Simple_Jack

They could only be considered nihilistic if you're a realist (Buddhist definition), which you seem to be an adherent of considering that you conflated vinnanam anidassanam and the kun gzhi/alaya of Mahamudra with Brahman. Realists love to cite the provisional teaching to the confused wanderer Vacchagotta [sN 44] who adhered to identity-views and would've become increasingly more confused if Buddha hadn't kept silent when being asked if there was a "self" and if there was "no-self" i.e. that the self exists or that the self does not exist. Vacchagotta left after not receiving an answer to his questions.

It's possible, since you created a thread disparagingly titled "Internet Buddhist Nihilists" - http://thetaobums.com/topic/33024-internet-buddhist-nihilists/.

Of course, having a [meditation] teacher, is advantageous.

It's not required that one has a guru if you're relying on the tripitaka and commentarial traditions. Practice lineages such as Ch'an and Vajrayana are a different matter altogether.

It's not misleading unless you ascribe to an atman and It's doctrinally essential to buddhadharma because Mahayana builds off of Hinayana, hence why emptiness is 2-fold i.e. pudgala-anatman and dharma-anatman. Everything can sound like Brahman as long as you have confirmation bias.

End of thread.

Yeah, but we have to understand that these types of things are a result of siddhis, they are not readily knowable through ordinary sensate experience. Attainments of siddhis are a product of yoga (e.g. samadhi).

Actually, yes, that provides the answer as to how this concept was conceived in Indian thought. The shramanas gave rise to the various forms of yoga/meditation and metaphysical models of existence along with concepts such as karma, moksha, etc. Samkhya, Jainism, Buddhism, etc., were born from the shramana movement of India.

Yogic experiences from shramanas.

Hinduism also stresses renunciation of samsara which is why it states the same goal of ending cyclical existence i.e. samsara.

Still, it's only on a spiritual forum such as this, that people seem to voluntarily want to promulgate the 3 poisons. Discourses on the drawbacks of samsara are meant to motivate an individual to pursue liberation by steadily relinquishing the afflictions which promotes deluded cognition.

This is a non-sequitur and the goal of all Dharmic religions are to put an end to the afflictions which drive cyclical existence. In Mahayana, instead of resigning oneself to the cessation of arhats and pratyekabuddhas, one puts and end to involuntary rebirth and continues to be reborn (or emanate nirmanakayas) in order to effectively benefit sentient beings; this coincides with realizing the inseparability of samsara and nirvana i.e. emptiness as described in the Prajnaparamita Sutras.

Sorry, I'm unable to take these points seriously, because they are a straw man argument.

I'm not sure how you arrived at this conclusion considering that materialists deny karma, rebirth, etc. ""What is it, Venerable Sir, that will be reborn?" "A psycho-physical combination (nama-rupa), O King." "But how, Venerable Sir? Is it the same psycho-physical combination as this present one?" "No, O King. But the present psycho-physical combination produces kammically wholesome and unwholesome volitional activities, and through such kamma a new psycho-physical combination will be born..."Does, Venerable Sir, rebirth take place without transmigration?" "Yes, O King." "But how, Venerable Sir, can rebirth take place without the passing over of anything? Please, illustrate this matter for me." "If, O King, a man should light a lamp with the help of another lamp, does the light of the one lamp pass over to the other lamp?" "No, Venerable Sir." "Just so, O King, does rebirth take place without transmigration." ~ Milindapanha There is no doer of a deed Or one who reaps the deed's result; Phenomena alone flow on - No other view than this is right. And so, while kamma and result Thus causally maintain their round, As seed and tree succeed in turn, No first beginning can be shown. Nor in the future round of births Can they be shown not to occur: Sectarians, not knowing this, Have failed to gain mastery They assume a being, see it as Eternal or annihilated. Adopt the sixty-two wrong views, Each contradicting one another. The stream of craving bears them on Caught in the meshes of their views: And as the stream thus bears them on They are not freed from suffering. A monk, a disciple of the Buddha, With direct knowledge of this fact Can penetrate this deep and subtle Void conditionality. There is no kamma in result, Nor does result exist in kamma; Though they are void in one another, There is no fruit without the kamma. As fire does not exist inside The sun, a gem, cow-dung, nor yet Outside of them, but is brought to be By means of its component parts, So neither can result be found Within the kamma, nor without; Nor does the kamma still persist [in the result it has produced]. The kamma of its fruit is void; No fruit exists yet in the kamma; and still the fruit is born from it, Wholly depending on the kamma. For here there is no Brahma God, Creator of the round of births, Phenomena alone flow on - Cause and component their condition ~ Visuddhimagga Ch. XIX sec. 20 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.038.than.html#fnt-1 Then he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him, "Is it true, Sāti, that this pernicious view has arisen in you — 'As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another'?" "Exactly so, lord. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another." "Which consciousness, Sāti, is that?" [1] "This speaker, this knower, lord, that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & evil actions." "And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness'? [2] But you, through your own poor grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root] and produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your long-term harm & suffering." ... Inappropriate Questions Avoided"Now, monks, knowing thus and seeing thus, would you run after the past, thinking, 'Were we in the past? Were we not in the past? What were we in the past? How were we in the past? Having been what, what were we in the past'?" "No, lord." "Knowing thus and seeing thus, would you run after the future, thinking, 'Shall we be in the future? Shall we not be in the future? What shall we be in the future? How shall we be in the future? Having been what, what shall we be in the future'?" "No, lord." "Knowing thus and seeing thus, would you be inwardly perplexed about the immediate present, thinking, 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound'?"[7] "No, lord."... Now, if we accept the cessation of arhats and pratyekabuddhas as a type of samadhi, then according to Mahayana: they will regress to the state of a non-returner which means rebirth in a pure abode, after the merit of attaining cessation is consumed. This is stated as lasting 84,000 eons which basically means an incalculable amount of time. Otherwise, they can be roused from their cessation by a buddha to cultivate the path of a bodhisattva towards the omniscience of a samyaksambuddha. Of course, all of this is speculative at best, if we ourselves aren't established on the path of an arya.

