yabyum24

It's not. I have no idea how you define ego (you flatly refuse to say), so anything I may or may not have found is irrelevant. I meditate, find stuff and keep on meditating and studying. Regardless of where I am, it's not over till the fat lady sings and she hasn't sung yet.

Why is it disparaging? The views I outlined are views I have frequently encountered (and still do). They are nihilistic by buddhist standards. So unless you feel that I have offended your views in some manner, you should not find them "disparaging".

It only matters what you have found for yourself Boy. Not what I have found.

Do I have it?

What about Malcolm????!!!!!

Superb description dawai. When you say that it is an "intellectual" path, I assume that, at some point, discursive inquiry is abandoned in order to rest in the unconditioned experience? Here Brahman sounds very much like the 'natural ground' in mahamudra.

I agree, but it's surprising how many people consider them to be doctrinally essential. They are significant though, if only from the consideration that they mislead people.

Look in the mirror.

How do you define it?

Which was my point too,

I agree with this: "Fazang's position is essentially that arhats and pratyekabuddhas (and modern scientific materialist Buddhists - my italics) are under the mistaken notion that their nirvāṇa is an absolute cessation of existence". (From your link). My biggest problem is that I feel it even misrepresents the Pali teachings. Let's look at that clip in more detail: "First of all, extinguishment (nibbāna) is clearly not annihilation. The reason for this is simply that there is nothing to be annihilated". This looks logically reasonable at first glance but look a little closer at what is happening. Firstly, Buddha taught anatta (not-self) he never taught "no-self" as this is a speculative view. The writer does not understand that not-self is a realisation, not an ontological position. If it's a realisation, then there is a consciousness which realises it - a consciousness which knows (at a very deep level) the attainment of nirvana. If nirvana were a state of nothing, then no recognition of it would be possible. "Only existing entities can be annihilated, and since Buddhism rejects the idea of a self, annihilation is by definition impossible." Here, he is saying that self has no existence. This is another ontological position which fails to take into account the dynamic process underpinning self (becoming) - it's transient (what isn't?) nature and how to go beyond it into liberation. For him, it simply doesn't exist but that was not what Buddha taught. "Processes, on the other hand, may come to an end. Since humans are processes, they can cease." Everything is a process, mind and body - the whole universe. But what does that tell us? It tells us that everything is in flux within time/space. It doesn't tell us that things don't exist or that they inherently exist or any other such baloney. It doesn't even touch on dependent arising. But his point here, is that all process of "becoming" ceases at death - conveniently ignoring all the suttas where Buddha mentions past lives and failing to see the relevance of that recall to anatta. For materialists like this, rebirth is anathema, as they believe past life recall validates an 'eternal' self of some kind. If they had experienced any valid recall they would know that it is quite a different story.

No, more this kind of thing: They DO cease, then all consciousness ceases, aggregates rot away and there is no rebirth (how could there be?). It's clinical death as per our western understanding. No difference at all. Pure materialism - life is a mere mechanical, biological event which commences at conception and ceases at death. Nirvana is the cessation of suffering within this life (by default, as there aren't any other lives). This philosophy renders karma and rebirth obsolete. It's entirely body-focussed. It does not address the deeper ramifications of dependent origination outlined in tantra.

Interesting link and some good points made there.

Dunno Stosh. Is your question based on something I wrote?

Awesome... so, a person is comprised of 5 souls and some other stuff that all splits up at death? This is all new to me. So a ghost/ancestor spirit is just the discarded bits that hang around due to desire but the main essence moves on to reform a new being? So is the self, the 5 souls or the 'Hun'? Both or neither? Sorry so many questions but this totally new territory.

I get what you mean with 1. but could you explain 2. - how the self chooses the self. That I don't understand.

I'm currently reading a translation of the Yoga Vasistha by Swami Venkatesananda. This indicates that all i-making is false, that thoughts moving through consciousness are like a hissing snake. This is our basic "identity" which even a caveman had. So it looks like there are 2 different things; an illusory intellectual "identity" and a true self of pure consciousness, which is beyond duality. I don't know if something beyond duality can be termed an "identity", as the mind in non-duality would necessarily not be able to uphold such structures. I would say that such a worldly "identity" is dependent on the aggregates which give rise to, and support, it. A product of one life and transient within that life as well. So, this "identity" does not suffice as a target for refutation either. It could be that there are two ways to reach the goal, that of the (+) and that of the (-) . It just depends which way you come at it. Perhaps the destination lies between both?

Frohe Weihnachten soaring crane. Nice OP. Your A caught my attention as there is mention of a 'short a' in Tibetan. Well, it doesn't look anything like an A but it's used as the focus for inner fire meditation. Which all goes to demonstrate that you can start a thread, but you can never tell what other people are going to do with it.

I've sent a request to the admin that this thread be moved to general discussion. My apologies for any offense I may have caused by placing it here.

But how do Vedantists define identity? I bet there's a bit more to it than that?

I placed it here in order to get Vedantist views on Atman and to discuss this. The thread is neither entirely one nor the other but if people would prefer to move it elsewhere, then it's no problem. The key thing is that the dialogue is worthwhile, rather that what label we put on it.

Interesting point and not one acknowledged by many Buddhists. Everyone has this but as far as I understand it, it's also something problematic in Vedanta, so there's not really any conflict between both systems on that. The problem I flagged up earlier was the formulaic descriptions of the "Hindu Atman" one finds in Buddhism (for the purpose of refutation) - Immortal, unchanging, existing inherently etc. It seems a bit wooden and simplistic. Like saying that there is a defined ontological position (which some may have - I don't disagree) but I don't think all get stuck on this point. So refuting an ontological position (whilst of some intellectual value - and possibly meditative) doesn't address the core question. What we have here with sanskrit word for "identity" is something we can all work with - it's visceral, transient, recognizable and most importantly, not an ontological statement concerning existence. If we equate it with ego/self-grasping mind etc. then it is something which practice will release us from, both Buddhist and Vedantist. I really think that the crux of the problem is the following; To what extent is there knowledge of Nirvana/Moksha after death? I'm not getting into clever wordplay here with "who should experience what?" style stuff (please don't). Ksemaraja explains that the experience and experient are one and the same. Some materialists don't like the idea of any experience at all, as they feel it's a betrayal of the doctrine of cessation. But what if the consciousness/nirguna Brahman is experienced in the same way as the clear light of the dharmakaya or Consciousness without feature, without end, luminous all around (Viññanam anidassanam)? If there's no ontology or clinging, then where's the problem?

I've never made such a claim, as I'm in no position to do so. I have no problem with contrasting and comparing traditions either - it's a useful way of enriching our understanding.

I'd say that the term does not apply to anything beyond space/time as it is a relative term mortality/immortality etc. A moment is the same as eternity - both irrelevant. No time, no space. Think about it. No need for any definition, as they are all drawn from our space/time lexis.

Yes, that's fine but it's how they define it - immortal, unchanging, eternal etc. if you see what I mean. But is that really what is being claimed by all?