view from vedas, yonga sankya etc made assumptions and are not considering that Buddha did not make same assumptions.
    February 17 at 5:32am · Edited · Like
    Piotr Ludwiński Rigpa has nothing to do with Purusha
    February 17 at 5:31am · Like
    Mardava Christian Palocz You made a strange soup Piotr putting the samkhya as vedanta. actually samkhya is known to be a dualist philosophy more similar to mahamudra than to other school of buddhism. classical indian philosophy has 6 very definite school, which is better you know them before you continue treating people like fools. Many of us know here that the popular belief is that advaita is monist, substancialist and absolutist, but it this common interpretation which is being questioned here. Your comments about samkhya doesn't say anything about Brahman being noncenptual and beyond consciousness and unconsciousness, being and nonbeing. Their similarity, I would say, is if language is taken as a method of liberation rather than descriptive. Brahman if you read some of the upanisads cannot be grasped, its beyond intellectual understanding only it can be mentioned as Brahman, totally unconditional existing and not existing beyond and in all duality. Brahman is the only truth. The world is false. Brahman is the world, Shankar. Is not this a koan?
    February 17 at 5:33am · Edited · Like · 1
    Piotr Ludwiński Rigpa has nothing to do with supreme consciousness
    February 17 at 5:33am · Like
    Stuffs RedTurtle I am a normal lay person who this stuff just happened to out of no where, so sorry to offend you that I don't know your technical terms. Instead of being snide and beating around the bush, you could just say what you mean
    February 17 at 5:33am · Like
    Piotr Ludwiński "Is not this a koan?" no, this is delusion worth of calling it "peak of conditioned existence"
    February 17 at 5:34am · Like
    Piotr Ludwiński On one hand you have absolute self-existing brahman that is outside of thinking. On the other you have total unfindability of any reality that is independent of imputation (emptiness).
    February 17 at 5:35am · Like
    Stuffs RedTurtle Lot of nice Buddhists around here
    February 17 at 5:36am · Like
    Mardava Christian Palocz You are making brahman an absolute self existing outside of thinking. Go read the upanisads not their interpreters. If Brahman is what you say there is no discussion I agree, but in many upanisads it is mentioned many times as unconditional...even of existence, or nonexistence. So call it Brahman or emptiness it is being uses quite similar.
    February 17 at 5:39am · Edited · Like · 1
    Piotr Ludwiński Trungpa Rinpoche had very interesting and clear text about egoic delusion that takes place when one realizes both "being" and "non-being" are also wrong to describe substantial reality. It's called peak of conditioned existence in buddhadharma when one is ignorant of non-arising and delights in concept that reality is neither this nor that.
    February 17 at 5:39am · Like
    Piotr Ludwiński Robert Dominik perhaps remember where it is and could paste it.
    February 17 at 5:39am · Like
    Stuffs RedTurtle What is Rigpa then? I thought is was the seat of consciousness or something?
    February 17 at 5:42am · Like
    Mardava Christian Palocz the same can be said about emptiness...delighting in making all empty and getting caught in the devils cave as it is said.
    February 17 at 5:42am · Like · 1
    Robert Dominik I haven't read this discussion so I don't even know in what context will this quote from Trungpa fit here, but since I've been asked to post it here... I will do so. It's a really good quote by the way.
    February 17 at 5:43am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Piotr, you mean this?

    "Then the monkey discovers that he can go beyond the sensual plea­sures and beauties of the god realm and enter into the dhyana or concen­tration states of the realm of the formless gods, which is the ultimate refinement of the six realms. He realizes that he can achieve purely men­tal pleasure, the most subtle and durable of all, that he is able to maintain his sense of a solid self continuously by expanding the walls of his prison to seemingly include the whole cosmos, thereby conquering change and death. First he dwells upon the idea of limitless space. He watches limit­less space; he is here and limitless space is there and he watches it. He imposes his preconception on the world, creates limitless space, and feeds himself with this experience. Then the next stage is concentration upon the idea of limitless consciousness. Here one does not dwell on limitless space alone, but one also dwells upon the intelligence which perceives that limitless space as well. So ego watches limitless space and consciousness from its central headquarters. The empire of ego is com­pletely extended, even the central authority cannot imagine how far its territory extends. Ego becomes a huge, gigantic beast.