Not necessarily, but within the wider framework of Mahayana, the arhats & pratyekabuddhas cessation is referred to as a "nirvana with remainder"; Mahayana denigrates the Hinayana nirvana as a one-sided extreme. Basically the attainment of arhats & pratyekabuddhas represents a non-afflictive ignorance. There are different explanations as to the fate of an arhat & pratyekabuddha after death, but here's one from Fazang: http://huayanzang.blogspot.com/2011/07/fazang-on-fate-of-arhats-and.html

By materialists you mean the Carvakans? Both Buddhists and Hindus trashed the Carvaka/Lokayata school of materialism. Anyways, you've opened up a can of worms by mentioning vinnanam anidassanam. It's quite common for people to initially interpret this term as a sort of abiding unconditioned/pure consciousness. You should consider that this term only appears twice in the entire sutta-pitaka [MN 49 & DN 11], while in comparison, formulations such as: "...From the cessation of ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form..." [MN 38] and "...Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am..." [sN 22] appear many more times throughout the sutta-pitaka. I think the distinguishment between a provisional and definitive categories of discourses are apt in this case. In any case, it's been traditionally explained as a description for the arahant's consciousness, due to the extinguishment of ignorance, craving, aggression; this lines up with the rest of the sutta-pitaka, when Buddha describes the nibbana of an arahant as the extinguishment of ignorance, craving, aggression, when interpreted in this way. Ven. Brahmali both describes and criticizes Ven. Bodhi's & Ven. Thanissaro's description of nibbana - http://community.dhammaloka.org.au/showthread.php/731-Consciousness-without-surface-Vinnanam-Anidassanam-Mn-49-38-DN-11: "...I might as well be straightforward on this issue. I do not wish in any way to be disrespectful of someone like Ajahn Ṭhanissaro who has done so much good work for Buddhism. At the same time, I think everyone stands to lose if we are not open and direct. First of all, extinguishment (nibbāna) is clearly not annihilation. The reason for this is simply that there is nothing to be annihilated. Only existing entities can be annihilated, and since Buddhism rejects the idea of a self, annihilation is by definition impossible. Processes, on the other hand, may come to an end. Since humans are processes, they can cease. What is it that ceases? Just suffering. Is extinguishment ineffable? Only insofar as we do not understand non-self. Once you understand non-self, the idea of extinguishment is quite plain..."....http://community.dhammaloka.org.au/showthread.php/432-Nibbana?s=1a638d713a5f8115199abbc50cf3d736: "...So these very questions are just proliferations; they are misconceived. The Dhamma is not about attaining or not attaining an existing reality. It’s about ending suffering. The reason why anyone is concerned about what happens when the arahant dies is because of their sense of self. The sense of self makes us perceive the death of an arahant either as annihilation or some sort of eternal existence. Once the false sense of self is removed, one no longer perceives the death of anarahant in either of these ways, and the concern about what happens to them after death just falls away. I feel Ven. Bodhi should have pointed this out rather than try to answer the question. That would have been much more useful for the inquirer’s understanding of the Dhamma. Having said this, I also do not find Ven. Bodhi’s arguments persuasive. Before I consider Ven. Bodhi’s individual points, I should point out a general danger in arguing that Nibbāna is “an existing reality”. It is impossible to conceive of a reality beyond the six senses, at least for non-ariyans. For this reason, any idea ofNibbāna as an existing reality will by default be understood in terms of the eternal continuation of one or more of the five khandhas. The result of this will often be attachment to a refined form of the five khandhas, in particular refined states of samādhi, and taking this as Nibbāna. So the best thing to do is to put this question aside and instead practice the path until one penetrates non-self. Only when one sees this will one understand that the very question was misconceived..". Ven. Brahmali further explains nibbana in the Nikayas in this link- http://community.dhammaloka.org.au/showthread.php/244-Meaning-of-Vi%C3%B1%C3%B1%C4%25: "...To be able to answer this question you first of all need to be clear about which nibbāna you are referring to. The usual meaning of nibbāna in the suttas is the attainment of arahantship. Clearly consciousness does not cease with this attainment of nibbāna . The other meaning of nibbāna is the final nibbāna attained by the arahant when he or she dies. It is only at this point that the five khandhas, including consciousness, cease. (This distinction between two meanings ofnibbāna is explicitly made in the Itivuttaka.) Once you make this distinction, it becomes much more clear how the numerous sutta references you bring up should be understood..." Here are a series of posts, by knowledgable forummer/translator Nyana/Jnana, which are reliable and accurate; he's responsible for making this site http://measurelessmind.ca/ - http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=8350&start=20: "...IMO any speculation regarding the postmortem status of an arahant -- either pro or con -- is counterproductive. MN 72 Aggivacchagotta Sutta informs us that any view regarding the postmortem existence or non-existence of an arahant is a fetter of view (diṭṭhisaṃyojana) which doesn't lead to direct gnosis, to awakening, to nibbāna:<p> The view that after death a tathāgata exists is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a vacillation of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by dissatisfaction, distress, despair, and fever. It does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calmness, direct gnosis, full awakening, nibbāna. The view that after death a tathāgata does not exist is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a vacillation of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by dissatisfaction, distress, despair, and fever. It does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calmness, direct gnosis, full awakening, nibbāna. The view that after death a tathāgata both exists and does not exist is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a vacillation of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by dissatisfaction, distress, despair, and fever. It does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calmness, direct gnosis, full awakening, nibbāna. The view that after death a tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a vacillation of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by dissatisfaction, distress, despair, and fever. It does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calmness, direct gnosis, full awakening, nibbāna. When the mind is completely awake and fully aware there is no urge to project or speculate about a hypothetical future. An arahant has realized that there is absolutely nothing whatsoever to be grasped at or clung to. And when the moment of death arrives he or she meets it with consciousness not established (appatiṭṭha viññāṇa)."