Advaita Vedanta vs Buddhism

[xabir2005]

Edited May 19, 2009 by xabir2005

[dizzydazzle]

Actually I don't like to comment on stages and people's realisation but this is just for people to have discernment about the insight of anatta.

 

This is exactly the problem with those Buddhists who want to keep claiming they are "different" and "better" than others, though they start with the disclaimer, "I don't claim this or that is better" or "I don't like to comment on others". The other issue is trying to explain everything using a Buddhist paradigm or terminology and arrive at conclusions, such as the ones here. And then there is a model of "levels" of realization which does not find a common base within Buddhists themselves. Really, it is easy to do that but hundreds of Advaitins have refuted nagarjuna, vasubandhu, dharmakirti and others. So there is nothing new to do there and waste time again. At the end of the day, most of those lost in terminologies and essays remain so and there is little actual realization. But conclusions such as these especially on masters like Sri Ramana is at most laughable. And please save yourself the trouble of typing a lengthy reply. Not much time to read that

 

Rick

Edited May 19, 2009 by dizzydazzle

[xabir2005]

This is exactly the problem with those Buddhists who want to keep claiming they are "different" and "better" than others, though they start with the disclaimer, "I don't claim this or that is better" or "I don't like to comment on others". The other issue is trying to explain everything using a Buddhist paradigm or terminology and arrive at conclusions, such as the ones here. And then there is a model of "levels" of realization which does not find a common base within Buddhists themselves. Really, it is easy to do that but hundreds of Advaitins have refuted nagarjuna, vasubandhu, dharmakirti and others. So there is nothing new to do there and waste time again. At the end of the day, most of those lost in terminologies and essays remain so and there is little actual realization. But conclusions such as these especially on masters like Sri Ramana is at most laughable. And please save yourself the trouble of typing a lengthy reply. Not much time to read that

 

Rick

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.

Edited May 19, 2009 by xabir2005

[dizzydazzle]

But I just don't want to make the whole debate about who is better, which is pretty pointless.

 

 

Please re-read what you've been writing. What you claim is pointless is exactly what you're trying to imply. And using one-sided terminology or logic.

Edited May 19, 2009 by dizzydazzle

[xabir2005]

Please re-read what you've been writing. What you claim is pointless is exactly what you're trying to imply. And using one-sided terminology or logic.

Let me put it this way:

 

Debating about 'who is better' is pointless.

 

But having right discernment of the teaching is important.

Edited May 19, 2009 by xabir2005

[dizzydazzle]

But having right discernment of the teaching is important.

 

tomato ... tomato.. compare - discernment... okay, if you say so!

[xabir2005]

BTW Thusness have said before, his 7 stages are merely a guide for practitioners, we should not just think in terms of stages. Some is able to understand the profound wisdom of emptiness from the start but have no direct experience of luminosity, then luminosity becomes a later phase. So does that mean the most pristine experience of "I AM" is now the last stage? On the other hand, some have experienced luminosity but does not understand how he get himself 'lost', as there is no insight to the karmic tendencies/propensities at all therefore cannot understand Dependent Origination adequately. But does that mean that one that experience emptiness is higher than one that experience luminosity?

 

Some people experience non-dual but did not go through the I AM, and then after non-dual the I AM becomes even more precious because it will bring out the luminosity aspect more. Also, when in non-dual, one can still be full of thoughts, therefore the focus then is to experience the thoroughness of being no-thoughts, fully luminous and present... then it is not about non-dual, not about the no object-subject split, it is about the degree of luminosity for these non-dualist. But for some monks that is trapped in luminosity and rest in samadhi, then the focus should be on refining non-dual insight and experience.

 

So just see them as phases different aspect of insights of our true nature, not necessarily as linear stages or a 'superiority' and 'inferiority' comparison. What one should understand is what is lacking in the form of realization. There is no hierarchy to it, only insights. Then one will be able to see all stages as flat, no higher.