    Ego has extended itself so far that it begins to lose track of the bound­ary of its territory. Wherever it tries to define its boundary, it seems to exclude part of its territory. Finally, it concludes that there is no way of defining its boundaries. The size of its empire cannot be conceived or imagined. Since it includes everything, it cannot be defined as this or that. So the ego dwells on the idea of not this and not that, the idea that it cannot conceive or imagine itself. But finally even this state of mind is surpassed when the ego realizes that the idea that it is inconceivable and unimaginable is in itself a conception. So the ego dwells on the idea of not not this, and not not that. This idea of the impossibility of asserting anything is something which ego feeds on, takes pride in, identifies with, and therefore uses to maintain its continuity. This is the highest level of concentration and achievement that confused, samsaric mind can attain."
    - Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche
    February 17 at 5:44am · Edited · Like · 2
    Robert Dominik <edited> Lol Kyle has already posted it a few seconds before me xD To be honest I'm using a PC of someone else so I don't have the quote here and just found Kyle's post on Dharmawheel where he was quoting it xD
    February 17 at 5:46am · Edited · Like
    Stuffs RedTurtle I was an atheist and a materialist but like six months ago before this weird knowledge and feeling of certainty rose in me, then I read my insights in old religious books, and then came online to verify it with practitioners, so that's my story; I doubt myself because it happened that way
    February 17 at 5:44am · Like
    Piotr Ludwiński Mardava I've read Mandukya for example which is claiming that at the beginning there was neither being nor non-being. But it has nothing to do with emptiness. Emptiness in buddhadharma is always emptiness of phenomena/"X". And emptiness of "X" is merely "unfindability" of that "X". There is no such thing as global "the emptiness" that is "beyond being and non-being" like reality from Mandukya for example. Emptiness merely refers to unfindability (i.e. non-arising, non-abiding and non-ceasing) of conditioned/"phenomena". Not to any unconditioned reality that is "beyond being and non-being.". The way how you put them together as if there is global "the emptiness" that is similiar to "brahman" suggest that you have no idea what is purpose of emptiness doctrine, but I may be wrong. Even if one does describe brahman that is reality beyond illusory flux of existence as something which is beyond being and non-being i.e. inconceivable one is still merely reifiying "reality" beyond phenomena. Emptiness is always emptiness of something; emptiness adresses mode of existence of phenomena and that's it.
    February 17 at 5:58am · Edited · Like
    Piotr Ludwiński Yeah, Kyle Dixon. That's it
    February 17 at 5:46am · Like
    Stuffs RedTurtle Maybe some people don't know what the other religions are referring to and assume it's , something else when I read the sutras it's sure seems to be what I'm seeing. I don't understand what I'm missing if there's no controller or doer that's not the self brahma the god, it's just the true nature of what you are right?
    February 17 at 5:53am · Edited · Like
    Stuffs RedTurtle But I don't know why it's not okay for me to ask questions about the sutras I read in a dharma forum
    February 17 at 5:54am · Like
    Stuffs RedTurtle I try to understand, I'm no scholar all I can do is relate them to my experience
    February 17 at 5:54am · Like
    Stuffs RedTurtle I can say for sure, I'm my direct experience, we are all just a bunch of conditioned puppet heads
    February 17 at 5:57am · Like
    Mardava Christian Palocz Piotr thanks for your doubt instead of treating me like an idiot. Lets agree that emptiness is what you clearly described above, and that certainly it not a big thing called emptiness where one can arrive, or is beyond being and a big "the emptiness". If we can agree on this, and please trust me that I also have read a lot about your position, which is the common take on Brahman, I still think it is mostly a wrong interpretation of Brahman. In india even to make 6 schools of philosophy is quite a jump. Indian thought is so vast that its higher and most sophisticated schools have not been treated as they should I believe. Buddhism was taken by many scholars, Thurman and Hopkins (many many others) who emphasized the scholarly aspects so suited for the west. This is why we talk in a Facebook group about emptiness when I don't believe "buddhists" wouldnt even imagine this possible. I am just saying that we cannot put all of hinduism, brahmanism or even advaita and think we understand it, when actually it is a very shallow understanding what I hear. I don't want to defend a position, I would rather stop and really study it. If you are so convinced I really doubt how much upanisads have you read. Even in sufism they have a concept, like a koan, that works just like emptiness does. Isn't Zen liberating without even mumbling about emptiness and non arising? Sometimes a good hit in the head works much better than all the talk about emptiness and dependent origination.