....http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/463722: "...To paraphrase Ven. Ñāṇananda, it's not that an arahant gets half of nibbāna upon awakening, and the other half when s/he dies. Upon awakening they have already "gone out," they are "cool," and they have reached "the end." Even parinibbāna can be used to refer to a living arahant. The dhamma isn't about some sort of thanatos desire to attain completion in the grave. It's about realizing "the end" here and now. Geoff: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=6382&start=320 "retrofuturist wrote:some idea as to how consciousness might "function" ... i.e. without sankhara as its foundation" I think that there are numerous sutta references to the awakened mind which explain what is not the foundation of an arahant's experience. Firstly, by way of training: The seen is merely the seen (diṭṭhamatta). The heard is merely the heard (sutamatta). The sensed is merely the sensed (mutamatta). The known is merely the known (viññātamatta). Ud 1.10 Bāhiya Sutta: "‘The seen will be merely the seen, the heard will be merely the heard, the sensed will be merely the sensed, the known will be merely the known.’ This is how you should train, Bāhiya. When, Bāhiya, for you the seen will be merely the seen, the heard will be merely the heard, the sensed will be merely the sensed, the known will be merely the known, then Bāhiya, you will not be that. When, Bāhiya, you are not that, then Bāhiya, you will not be there. When, Bāhiya, you are not there, then Bāhiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor between-the-two. Just this is the end of unsatisfactoriness." Secondly, the absence of specific fabrication (abhisaṅkharoti) or volitional intention (abhisañcetayati) towards either existence or non-existence. MN 140 Dhātuvibhaṅga Sutta: "One does not form any specific fabrication or volitional intention towards either existence or non-existence. Not forming any specific fabrication or volitional intention towards either existence or non-existence, he does not cling to anything in this world. Not clinging, he is not excited. Unexcited, he personally attains complete nibbāna. He discerns that, ‘Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, done is what had to be done, there is nothing further here.’" Cf. Ven. Ñāṇananda, Nibbāna Sermon 04: "What is called the cessation of consciousness has a deeper sense here. It means the cessation of the specifically prepared consciousness, abhisaṅkhata viññāṇa. An arahant's experience of the cessation of consciousness is at the same time the experience of the cessation of name-and-form." And Nibbāna Sermon 06: "The more one sees preparations (saṅkhāras) as preparations, ignorance is dispelled, and the more one dispels ignorance, the preparations lose their significance as preparations. Then one sees the nature of preparations with wisdom as signless, desireless, and void. So much so that, in effect, preparations cease to be preparations.... The relation of saṅkhāras to ignorance is somewhat similar to the relation a drama has to its back-stage preparations. It seems, then, that from the standpoint of Dhamma the entire saṃsāra is a product of specifically prepared intentions, even like the drama with its back-stage preparations...." The phrase saṅkhataṃ paṭiccasamuppannaṃ (e.g. M III 299), 'prepared and dependently arisen', suggests that the prepared nature is also due to that contact. What may be called abhisaṅkhata viññāṇa (S III 58), 'specifically prepared consciousness', is that sort of consciousness which gets attached to name-and-form. When one sees a film show, one interprets a scene appearing on the screen according to one's likes and dislikes. It becomes a thing of experience for him. Similarly, by imagining a self in name-and-form, consciousness gets attached to it. It is such a consciousness, which is established on name-and-form, that can be called abhisaṅkhata viññāṇa. Then could there be also a consciousness which does not reflect a name-and-form? Yes, there could be. That is what is known as anidassana viññāṇa, or 'non-manifestative consciousness'. And thirdly, consciousness which is unestablished (appatiṭṭha viññāṇa). SN 22.53 Upaya Sutta: "When that consciousness is unestablished, not increasing, not concocting, it is liberated. Being liberated, it is steady. Being steady, it is content. Being content, he is not excited. Unexcited, he personally attains complete nibbāna. He discerns that, ‘Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, done is what had to be done, there is nothing further here.’" As for the qualm that this last passage refers to the death of an arahant, the phrase: "Unexcited, he personally attains complete nibbāna. He discerns that, 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, done is what had to be done, there is nothing further here,'" is the standard paricope referring to the time of awakening, i.e. a statement of the attainment of arahant fruition (e.g. DN 15, MN 105, etc.), and not the time of death of an arahant. The above passages referring to the cognition of an arahant are succinctly presented in AN 4.24 Kāḷakārāma Sutta: "Thus, monks, the Tathāgata does not conceive an [object] seen when seeing what is to be seen. He does not conceive an unseen. He does not conceive a to-be-seen. He does not conceive a seer. He does not conceive an [object] heard when hearing what is to be heard. He does not conceive an unheard. He does not conceive a to-be-heard. He does not conceive a hearer. He does not conceive an [object] sensed when sensing what is to be sensed. He does not conceive an unsensed. He does not conceive a to-be-sensed. He does not conceive a senser. He does not conceive an [object] known when knowing what is to be known. He does not conceive an unknown. He does not conceive a to-be-known. He does not conceive a knower." Ven. Ñāṇananda considered the Kāḷakārāma Sutta important enough to write a text on it..."