xabir2005

So your God is a personal God and a separate theistic being (like the one in Old Testament where you can meet up and have a cup of coffee)?

Yes... reminds me of an article written by a friend 'longchen': http://www.dreamdatum.com/non-solidity.html The non-solidity of existence This article describes a spiritual insight. It may be quite hard to understand. The things that we experience are registered by all the sense organs. The eye sight registers vision, the ears register sound, the body registers sensations. These perception, sensations and experiences are not happening in some places. They are the experience of the arising of certain conditions. There is no solidity and physicality in the actual experience. What we experienced is not universal and common to all. Here's an example to illustrate that: We know that as human beings, we see in term of colours. Some animals are however colour-blind, thus they see differently from us. But none of us, is really seeing the truth nature directly. The senses of different species of sentient beings experience things differently. So who is seeing the real image of an object? None. Likewise, the various planes of existence are due to different conditions arising. In certain types of meditation, one is said to be able to access these planes of existence. This is because they are not specific locations. They are mental states and are thus non-localised. In these meditations, our consciousness changes and 'aligned' more with these other states or planes of existence. All the planes of existence are simultaneously manifesting, but because our senses are human-based conditioned arisings, we only see the human world and other beings that shared 'similar' resonating arising conditions. But nevertheless, the other planes of existences are not elsewhere in some other places. What we think of as places are really just consciousness and there is no solidity whatsoever. Even our touch sense is just that. The touch sense gives an impression of feeling something that is physical and three-dimensional. But there is really no solid self-existing object there. Instead, it is simply the sensation that gives the impression of physical solidity and form. OK, that all I can think of and write about this topic. I will revise and improve this article where the need arises. For your necessary ponderance. Thank you for reading.

First of all what do you mean by God? God is generally seen as the unchanging ground which emanates the universe. However then it is seen that All Appearance is Source and that there is no background Source emanating phenomenon, that there is no Source to fall back on, then the clinging to a behind reality, a Source, subsides. The intensity of that pure beingness, the I AMness, is seen to be itself a manifestation and no more 'ultimate' than other manifestations. It is needless to compare when the all sensations other sensations are experienced in equally intense clarity. There will be no more layering. There is truly no inner and outer.

More specifically: no eternal unchanging Self as opposed to coming and going phenomenon. There is only manifestation, transience, but without coming and going. Two truths simply mean: relatively dependently originated appearances, which are ultimately empty. However this Emptiness is not a non-phenomenal substance: rather, Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form. There is no separation here.

All form is without beginning and ending, thats why as Heart Sutra says - Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form.

Anyway in Buddhism we also talk about the unborn and unceasing Dharmakaya -- just not in the same way as an ontological essence.

If you get it, good. Not all do. If they have mistaken understanding about the Buddhist teachings, I will continue to post and correct them. As I said to someone in the other thread earlier on: Different, yes. But I just don't want to make the whole debate about who is better, which is pretty pointless. The purpose of my posting is just for people to have a better understanding of the teaching of Anatta (no-self) and Shunyata (emptiness), that's all. If you disagree, and refuse to read what I wrote, I don't mind and see no point to convince you. I did not set up threads to convert people to Buddhism or something like that, nor do I reply with the intention of claiming that Buddhism is superior -- but simply to point out Anatta and Shunyata and clear misconceptions. My replies simply arise out of specific causes and conditions and is in reponse to the posts and questions posed by other people. Though you find it laughable, others might find it appropriate. I am sorry that some may have found my posts to be offensive, and I certainly am not a skillful writer.

BTW I would like to clarify for readers here: my post #399 and #400 are talking about different things. #399 is talking about non-duality (similar to thusness's phase 4) while #400 is talking about dependent origination and emptiness (which is thusness's phase 6). I discussed about Buddhism's No-Self (a.k.a thusness's phase 5) in post #367. (url for the 7 phases: Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Experience on Spiritual Enlightenment) Hari's post triggers me to clarify about the posts. Wrote this so that one will not confuse one as the other. Non-duality of subject and object does not imply the understanding of Dependent Origination or Emptiness... or even Buddhism's No-Self.