    February 17 at 6:02am · Edited · Like · 1
    Stuffs RedTurtle Isn't emptiness the same thing?
    The unconditioned is x no?
    The unconditioned is the true self no?
    That doesn't make it the God Brahma
    February 17 at 6:04am · Like
    Piotr Ludwiński No.
    February 17 at 6:04am · Like
    Piotr Ludwiński I find this site very friendly.
    February 17 at 6:05am · Like · 1
    Stuffs RedTurtle Oh I get it
    There's is only the known, the seeing there is only the seen
    The world is empty because it's made up of parts, that are also empty
    Something could not of come from a nothing etc etc like in the sun if wisdom, there's no I I between any of those things they do not have an independent agent
    February 17 at 6:13am · Like · 1
    Mardava Christian Palocz Kyle Dixon, good post but I still think brahman can be used as emptiness if we agree that emptiness is just a device. The belief Piotr, and I assume you, have about Brahman I am questioning it. I am not questioning nor saying Brahman are the same as emptiness. I am asking if as devices they have the same result. I am not saying emptiness is like your idea of Brahman which you certainly see it as a subtle reification. Stop defending buddhism like this is not necessary. Lets agree on emptiness as you describe it Piotr, but from there lets look into Brahman. The popular belief on Brahman and neoadvaita I am the first to attack as you are doing here, but my point is not defend brahman but to make you see that the upanisadic seers where having clear glimpses and I would say liberation. The language and the milieu were different. I don't think we need to throw the baby with the bath water, thats all.
    February 17 at 6:13am · Like
    Piotr Ludwiński For me emptiness is not a device. Maybe that is the point of our disagreement. Thanks for convo and your time. I came to one conclusion thanks to our exchange but for time being gonna leave it for myself. Gd nite
    February 17 at 6:18am · Edited · Like · 1
    Mardava Christian Palocz Piotr Ludwiński your friendly site is about people that are coming from advaita and are having the same idea of Brahman that you have and have discovered what you so passionately defend emptiness teachings. If you have read my posts I call the people who have that absolutist oneness idea of advaita, neoadvaitins. I agree with you on emptiness, trust me. I know what is the popular belief on brahman...and hence I still think there is something you are missing. In the vast ocean of indian literature not given to the uninitiated Brahman is used to liberate the mind form conceptions as was the "koan" by Shankar you so loosely dismissed but didn't answer.
    February 17 at 6:22am · Like
    Stuffs RedTurtle I'm doubting myself for no reason, also I think people are misunderstanding me
    I'm not sayin that's things only exist in my awareness, I'm saying we are puppet heads
    February 17 at 6:22am · Like
    Stuffs RedTurtle The knowing, depending on the sense , cool
    February 17 at 6:25am · Like
    Stuffs RedTurtle But I know yesterday I found out who knows, and it's not who I thought it was, thTs all
    February 17 at 6:26am · Like
    Stuffs RedTurtle I have more to go prob, but I'm just a puppet head
    February 17 at 6:27am · Like
    Stuffs RedTurtle 'Therefore, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen... only the heard... only the sensed... only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress.'
    February 17 at 6:56am · Like
    Stuffs RedTurtle Here we go
    I'm not sure how that can be confused
    February 17 at 6:57am · Like
    Piotr Ludwiński Billions of sentient beings in countless worlds are not realizing this.
    February 17 at 6:58am · Edited · Like · 1
    Stuffs RedTurtle That's because they think that they are an independent entity, which is samsara I think
    And it's so damn simple it's overlooked;
    Don't get me wrong that is some profound stuff, but the above is just right staring you in the face after you know what you are
    February 17 at 7:23am · Like
    Stuffs RedTurtle Oh and are not I should add
    February 17 at 7:25am · Like
    Stuffs RedTurtle Cause the knowing is dependent on the known
    February 17 at 7:28am · Like
    Michael Zaurov Mardava Christian Palocz can you explain what you mean by Brahman then? Also, are there any teachers or writings you can point to which support what you say? I've never heard of anyone teaching Brahman as a negation of inherency without still asserting some support in the form of a universal consciousness or substance.
    February 17 at 12:35pm · Edited · Like · 3
    Piotr Ludwiński Just like I haven't seen any teaching about brahman that is negating inherent existence in any way; all texts and teachings I have seen are about subsuming/reductionism into one substratum
    February 17 at 4:37pm · Like · 2</edited></div>

No comments:

Post a Comment