....http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/447451: "Nibbāna is a negation. It means extinguishment. With the fruition of each of the four paths one knows the termination of the fetters which are eliminated by that path. This termination is nibbāna appropriate to that path. The Paṭisambhidāmagga: How is it that the discernment of the termination of continuance in one who is fully aware is gnosis of full extinguishment (parinibbāna ñāṇa)? Through the stream-entry path he terminates identity view (sakkāyadiṭṭhi), doubt (vicikicchā), and mistaken adherence to rules and duty (sīlabbataparāmāsa).... This discernment of the termination of continuance in one who is fully aware is gnosis of full extinguishment.... He causes the cessation of identity view, doubt, and mistaken adherence to rules and duty through the stream-entry path. And so on for the fetters which are terminated on the remaining three paths. The once-returner path terminates the gross fetters of desire for sensual pleasure (kāmacchanda) and aversion (vyāpāda/byāpāda). The non-returner path terminates the secondary fetters of desire for sensual pleasure (kāmacchanda) and aversion (vyāpāda/byāpāda). The arahant path terminates the fetters of passion for form [existence] (rūparāga), passion for formless [existence] (arūparāga), conceit (māna), restlessness (uddhacca), and ignorance (avijjā). All the best, Geoff ... Firstly, nibbāna isn't a "state." Secondly, nibbāna is the cessation of passion, aggression, and delusion. For a learner it is the cessation of the fetters extinguished on each path. The waking states where "suddenly all sensations and six senses stop functioning" are (1) mundane perceptionless samādhis, and (2) cessation of apperception and feeling. Neither of these are supramundane and neither of these are synonymous with experiencing nibbāna. All the best, Geoff .... This type of blackout cessation is experienced by all sorts of yogis including those practicing non-Buddhist systems. Thus, it has nothing to do with the correct engagement of vipassanā. The cessation of unsatisfactoriness (dukkhanirodha) is the cessation of craving (taṇhā), not the cessation of phenomena. DN 22: And what is the noble truth of the cessation of stress? The remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving. What craving? Craving sensual pleasure (kāmataṇhā), craving existence (bhavataṇhā), and craving non-existence (vibhavataṇhā). The cessation of unsatisfactoriness is the cessation of very specific fetters pertaining to each of the four noble paths. There is no canonical support for your interpretation of nibbāna or saupādisesa nibbānadhātu (nibbāna element with fuel remaining). .... The suttas define and describe the goal in sufficient terms. The difficulty in this discussion relates to whether one accepts what the canon states about the fruition of the path, or alternatively, accepts much later commentarial interpretations of the "path-moment" and "fruition-moment" as re-interpreted by a few 20th century Burmese monks. Without sufficient common ground for discussion there isn't much possibility of meaningful dialogue....He goes on to say that "a dhamma is a truly existent thing (sabhāvasiddha)." This is a completely realist view. And the inevitable consequence entailed by this realist view, wherein all conditioned dhammas are "truly existing things," is that path cognitions and fruition cognitions of each of the four paths and fruits must occur within an utterly void vacuum state cessation, which is considered to be the ultimately existent "unconditioned."...This notion of path and fruition cognitions is not supported by the Pāli canon. Moreover, there are now numerous people who've had such experiences sanctioned by "insight meditation" teachers, and who have gone on to proclaim to the world that arahants can still experience lust and the other defiled mental phenomena. Taking all of this into account there is no good reason whatsoever to accept this interpretation of path and fruition cognitions. Void vacuum state cessations are not an adequate nor reliable indication of stream entry or any of the other paths and fruitions." Considering the above posts, we then can understand what Ven. Nanananda says here - http://www.beyondthenet.net/calm/clm_main1.asp: "...Now vi¤¤àõaü anidassanaü is a reference to the nature of the released consciousness of an arahant. It does not reflect any­thing. To be more precise, it does not reflect a nàma-råpa, or name-and-form. An ordinary individual sees a nàma-råpa, when he reflects, which he calls `I' and `mine'. It is like the reflection of that dog, which sees its own delusive reflection in the water. A non-arahant, upon reflection, sees name-and-form, which how­ever he mistakes to be his self. With the notion of `I' and `mine' he falls into delusion with regard to it. But the arahant's con­scious­ness is an unestablished consciousness. We have already mentioned in previous sermons about the estab­lished consciousness and the unestablished conscious­ness.[ix] A non-ara­hant's consciousness is established on name-and-form. The unestablished consciousness is that which is free from name-and-form and is unestablished on name-and-form. The established con­sciousness, upon reflection, reflects name-and-form, on which it is established, whereas the unestablished consciousness does not find a name-and-form as a reality. The arahant has no attachments or en­tanglements in regard to name-and-form. In short, it is a sort of pene­tration of name-and-form, without getting entangled in it. This is how we have to un­ravel the meaning of the expression anidassana vi¤¤àõa..." It's up to you to decide what to make of this. In case you're interested, Jnana/Nyana summarizes the different understandings of nirvana in Hinayana and Mahayana in this link - http://dharmaconnectiongroup.blogspot.com/2013/06/nirvana-in-different-schools-of-buddhism.html