 

I hope this clarifies things. Also, Thusness have said before that even though he had non-dual and emptiness insights, but in terms of strength of absorption, he and most other practitioners cannot compare with Ramana Maharshi. People like Ramana have the ability to sit for hours and days and it doesn't mean anything to these practitioners. Absorption is another dimension and the 'dry insight' cultivators should not think they know a lot even though they may have some level of experience in it. Certain thing needs practice, like exercise and body building, and needs to develop the skill through discipline. One needs to give up all worldly stuff for it, needs to be vegetarian, etc. and without that, certain sort of experiences will not be there. It does not mean one must do all these to be enlightened, just that certain aspects simply won't be there until one meets all these criterias.

 

It is not about who is higher, really. I think there are valuable things to be learnt from everyone.

Edited May 19, 2009 by xabir2005

[dizzydazzle]

Edited May 19, 2009 by dizzydazzle

[xabir2005]

[nac]

I am by no means well-versed in philosophy, let alone Buddhist philosophy, so I could end up ranting about things I don't understand. What I think Buddhist philosophy does is try to re-evaluate all sensory input from ground-up with NO assumptions, preconceptions or axioms of any sort. It even transcends assumptions like "I'm going to use use predefined terms such as 'existentia' and 'essentia' to dissect and classify my experiences into my preexisting worldview." This is what it seems to specialize in and primarily focus on: how to take nothing for granted. At all. (Of course, it also devotes a lot of thought to suffering, compassion, spiritual emancipation, etc.) Thus it seeks to avoid fixation on any single point of view or thought structure. For the sake of completeness, it also goes on to explain how this resulting "emptiness" is itself "empty" without creating logical inconsistencies. It spares nothing (not even nothingness ) from this ground-up re-evaluation. I've heard this mindset shares an affinity with post-structuralism in western philosophy.

 

After all, why not? Internally consistent systems abstracted from a specific domain of phenomena usually make sense when confined to it's domain. For example, while the theory of relativity is valid in the case of relativistic distances, extremely minute phenomena are better described by quantum physics. I don't see any basis for rejecting the Buddhist position off-hand: Trying to build a Theory of Everything by correlating smaller, widely divergent disciples is impractical without undertaking forays into metaphysics like the String Theory. If all abstract systems are shown to be meaningless except within specific contexts, that itself would provide ample basis for philosophical emptiness. I'm not a supporter of calling any side "better" than the others. "Better" is an almost meaningless word anyway.

 

The difference between Advaita and Buddhism is similar to that of this guy's views and philosophical materialism: http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic....=23&t=65636 (I'm not sure if you have to register to see the thread)

[Lucky7Strikes]

Edited May 20, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[goldisheavy]

I'm talking about the generally accepted and recognised definition of those terms. It is still important to, as mikael quoted here:

 

"Let us make distinctions, and call things by their right names."

-- Henry David Thoreau, Wild Fruits.

 

This is load of crap. What is this "generally accepted" crap? This "generally accepted" crap comes from US! From me and you. And if we all decide to change our mind, then what used to be "generally accepted" is not generally accepted anymore. In other words, what is or is not generally accepted is a moving target, and to refer to it with such smugness and self-assuredness is insane, especially for a Buddhist! You'd think of all people Buddhists would appreciate the transitory nature of meanings, conventions and so on, and would be more open to exploration of alternative meanings. Nope. No cigar. Buddhists are as stubborn and as inane as Wahhabi Muslims. It's a damn blessing that Buddhists tend to be peaceful, because if Buddhists were not peaceful, their inane stubbornness would cause a war every time.

 

With the lack of such distinctions, many people get wrong understandings of what 'emptiness', 'anatta', etc in Buddhism means.

p.s. atman just means 'self', this is a universal sanskrit term. What the 'atman' is, is another issue. Advaita posits a 'self' that is transcendent. In buddhism we do not posit an atman, whether within nor outside the 5 skandhas.

