Apech

You're sounding very familiar Arya - have we all been here before?

If I may say, your position sounds very dualistic. 'escape', 'abandon' and so on. If this is your way then perhaps this is how you must think.

This is not true. You can practice while still engaged in society - although of course periods of quiet retreat are still helpful.

I'm getting SQL error now. Tried deleting cookies but no change. It allows me to return to index though which it didn't before.

This is my logic ... Back home now. Right so my view on the equivalence of the terms Purusha, Atman. Dharmakaya and Buddha Nature … oh and of course Self. Although I do practice as a Buddhist I am not one of those people who thinks there is only one true way. I think that position is ridiculous and unhelpful. So nothing I say is about this view being better than another - but what I would say that terms need to be understood in context and reading across with a kind of sloppy sameness just leads to confusion and blah. Purusha comes originally from Samkhya philosophy and means pure observing consciousness and is contrasted with Prakriti which is primal substance i.e. that from which everything (including subtle non-physical things) are made. Samkhya is a dualism because it has these two ‘absolutes’. Purusha is completely other than Prakriti and is Self or actually Selfs which by its (their) presence cause the more subtle forms of Prakriti like Buddhi and citta to incandesense but not through interaction but by mere presence. The Buddha studied this system but later rejected it as being not his way. The term Purusha is also used in yoga philosophy in a similar sense as a pure observing consciousness but yoga is not so firmly dualistic as Samkhya. Atman of course comes from the Vedas, where it is used in two senses, one for the soul of the king or brahmin which is caused to ascend to heaven through the ritual fire ceremonies etc. and also as a name for the absolute - or the indivisible essence. The idea in the sense of self is that we each have an essence which is eternal and it is this that reincarnates lifetime through lifetime. In the Upanishads and Vedanta teachings there is much discussion of the Atman, how big it is, where located and so on. The Buddha firmly rejected this idea of an eternal soul or essence because he upheld dependent origination which says that even this atman would arise in dependence on causes and conditions and cease when they no longer applied. So whatever appeared to be an Atman - actually even if very long lived was not actually eternal or irreducible and so on. Of course when you come to the more sophisticated vedanta such as Advaita this Atman idea has become more subtly understood i.e. as being itself non-different to the brahman, the universal consciousness-bliss-being. But Shankara did not arrive on the scene until some 1300 years after the Buddha, so it hard to say exactly what the Buddha would have said about this presentation of Atman. However what is clear about the Buddha’s teachings is that he actively resisted the kind of enquiry which the other Indian systems addressed i.e. ‘what truly exists?’. Both Purusha/Prakriti and Atman/Brahman are answers to this question. And as answers are therefore very appealing to modern seekers especially those who have been Christian. Buddhism has from the beginning - with a few wibbles and wobbles - avoided ontological solutions. The Buddhas message as I see it is ‘wake up and see things as they really are’ - with a sub-clause saying I’m not going to describe that to you - I am going to tell you how to do it yourself. So, as I say, subject to a few oddities along the way Buddhism does not provide an answer to ‘what truly exists?’ except that it is whatever the Buddha realised when he became enlightened. To give that a name would perhaps be to say he didn’t just see it, he became it … and thus we could say the buddha's own mind is the ultimate truth … and we can call this Dharmakaya (truth-body). What the Buddha said about this realisation was that it is ‘unborn’ - which means not created, not contrived, not built, or conceptualised. So if that is the case then it must mean that for us to be able to realise it - it must already in some sense be there. Because if it is the case that we don’t have to fabricate it, then it must be a case of just dropping or removing whatever obstructs it. And if that is true then we must have this realisation already without knowing we do. In which case if we have the capacity to become enlightened we must have the nature of enlightenment … i.e. Buddha-nature within us somehow. And that’s what Buddha-nature is to me. So is that a self? Well if by self you mean some irreducible core of you-ness - then no it isn’t. To try to stop people hanging on too closely to this sense of their own importance the Buddha taught anatman - no-self. But when challenged (I think by Ananda) about self he refused to answer. This is probably because he refused to be drawn into a fruitless debate … and ultimately clinging on to ’no-self’ is probably just as bad as clinging on to self. So the best answer probably about self is that paradoxically there both is a self and not a self at the same time and dropping either side of this trip wire is a mistake. Even if you practice a system which teaches self … then when you come to realise it you will realise it was not at all what you thought anyway.

Here's one which I found with a quick google - I don't vouch for it but have read books on Internal Alchemy where karma is mentioned ...

I cann explain my point of view but I ma on someone elses computer right now and don't have time for long post. Will try later when I get home.

Possibly a late sutra into which non.Buddhist ideas have been introduced.

I have this opinion because what you said is incorrect.

...but in later Daoist schools the idea of karma was accepted.

Buddha nature and Atman are not the same thing.

Is the pope Jewish?

The Lankavatara sutra is a Yogacara sutra and therefore unlikely to appeal to anyone studying Theraveda or Madhyamaka systems. It's teachings are particularly appropriate to Zen, Chan and other 'mind only' schools - which is why it includes elaborate analysis of levels of consciousness and so on, The textual context is always important when giving detailed quotes and one of the reasons that they do not present answers to general questions but present a certain view to be understood in terms of a certain way of practice,

"Success" on Daobums = not being in the Pit

I'm not entirely sure what a 'concrete concept' is. But aside from that I think the whole project of 'objective reality' or 'subject reality' is flawed from the get go. Perhaps because the separation of subject and object is conventional in itself - since those words only mean 'thrown in' or 'thrown out'. If you see what I mean.

Well I came in a little late on this conversation so I may have understood the purpose of your demand. I think the problem may be in 'subjective description' since description implies the use of language and thus the juxtaposition of objective terms. I'm not in agreement that it is impossible to hold a concept since we all do hold concepts all the time and since concept only means an idea which holds other ideas together - then we hold ideas also. In communicating with each other - an intelligent person may say something which makes you say 'oh yes!' - a light goes on - what they said has sparked a conceptual understanding in you. Now you could fall back on the unprovability of knowing that what you just realised and what they had in their mind are 'the same' - but that seems incredibly universal doubtist by which I mean it takes doubt to the absurd - though perhaps preferable to some.

Is pointing to things important to you? What about ideas can you point to them?

Singing bird spirit.

I assume you mean this one : "The American dream, you have to be asleep to believe it" ha!

Gene Kelly for instance.

If you feel ill go see a doctor.

You appear to have reversed your position - and the processes involved in long life and immortality go well beyond clearing channels which is only the preliminary laying the foundation practice.

Time to move on to Q.

For who would bear the whips and scorns of time, Th' oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely, The pangs of despised love, the law’s delay, The insolence of office, and the spurns That patient merit of th' unworthy takes, When he himself might his quietus make With a bare bodkin? Who would fardels bear, To grunt and sweat under a weary life, But that the dread of something after death, The undiscovered country from whose bourn No traveler returns, puzzles the will And makes us rather bear those ills we have Than fly to others that we know not of? Thus conscience does make cowards of us all, And thus the native hue of resolution Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought, And enterprises of great pith and moment With this regard their currents turn awry, And lose the name of action.