Those ontological views of sensate experience, according to Buddhism, are due to craving for existence; which in turn conditions and is conditioned by clinging to identity-views. The remedy to extreme views predicated on "is" and "is not", as taught by the Buddha, is dependent origination: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.020.than.html "And what are dependently co-arisen phenomena? Aging & death are dependently co-arisen phenomena: inconstant, compounded, dependently co-arisen, subject to ending, subject to passing away, subject to fading, subject to cessation. "Birth is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon... "Becoming is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon... "Clinging/sustenance is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon... "Craving is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon... "Feeling is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon... "Contact is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon... "The six sense media are dependently co-arisen phenomena... "Name-&-form is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon... "Consciousness is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon... "Fabrications are dependently co-arisen phenomena... "Ignorance is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon: inconstant, compounded, dependently co-arisen, subject to ending, subject to passing away, subject to fading, subject to cessation. These are called dependently co-arisen phenomena. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.018.than.html "Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies. Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye. "Dependent on ear & sounds, ear-consciousness arises... "Dependent on nose & aromas, nose-consciousness arises... "Dependent on tongue & flavors, tongue-consciousness arises... "Dependent on body & tactile sensations, body-consciousness arises... "Dependent on intellect & ideas, intellect-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies. Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future ideas cognizable via the intellect..... ...."Now, when there is no eye, when there are no forms, when there is no eye-consciousness, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of contact. When there is no delineation of contact, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When there is no delineation of feeling, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of perception. When there is no delineation of perception, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of thinking. When there is no delineation of thinking, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of being assailed by the perceptions & categories of objectification..... http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.149.than.html The Blessed One said: "Not knowing, not seeing the eye as it actually is present; not knowing, not seeing forms... consciousness at the eye... contact at the eye as they actually are present; not knowing, not seeing whatever arises conditioned through contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain, or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — as it actually is present, one is infatuated with the eye... forms... consciousness at the eye... contact at the eye... whatever arises conditioned by contact at the eye and is experienced as pleasure, pain, or neither-pleasure-nor-pain. "For him — infatuated, attached, confused, not remaining focused on their drawbacks — the five clinging-aggregates head toward future accumulation. The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now this & now that — grows within him. His bodily disturbances & mental disturbances grow. His bodily torments & mental torments grow. His bodily distresses & mental distresses grow. He is sensitive both to bodily stress & mental stress. "Not knowing, not seeing the ear... Not knowing, not seeing the nose... Not knowing, not seeing the tongue... Not knowing, not seeing the body... "Not knowing, not seeing the intellect as it actually is present; not knowing, not seeing ideas... consciousness at the intellect... contact at the intellect as they actually are present; not knowing, not seeing whatever arises conditioned through intellect-contact — experienced as pleasure, pain, or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — as it actually is present, one is infatuated with the intellect... ideas... consciousness at the intellect... contact at the intellect... whatever arises conditioned by contact at the intellect and is experienced as pleasure, pain, or neither-pleasure-nor-pain. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/foodforawakening.html The Buddha never used the word for "bare attention" in his meditation instructions. That's because he realized that attention never occurs in a bare, pure, or unconditioned form. It's always colored by views and perceptions — the labels you tend to give to events — and by intentions: your choice of what to attend to and your purpose in being attentive. If you don't understand the conditioned nature of even simple acts of attention, you might assume that a moment of nonreactive attention is a moment of Awakening. And in that way you miss one of the most crucial insights in Buddhist meditation: how even the simplest events in the mind can form a condition for clinging and suffering. If you assume a conditioned event to be unconditioned, you close the door to the unconditioned. So it's important to understand the conditioned nature of attention and the Buddha's recommendations for how to train it — as appropriate attention — to be a factor in the path leading beyond attention to total Awakening.... ....In the teaching on dependent co-arising — the Buddha's explanation of how events interact to create the conditions for suffering — attention appears early in the sequence, in the factor for mental events called "name," where it comes even prior to the sense media and sensory contact. But it's not the first item in the list. It follows on ignorance, fabrication, and consciousness. "Ignorance" here doesn't mean a general lack of knowledge. It means not viewing experience in terms of the four noble truths: stress, its cause, its cessation, and the path to its cessation. Any other framework for viewing experience, no matter how sophisticated, would qualify as ignorance. Typical examples given in the Canon include seeing things through the framework of self and other, or of existence and non-existence: What am I? What am I not? Do I exist? Do I not exist? Do things outside me exist? Do they not? These ignorant ways of seeing then condition the way we intentionally fabricate or manipulate bodily, verbal, and mental states. The breath is the primary means for fabricating bodily states, and practical experience shows that — in giving rise to feelings of comfort or discomfort — it has an impact on mental states as well. When colored by ignorance, even your breathing can act as a cause of suffering. As for verbal states, directed thought and evaluation are the means for fabricating words and sentences; whereas mental states are fabricated by feelings — pleasure, pain, neither-pleasure-nor-pain — and perceptions — the labels we apply to things. Sensory consciousness is colored by these fabrications. And then — based on the conditions of ignorance, fabrication, and sensory consciousness — the act of attention arises as one of a cluster of mental and physical events called name and form. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/untangling.html ...In contrast, the Buddha then depicts appropriate attention as the ability to identify that "This is suffering (the Pali word dukkha here covers stress and pain as well)," "This is the origination of suffering," "This is the cessation of suffering," and "This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of suffering." These are the four categories that the Buddha, in his first discourse, called the four noble truths. The ability to frame the issue of suffering in line with these categories is what enables you ultimately to put an end to the problem of suffering once and for all. This is why they're appropriate... http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.058.than.html ...."'All phenomena come into play through attention. "'All phenomena have contact as their origination. "'All phenomena have feeling as their meeting place... http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/into_the_stream.html ...When this had been said, one of the wanderers said to Anathapindika the householder, "The cosmos is eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless. This is the sort of view I have." Another wanderer said to Anathapindika, "The cosmos is not eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless. This is the sort of view I have." Another wanderer said, "The cosmos is finite..."..."The cosmos is infinite..."..."The soul & the body are the same..."..."The soul is one thing and the body another..."..."After death a Tathagata exists..."..."After death a Tathagata does not exist..."..."After death a Tathagata both does & does not exist..."..."After death a Tathagata neither does nor does not exist. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless. This is the sort of view I have." When this had been said, Anathapindika the householder said to the wanderers, "As for the venerable one who says, 'The cosmos is eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless. This is the sort of view I have," his view arises from his own inappropriate attention or in dependence on the words of another. Now this view has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated. Whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated, that is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stress. This venerable one thus adheres to that very stress, submits himself to that very stress." [similarly with the other positions.] When this had been said, the wanderers said to Anathapindika the householder, "We have each & every one expounded to you in line with our own positions. Now tell us what views you have." "Whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated, that is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stress. Whatever is stress is not me, is not what I am, is not my self. This is the sort of view I have."... http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html 2. Conditioned by Contact (Phassapaccayavāra) ...118 (131). "Therein, bhikkhus, when those recluses who are eternalists proclaim on four grounds the self and the world to be eternal — that is conditioned by contact. That they can experience that feeling without contact — such a case is impossible.[11] 119 (132). "When those recluses and brahmins who are eternalists in regard to some things and non-eternalists in regard to other things proclaim on four grounds the self and the world to be partly eternal and partly non-eternal — that too is conditioned by contact. That they can experience that feeling without contact — such a case is impossible.... http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.007.nypo.html ..."And how, O monks, is a monk clearly comprehending? He applies clear comprehension in going forward and going back; in looking straight on and in looking elsewhere; in bending and in stretching (his limbs); in wearing the robes and carrying the alms bowl; in eating, drinking, chewing and savoring; in obeying the calls of nature; in walking, standing sitting, falling asleep, waking, speaking and being silent — in all that he applies clear comprehension. So, monks, is a monk clearly comprehending. "If a monk is thus mindful and clearly comprehending, ardent, earnest and resolute, and a pleasant feeling arises in him, he knows: 'Now a pleasant feeling has arisen in me. It is conditioned, not unconditioned. Conditioned by what? Even by this body it is conditioned.[1]And this body, indeed, is impermanent, compounded, dependently arisen. But if this pleasant feeling that has arisen, is conditioned by the body which is impermanent, compounded and dependently arisen; how could such a pleasant feeling be permanent?' "In regard to both body and the pleasant feeling he dwells contemplating impermanence, dwells contemplating evanescence, dwells contemplating detachment, dwells contemplating cessation, dwells contemplating relinquishment. And in him who thus dwells, the underlying tendency to lust in regard to body and pleasant feeling vanishes.... Of course, as a remedy to the crypto-realism [buddhist definition] of Hinayana, there are the Prajnaparamita Sutras which fully expound the meaning of emptiness.