 

To say that "atman" just means "self" is useless. The question is what does the "self" mean then? Etc. The problem is that Buddhist thinkers are non-charitable to others, and the same in reverse. Buddhists really crave separate identity. Any hint that their system is not unique drives them insane. I've seen this in practice in real life. It's a deep personal issue. Since Buddhists are so damned biased, discussing the issue is pretty much a waste of time.

 

Do you even understand what it means to be transcendent? If we say "self is transcendent" how is that different from "self is empty"? I say -- no different! To be transcendent means to be empty in my mind. Does being transcendent imply something like "standing apart from" or "standing outside of"? Nope. It doesn't imply that at all. In fact, the meaning of "transcendence" is precisely absence of ordinary/stable meaning.

 

I really detest talking to dyed in the wool Buddhist. Every time I get a feeling I am talking to a moron.

Edited May 20, 2009 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

---

 

I think that it's obvious Buddhism is unique in some sense. It has its own toolbox and it has a different way of talking about things, and it's a valuable addition to our life here on Earth.

 

However, to imply that Buddhism is utterly unique, that Buddhism is categorically different from every other tradition, that goes too far in my book. To be so damned certain about it just smacks of ignorance. To a non-contemplative everything is obvious. Once you contemplate anything, anything whatsoever, it stops being obvious.

 

The difference between self and no-self seems obvious at first. But once you contemplate what does "self" mean? How is it different from "no-self" or, more correctly translated, "not self" (!! See Thanissaro Bhikhu's note on this here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors.../notself2.html), you see their difference, at best, is a mental construct of inconstant nature, baseless, empty! How can anyone be so damn sure that self is different from not-self? I understand if self and not-self had some essence backing them up, no one would ever confuse those two concepts. But since concepts are empty, how can one be so damn sure they are always, eternally, clearly separate and their meanings are universally well understood? That's idiocy of the highest order.

 

This is what happens when you get a moron into Buddhism. The moron takes everything uncritically and starts meditating like crazy, without asking any questions. Everything is so obvious. You know what Buddha is. You know what cessation is. You know what the stages of enlightenment are. It's obvious!!! JUST MEDITATE MEDITATE MEDIATE. Nonsense! Garbage! You'll never be enlightened that way. You'll just entrench yourself into your obstinate mindset even harder with meditation. Meditation just confirms beliefs when the meditator is a non-critical person. For example, if you're a hard-core physicalist and you meditate for 10 hours, you'll just walk away even more convinced than ever than everything is made of matter. That's why Buddhists always say that THE VIEW is so important. Without the view, meditation just entrenches you in your current view. But to get THE VIEW you cannot just go by what you are told. You have to be critical. That's the only way to arrive at the view in an authentic manner that actually means something in your life.

 

I love many Buddhist teachings and I respect many Buddhists, but I am damned glad I am not a Buddhist myself. No way, no how. I will never sign up on any bandwagon as long as I live.

Edited May 20, 2009 by goldisheavy

[dwai]

Dependent Origination is not even a word in the advaita 'dictionary'. It is simply not taught in advaita. Would be good if you can provide a teaching from advaita that is similar to D.O.

 

Furthermore, D.O. and emptiness is just not 'compatible' with Brahman. Because that would imply that Brahman itself is unreal, without substance, etc.

No, as explained, emptiness is not an ultimate reality, it is talking about the unfindability of any essence or reality to self and phenomena.

 

Hi xabir,

 

Advaita Vedanta is built on the pillars of DO and Superimposition, along with the Theory of Two truths.

 

DO doesn't do anything beyond prove that phenomena are interdependent. Therefore, no phenomenon cannot have own-existence or own-nature.

 

BTW, the "Satta" that your buddhists refer to as "truth" find their roots in the Sanskrit word "Sat" which means existent.

 

Paramartha Satya (or Satta) is that which is beyond the phenomenal world. That is Brahman. The Ultimate Reality (or Truth).