Yes, only the individual stream of consciousness is itself non-dual, there is no source or Brahman or a universal consciousness.

If you haven't watched this video you should: Talks about the benefits of debate and the proper way to do it. Of course, debating for ego is the improper way to do it.

If there is no doer of deeds and actor of action, can there be 'part' of a chain of dependency? See 'part' as the appearance of 'interconnectedness'.

Yes. In Buddhism there is no The Absolute, the background, the universal container, the universal/cosmic consciousness/substrate/essence from which everything emerges from and returns to, or a universal substance in which we are all part of. No such ontological essence at all can be found in Buddhism, not only the Madhyamikas but even the Yogacara school which is the 'consciousness only school'. Even in Yogacara, though it does not deny non-dual consciousness as reality, but what separates it from Advaita Vedanta is that it is taught each mindstream is separate and unique -- there is no cosmic, universal essence, cosmic consciousness. "This individual stream of consciousness/manifestation is itself non-dual and entire; the need to reify a Universal Brahman is understood as the karmic tendency to 'solidify' experiences." (comments from stage 5 of Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Experience on Spiritual Enlightenment) I've seen some people (in other places) said things such as 'I am you, you are me' which are clearly false views. Each mindstream is separate and unique yet interdependent in the same way like the network of nodes in the Net of Indra reflect each other in a seamless web of interdependency. There is no The Absolute -- rather, all moment of manifestation is a wholeness, complete in itself, an 'absolute' in itself, yet it is not independent -- but fully interdependent, inseparable from all the causes and conditions... the entire interdependent universe is giving its best for this moment to arise. Awareness is seen AS the manifestation itself rather than a mirror reflecting external phenomena. What is seen is Awareness. What is heard is Awareness. All experiences are non-dual without subject-object division in nature. However this non-dual luminosity cannot be understood apart from the causes and conditions of arising. Therefore there is no 'The Awareness' or a Mirror interacting, coming into contact with external conditions, and reflecting phenomenality. If one see it as so, then it still falls in the category of mirror-reflecting (stage 4 = mirror bright clarity, stage 5 = no mirror). Rather see it as an instantaneous manifestation where nothing excluded. As if the universe is giving its very best for this moment to arise. A moment is complete and non-dual. Vividly manifest and thoroughly gone leaving no traces. What manifests is vivid and clear but unlocatable, ungraspable, without inherent existence. No substance or essence anywhere at all. No entities coming into being and undergoing disintegration. Conventionally we experience in the form of subject and object interaction taking place in a space-time continuum. This is just an assumption. Experientially it is not so. One should learn to experience awareness as the manifestation. There is no subject, there is only and always manifestation, all else are conditions of arising. All these are just provisional explanations for one to understand. So in summary: One must learn how to see Appearances as Awareness and all others as conditions. For example, sound is awareness. The person, the stick, the bell, hitting, air, ears... are conditions. One should learn to see in this way. All problems arise because we cannot experience Awareness this way. Awareness is not like a mirror reflecting but rather a manifestation. Luminosity is an arising luminous manifestation rather than a mirror reflecting. The center here is being replaced with Dependent Origination, the experience however is non-dual.

In accordance to the insight of Dependent Origination and Emptiness, the mind stream is already unborn, does not come, does not go, does not arise, does not cease. Awareness is not anymore ultimate than the transient mind, and cannot be separated.