The above post is where our where our aspirations diverge. I'm not seeking 'Oneness', 'Awareness/Consciousness', 'nonduality', unity consciousness, etc. Buddhism makes it clear, that any form of grasping to an "unconditioned" presence, agent, subject, perceiver, seer, witness, knower, etc., is due to a misapprehension of appearances which continues the process of becoming.

What, "truth"? I'm not interested in some transcendental experience behind/beneath/outside/apart from each individually occurring sensory experience; that does not appeal to me and for me that does not satisfactorily provide a solution to recognizing and overcoming afflictive experience. Going by your standards, you should have no problem with accepting what's presented here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel048.html 20. "Lord, can there be anxiety about unrealities, in the internal?" "There can be, monk," said the Blessed One. "In that case, monk, someone has this view: 'The universe is the Self. That I shall be after death; permanent, stable, eternal, immutable; eternally the same shall I abide in that very condition.' He then hears a Perfect One expounding the Teaching for the removal of all grounds for views, of all prejudices, obsessions, dogmas and biases; for the stilling of all (kamma-) processes, for the relinquishment of all substrata (of existence), for the extirpation of craving, for dispassion, cessation, Nibbaana. He then thinks: 'I shall be annihilated, I shall be destroyed! No longer shall I exist!' Hence he grieves, is depressed and laments; beating his breast, he weeps, and dejection befalls him. Thus, monk, is there anxiety about unrealities, in the internal." 21. "But, Lord, can there be absence of anxiety about unrealities, in the internal?" "There can be, monk," said the Blessed One. "In that case, monk, someone does not have this view: 'The universe is the Self... eternally the same shall I abide in that very condition.' He then hears a Perfect One expounding the Teaching for the removal of all grounds for views, of all prejudices, obsessions, dogmas and biases; for the stilling of all (kamma-) processes, for the relinquishing of all substrata (of existence), for the extirpation of craving, for dispassion, cessation, Nibbaana. He then does not think: 'I shall be annihilated, I shall be destroyed! No longer shall I exist!' Hence he does not grieve, is not depressed, does not lament; he does not beat his breast nor does he weep, and no dejection befalls him. Thus, monk, is there absence of anxiety about unrealities, in the internal.[25] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.174.than.html Then Ven. Maha Kotthita went to Ven. Sariputta and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to Ven. Sariputta, "With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & intellection] is it the case that there is anything else?" [sariputta:] "Don't say that, my friend." [Maha Kotthita:] "With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media, is it the case that there is not anything else?" [sariputta:] "Don't say that, my friend." [Maha Kotthita:] "...is it the case that there both is & is not anything else?" [sariputta:] "Don't say that, my friend." [Maha Kotthita:] "...is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?" [sariputta:] "Don't say that, my friend...." I informally practice Mahamudra.