[Lucky7Strikes]

However, to imply that Buddhism is utterly unique, that Buddhism is categorically different from every other tradition, that goes too far in my book. To be so damned certain about it just smacks of ignorance. To a non-contemplative everything is obvious. Once you contemplate anything, anything whatsoever, it stops being obvious.

 

To imply that Buddhism claims to be utterly unique or is not, and to be so damned certain about it just smacks of ignorance. To a non-contemplative everything is obvious. Once you contemplate what non-contemplation and obviousness is, it stops being obvious.

 

But since concepts are empty, how can one be so damn sure they are always, eternally, clearly separate and their meanings are universally well understood? That's idiocy of the highest order.

 

Then why do you speak. That's idiocy of the highest order.

 

This is what happens when you get a moron into Buddhism. The moron takes everything uncritically and starts meditating like crazy, without asking any questions. Everything is so obvious. You know what Buddha is. You know what cessation is. You know what the stages of enlightenment are. It's obvious!!! JUST MEDITATE MEDITATE MEDIATE. Nonsense! Garbage! You'll never be enlightened that way.

 

Moron...?What exactly does the moron meditate on? What is his meditation? Everything is so obvious..

 

You'll just entrench yourself into your obstinate mindset even harder with meditation. Meditation just confirms beliefs when the meditator is a non-critical person. For example, if you're a hard-core physicalist and you meditate for 10 hours, you'll just walk away even more convinced than ever than everything is made of matter. That's why Buddhists always say that THE VIEW is so important. Without the view, meditation just entrenches you in your current view. But to get THE VIEW you cannot just go by what you are told. You have to be critical. That's the only way to arrive at the view in an authentic manner that actually means something in your life.

 

I don't get this VIEW you are referring or precisely your understanding of meditation.

 

I love many Buddhist teachings and I respect many Buddhists, but I am damned glad I am not a Buddhist myself. No way, no how. I will never sign up on any bandwagon as long as I live.

 

It seems like you are already on a bandwagon. The very tone of this post reeks of hypocrisy.

[Sunya]

two very essential points that need stressing to understand the difference

 

1 - The main teaching of the Buddha was that View is very important, in fact View is the most important aspect of understanding truth. With the 'Right View' you are free to do whatever method to realize truth. Having Right View is like putting your car in the right direction, and any method you do will be pushing the gas pedal. This is why Tantra utilizes profound methods such as alcohol and sex. Not everyone can do this, because there are many karmic propensities (bad habits) to sink into wrong view, so Tibetans have many preliminaries to get your view right. For someone utilizing these methods with the wrong view is driving your car off a cliff, because you're still holding onto some form of Self, transcendent or not. Tantric method or not, View is essential. So its very important if you want to understand Buddhism to see that View is everything.

 

2- So, since View dictates your experience (if you believe in a transcendent Self, or some real existing substance behind phenomenon you will experience that and stop there, not moving beyond your pre conceived beliefs.. because your beliefs, your conceptions, your View dictates your experiences) it is then important to look at Dependent Origination, Emptiness, Anatta, and how this relates. Xabir quoted earlier an article about Dependent origination and No-View. Essentially they are the same, because Dependent origination, and futhermore Nagarjuna's Madhyamika, is a view meant to completely tear down any fabricated erroneous beliefs, because as stated earlier according to Buddhism : View dictates experience.

 

Since Buddhism is concerned with experiencing completely unblemished Truth, and since dualistic concepts and beliefs will tarnish the experience of Truth, it is therefore essential to have No-View, or Right View of Emptiness.

 

Advaita does not contain teachings on Dependent Origination or Emptiness because Advaita presupposes that Brahman exists. This is an idea, this is a concept, this is a belief. So, according to Buddhism, Advaita has wrong view because of the limiting beliefs inherent to its system and philosophy.