From the perspective of the 'Eternal Witness': Apparent objects comes and goes within consciousness, but the witness is unaffected by the apparent coming and going of object. That is why it is called the Eternal Witness. It is totally unattached to the objects, and is independent of them. Objective consciousness is when you are attached and identified with the objects, or the pinpointed focus or fixation on finite objects. When standing as the Witness you are alone and free (of the constriction and identification to finite objects). The Witness does not fixate upon objects, the mind does. The apparent objects just come and go by itself within vast objectless consciousness. Just because clouds move through the sky doesn't mean the sky is inherently cloudy -- it is still as vast and 'objectless' as before. The only question is whether you are identified and fixated on the clouds or know yourself as the vast opening. Also the 'eye' sees many things but cannot see itself, for it is not an object to be seen but the seer. It just sees. This can be intuited and recognised. Ceasing modifications of the mind (identifications and attachments to object) is the side effect of realizing the fact. You can't force the cessation of identification unless there is insight into who you are. Sureshwara: "That Innner Dweller, The Witness, all knowing and un objectifiable, appears to become a separate object through the false superimposition that is aviydA" Shankara: It is the overseer of all actions, the indweller in all beings, the Witness, Pure Consciousness, that which is all that is left (when avidyA removed), and is beyond all qualities. ----------- Buddhism however, does not talk about a Self or a Witness or a background. There is awareness, seeing, presence, but not separate from transience and mindstream. There is seeing, but not a seer, the seeing can't be separated from the seen. There is hearing, but not a hearer, and the hearing is the sound. etc.... In Buddhism, Awareness is not seen as the ultimate subject. Self-manifestation, which has never existed as such, is erroneously seen as an object. Through ignorance, self-awareness is mistakenly experienced as an I. Through attachment to this duality we are caught in the conditioned world. May the root of confusion be found. ................. Through the examination of external objects we see the mind, not the objects. Through the examination of the mind we see its empty essence, but not the mind. Through the examination of both, attachment to duality disappears by itself. May the clear light, the true essence of mind, be recognized. ~ 3rd Karmapa Anyway, there's a good article on the difference between Witness and Non-Dual by Ken Wilber here: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/200...ity-by-ken.html Just a note.. Ken Wilber is very clear on non-dual but still does not have the understanding of dependent origination and emptiness. So it is still more 'brahman' than 'shunya'.

No, witnessing presence is pure subjective consciousness, it is not objective consciousness. A way to put this is that it is the eye that cannot see itself. The witness cannot become an object of consciousness, and is seen as independent of what is witnessed. It is a self-knowing awareness. Its seen that the turiya is not dependent or affected by the presence or absence of appearances but appearances depend on the presence of knowing. According to Advaita, Turiya is literally that which transcends the three states of waking, dreaming, and deep sleep. It is the background substratum and witness to all three states. Apparent objects pops in and out from this substratum but the ground itself remains unchanged, unaffected. As such it is not a state we enter into, it is not the deep sleep state, it is simply realised as the ever-present ground. It is not accessible only in the deep sleep state, since it is ever-present and that which supports and is the basis of all states like a movie screen -- though deep sleep is a kind of natural and deep samadhi in itself. If Turiya is a dreamless sleep state and only accessible in deep sleep then no Advaitin sages can function in the world, use thoughts, talk to people, etc. According to Advaita, Turiya, being beyond the 3 states, is beyond deep sleep as well. But it is not just another state -- it is what underlies all states. Lastly Buddhism does not deny the vivid knowing presence -- but it denies that there is a witness separate from phenomenality. For all manifestation is self-knowing awareness, the process knows and rolls without a separate watcher. This will not be clear on the first initial glimpse of pristine awareness, and will only start to get obvious after non-dual insights and insight of no-self.

"The Noble Eightfold Path is one of the principal teachings of the Buddha, who described it as the way leading to the cessation of suffering (dukkha) and the achievement of self-awakening.[1] It is used in Buddhist practice as a technique to develop insight into the true nature of phenomena (or reality) and to eradicate greed, hatred, and delusion. The Noble Eightfold Path is the fourth of the Buddha's Four Noble Truths; the first element of the Noble Eightfold Path is, in turn, an understanding of the Four Noble Truths. It is also known as the Middle Path or Middle Way.[2]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path Under the training of Buddha, he had thousands of monks who lived with him that attained enlightenment. And numberless more after the Buddha passed into Nirvana up till today. Definitely not just a 'rare few'. This is proof that his teachings, methods, path, works -- very well. Anyone who learns the dharma and applies it in practice will see it work for themselves.