You wouldn't be presumptuous in assuming this, because I don't actually have a set formal practice in place, I'm just a regular person with no attainments, realizations, etc., which means I don't have practice notes as a result of this. Which is why I post articles, forum posts, etc. from people who have a lot more experience than me. If I come off as an adamantly dogmatic sectarian: then that's only because eternalist doctrines don't appeal to me; I'm actually puzzled as to how people could logically accept such a premise for individual experiences. Therefore, I present an alternative to eternalist doctrines which assume an Atman/Brahman, universal consciousness, etc.; which according to Buddhism, are conceptual elaborations, that are a result of mistakenly apprehending certain meditative experiences. Although, there must be something to this, because every time I post stuff from the POV of what Buddhism teaches: the eternalists and perennialists of TTB's react negatively to what I post on this forum. Just look at the example of posts from gatito, ralis, etc. in recent threads.

We should all remember this: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Daniel%20Ingram Many of the juvenile and tedious disputes between the various insight traditions result from fixation on these concepts and inappropriate adherence to only one side of these apparent paradoxes. Not surprisingly, these disputes between insight traditions generally arise from those with little or no insight. One clear mark of the development of true insight is that these paradoxes lose their power to confuse and obscure. They become tools for balanced inquiry and instruction, beautiful poetry, intimations of the heart of the spiritual life and of one’s own direct and non-conceptual experience of it ~ Daniel Ingram

Sure. His behaviour attends to his own volition, therefore what he condones is of no concern of mine.