Edited May 20, 2009 by mikaelz

[Sunya]

generally it seems that people who want all religions to be the same, haven't fully studied all religions, especially Buddhism. This is a big New Age habit, as people tend to sleep better at night knowing that 'it's all the same'.

 

This is a bad habit of Hindus too where the tradition is to view all as paths up the mountain; unfortunately most Hindus never fully digest Buddhism because they look at it through a Hindu view (Ken Wilber for example). those that do digest Buddhism tend to stick to it, realizing the inherent differences between religions. I have a feeling this whole New Age 'let's bunch all religions into one' came from Hindu influence, since they love to attribute everything to Hinduism. such as Buddha being an incarnation of Vishnu or Krishna and merely reforming the Vedas. and of course, Jesus going to India to learn Yoga.

 

Does it really make sense that all religions lead to the same goal? Are all people of the same caliber and understanding? Doesn't it make more sense that there are varying degrees of experience, not just one, and that not all religions reach the highest summit?

 

This isn't directed towards Advaita, but just in general to all practitioners:

 

Let's stop fantasizing for a second and get real. There is a presupposition that is tarnishing the view of most Hindus and New Agers and that is: we are all "evolving" on a path to realize Oneness, we will get there eventually: so view isn't important. Grace will bring you there, all you have to do is give up, surrender, and get on the ride. Take the elevator all the way up. All you need is Shaktipat or whatever, and that's it. I used to think this as well, but I don't think it's that easy. I don't think this is true at all. There is no God that will 'bring you up'. We need to get real here, we need to get serious. What if there is no Higher Self or God? what if this belief is a mind creation, furthering your dualistic tendencies and furthering suffering? I think it's time to take our enlightenment more seriously, and to stop fantasizing.

[dwai]

two very essential points that need stressing to understand the difference

 

1 - The main teaching of the Buddha was that View is very important, in fact View is the most important aspect of understanding truth. With the 'Right View' you are free to do whatever method to realize truth. Having Right View is like putting your car in the right direction, and any method you do will be pushing the gas pedal. This is why Tantra utilizes profound methods such as alcohol and sex. Not everyone can do this, because there are many karmic propensities (bad habits) to sink into wrong view, so Tibetans have many preliminaries to get your view right. For someone utilizing these methods with the wrong view is driving your car off a cliff, because you're still holding onto some form of Self, transcendent or not. Tantric method or not, View is essential. So its very important if you want to understand Buddhism to see that View is everything.

 

2- So, since View dictates your experience (if you believe in a transcendent Self, or some real existing substance behind phenomenon you will experience that and stop there, not moving beyond your pre conceived beliefs.. because your beliefs, your conceptions, your View dictates your experiences) it is then important to look at Dependent Origination, Emptiness, Anatta, and how this relates. Xabir quoted earlier an article about Dependent origination and No-View. Essentially they are the same, because Dependent origination, and futhermore Nagarjuna's Madhyamika, is a view meant to completely tear down any fabricated erroneous beliefs, because as stated earlier according to Buddhism : View dictates experience.

 

Since Buddhism is concerned with experiencing completely unblemished Truth, and since dualistic concepts and beliefs will tarnish the experience of Truth, it is therefore essential to have No-View, or Right View of Emptiness.

 

Advaita does not contain teachings on Dependent Origination or Emptiness because Advaita presupposes that Brahman exists. This is an idea, this is a concept, this is a belief. So, according to Buddhism, Advaita has wrong view because of the limiting beliefs inherent to its system and philosophy.

 

That's where your understanding of Advaita misses it's target. Advaita Vedanta considers phenomenon, things that have beginnings and endings, those that are objects of consciousness to be vyavaharika satya (or lower reality/truth/existence). Brahman exists and has properties or no properties based on who is seeing (at which level of realization). Dependent Origination is needed to establish the difference between phenomena and non-phenomena. Brahman is non-phenomenon (noumenon I believe is the word?)