Yes, the Vedantins/perennialists in this thread have demonstrated this fact. I'm posting Greg Goode's material, as a way to demonstrate how someone originally from a background in Advaita Vedanta, can have no hang-ups on discussing the differences in philosophy, practice, etc. between what he calls "Emptiness teachings" and the "Awareness teachings".

Greg Goode - Another Kind Of Self-Inquiry: Chandrakirti's [Gelug influenced] Sevenfold Reasoning On Selflessness - http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/02/another-kind-of-self-inquiry.html Greg Goode wrote: "Matt, when you say 'can someone show me how it's [awareness] not an eternal, non-separate essence?' and 'as soon as you point to a phenomenon upon which awareness would be dependent, awareness was already there,' are you assuming that awareness is one, single unified thing that is already there before objects are? That awareness is present whether objects are present or not? That is a particular model. It sounds very similar to Advaita. But there are other models. The emptiness teachings have a different model. Instead of one big awareness they posit many mind-moments or separate awarenesses. Each one is individuated by its own object. There is no awareness between or before or beyond objects. No awareness that is inherent. In this emptiness model, awareness is dependent upon its object. And as you point out, the object is dependent upon the awareness that apprehends it. But there is no underlying awareness that illuminates the entire show. That's how these teachings account for experience while keeping awareness from being inherently existent. This isn't the philosophy that denies awareness. That was materialism. We had a few materialists in the fb emptiness group, but they left when they found out that emptiness doesn't utterly deny awareness. So you see, there are people who do deny it... In the emptiness teachings, things depend on awareness, cognitiion, conceptualization, yes. But it is the other way around as well. Awareness depends on objects too. ---------------------- Greg wrote: Speaking of *after* studying the emptiness teachings.... After beginning to study the emptiness teachings, the most dramatic and earth-shattering thing I realized the emptiness of was awareness, consciousness. It came as an upside-down, inside-out BOOM, since I had been inquiring into this very point for a whole year. It happened while I was meditating on Nagarjuna's Treatise. Specifically verse IX:4, from “Examination of the Prior Entity.” If it can abide Without the seen, etc., Then, without a doubt, They can abide without it. I saw that a certain parity and bilateral symmetry is involved. If awareness can exist without its objects, then without a doubt, they can exist without awareness. True enough. Then there is a hidden line or two: BUT - the objects CAN'T exist without awareness. Therefore, awareness can't exist without them. This was big for me."

http://dharmaconnectiongroup.blogspot.com/2013/06/madhyamaka-and-advaita-vedanta.html *Greg Goode: "Soh writes, "Clinging to non-conceptual presence/awareness/etc is as much a cause of suffering as clinging to conceptuality" If clinging to anything is possible, then clinging to nonconceptual awareness is possible. You may also say, clinging to the notion of nonconceptual awareness is possible. Of course nonconceptual awareness is not the kind of thing that can do clinging. But if we allow a vocabulary any clinging in the first place (such as saying "he clings to that"), then we must allow for the possibility that one can cling to (at least) the idea of nonconceptual awareness. I am not so interested in the subtleties there, since "being nonconceptual awareness" plays no part in the Buddhism that I participate in. What I am interested in is how people can cling to awareness as they see it. I know two very prominent nondual teachers in the more Advaita tradition. They have a pretty good rap and rep. "The world and the self are nothing other than Awareness." When you get near them, you can feel a kind of anxious energy. It is not the exalted energy of spiritual accomplishment. Rather, it is a complex of almost needy beliefs, demands, assertions and bodily "hexis" (positions and contractions). I have an energy worker friend who saw one of these teachers at a restaurant where he was eating before going to give a "satsang." My friend was struck by a kind of dark, demanding furrowed-brow-type energy. He felt like the teacher was about to stab the table with a fork. But this is that teacher's normal state. I regard that as clinging to awareness. Sure, global awareness is not doing any clinging, but it's nice to have some sorts of words for this phenomenon!" Non-sectarianism should not automatically equate to perennialism - http://www.religioperennis.org/documents/Fabbri/Perennialism.pdf: "...They claim that the historically separated traditions share not only the same divine origin but are based on the same metaphysical principles, sometimes called philosophia perennis." http://dharmaconnectiongroup.blogspot.com/2013/06/madhyamaka-and-advaita-vedanta.html Greg Goode: "I agree about the different paradigms. I have talked to many, many people who are very resistant to the idea that different paths might not be talking about "the same thing," or taking a person to "the same place." It can bring up a lot of anxiety, because then people believe they have to investigate and in advance, determine which is true and which is false. I think this tension underlies a lot of perennialism. Which could be summed up crudely as "All paths lead to the same thing - the thing that I happen to be talking about." Or, "Deep down, your path is actually my path." Or, "My path is the essence of all paths." To my own way of thinking, this gestalt has ethical problems and lacks compassion. It removes a person's right to speak for their own path, and puts one's own characterization over theirs....Of course I would say that paths are not inherently different either." * The same Greg Goode that differentiates between "Emptiness teachings" and "Awareness teachings" which gatito has previously referred to on this board.