[Sunya]

Hi xabir,

 

Advaita Vedanta is built on the pillars of DO and Superimposition, along with the Theory of Two truths.

 

DO doesn't do anything beyond prove that phenomena are interdependent. Therefore, no phenomenon cannot have own-existence or own-nature.

 

 

 

yes Sankara did borrow heavily from Nagarjuna but Advaita is still monistic, while Buddhism is the middle way between monism and nihilism

 

dependent origination isn't just saying phenomena are interdependent, but that phenomena are empty. nothing to hold onto, nothing real, no Brahman.

 

"...it requires more than just confusion in order to turn Vedanta into something compatible with Mahayana Buddhism. Given the formulation of the Vedantic view, Brahman has to exist. It simply would make no sense if it was empty (in the Buddhist sense),"

 

 

I think the main philosophical points have been discussed, and now it's time for us to find out what's true and what's not true. I plan on finding out if what the Buddha said was true. You find out if what Sankara taught was true and once we reach the pinnacle of our respective traditions, we meet and see if we have the same realization or not.

Edited May 20, 2009 by mikaelz

[nac]

I love many Buddhist teachings and I respect many Buddhists, but I am damned glad I am not a Buddhist myself. No way, no how. I will never sign up on any bandwagon as long as I live.

I'm with Jet Li on this: http://www.jetli.com/jet/index.php?l=en&am...=essays&p=3

 

Just make sure your bandwagonlessness doesn't turn into a bandwagon of it's own. This may turn out to be harder than you think.

 

There is no God that will 'bring you up'. We need to get real here, we need to get serious. What if there is no Higher Self or God? what if this belief is a mind creation, furthering your dualistic tendencies and furthering suffering? I think it's time to take our enlightenment more seriously, and to stop fantasizing.

Thanks, that's similar to what I tried to explain yesterday. Advaita does have a modified form of DO though, and looking down on different schools of thought is rarely conducive to helping others. My examples were existentia and essentia, but Buddhists reject traditional ideas like Brahman for the same reasons. This is the mindset Buddhism tries to avoid: I have a preconcieved notion of what God, Brahman, Tao, Buddha, Emptiness, Theory of Everything, etc is, and I want to investigate experience in order to "learn more about it" or "disprove it" or ... Buddhists will first analyze the idea itself, and try to acertain which aspects of it are true, viable or applicable. I'm not sure, but I doubt Advaita does this to the same extent, since it seems to borrow concepts and inspiration from the Vedic tradition. Like I said, I don't know for sure.

[Pero]

That's where your understanding of Advaita misses it's target. Advaita Vedanta considers phenomenon, things that have beginnings and endings, those that are objects of consciousness to be vyavaharika satya (or lower reality/truth/existence). Brahman exists and has properties or no properties based on who is seeing (at which level of realization). Dependent Origination is needed to establish the difference between phenomena and non-phenomena. Brahman is non-phenomenon (noumenon I believe is the word?)

 

What is "non-phenomenon"? And the difference between it and phenomena?

[xabir2005]

You inevitably contradict yourself in this very quote by saying "there is nothing to attain or practice...we have to realize this ground..." I meant that the teaching itself is intended for the practitioner to achieve a certain state. Your using of the phrase "there is nothing to attain or practice" is only valid within that realm of perspective (if there is one). Just as you keep pointing out that emptiness is not this and not that, the 'state' of it cannot possibly be directly related to an ordinary person. We can use the term 'realize' as people who have not yet experienced this 'ground.'

 

I believe the problem lies in how you keep trying to phrase this experience into stages of there being a true Self, no self, and so forth, hence continually pointing out that Advaita advocates ultimate Brahman and Buddhism does not in the notion of Shunyata. I agree with dizzydazzle that one shouldn't get lost in terminologies, but believe that the teaching is there to break down the conventional walls of the mind. So the 'Truth'/enlightenment is to be directly experienced, just as the reality of someone with the concept of a "doer" is directly experienced whether or not it is an illusion.

There is no state to reach. What is presently appearing is already fully empty -- nothing needs to be 'emptied' other than simply realising emptiness as the nature of all appearances, already so. To try to 'empty' something implies something is 'existing' and yet to be 'emptied', but really, all appearances are from the beginning empty already, to try to 'empty' something that cannot be found is still under the illusion of inherent existence. Similarly you can never 'get rid of self', other than simply realising that a separate observer, doer, agent, cannot be found. How can you get rid of something that is not even there in the first place? What is gotten rid of at the moment of insight is not a self, but the tendency to project a self, due to direct intuitive insight of the seal of Anatta. The practice is to gain sufficient perceptual clarity of our experience from moment to moment so that we can gain insight into the 'ever present' nature of reality. But no-self and emptiness is not a practice -- it is what is always and already so, a.k.a Dharma Seal, or the characteristic of existence/phenomena. So practice is important, just that it must not be misunderstood.

 

As I said what is important is the insight into the ever-present nature -- it is not about achieving a state.

 

Lastly it is true that though there never was a doer, watcher, agent, or inherency to be found at any moment -- the appearance of a doer or agent or watcher, though nothing inherent and merely an illusion, can still appear very real due to strong latent karmic tendencies or deep conditionings. These conditionings can only be dissolved after deep insights. To understand and experience that strength of karmic propensities is just as important. What is the condition that give rise to the sensation of a split? Dependent origination. Dependent on this, that arises. When the condition is gone, then the appearance of a split is also gone. But when the tendency is there, the split is also there. The appearance is also dependently originated and hence nothing inherent.

Edited May 20, 2009 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Do you even understand what it means to be transcendent? If we say "self is transcendent" how is that different from "self is empty"? I say -- no different! To be transcendent means to be empty in my mind.

No. For them, transcendent means transcending waking, dreaming, and deep sleep. It does not mean it is empty: rather, it is the only real 'thing' existing, and is eternal -- unmoved and unaffected by the unreal coming and goings of states and experiences. It is formless and shapeless, it is void of attributes, it is luminous and conscious, but it is not empty of inherent existence. Rather it is inherent, independent and eternal, a background witness.

 

Hence, a transcendental self is not the same as the Buddhist emptiness at all.

 

As what Thusness said 4 years ago:

 

When the pure, formless, clear, brilliance bright, boundless and luminous enters

the sphere of thoughts, the mind transforms the Presence into an 'ENTITY' that is pure, formless,

clear, brilliance bright, boundless and luminous.

This entity, this something is the 'Self' added by a divided mind.

Without creating this 'center', this base, this something, a divided mind does not know how to function. Because the thinking mind understands through measurement and comparison.

 

In buddhism, this 'Self' is extra and created. In reality it does not exist.

This is the wisdom to be awaken in order to see reality in its nakedness.

When this is clear, the stream always IS.

Edited May 20, 2009 by xabir2005

[dwai]

What is "non-phenomenon"? And the difference between it and phenomena?

 

non-phenomenon is something that is not a phenomenon. A phenomenon (as you will find out by applying the principle of Dependent Origination) is something that has a beginning and an end. Also, a Phenomenon is something that does not have own-nature and own-existent (ie one phenomenon is dependent on others), or in another sense, phenomena are empty (like Xabir pointed out). All phenomena fall in the category of Lower Truths.

That which is not a phenomenon, that which has own-nature and own-existence, that does not have any beginning or end is the non-phenomenon. That is Tao, that is Brahman, according to Advaita Vedanta.

 

That is why you have Shankara talk about reality being illusory. Because Phenomena are empty and therefore have no "substance". And that's why he refers to Brahman as the Only Reality/Truth/Existent.

Edited May 20, 2009 by dwai

[xabir2005]

As what Thusness said 4 years ago:

 

When the pure, formless, clear, brilliance bright, boundless and luminous enters

the sphere of thoughts, the mind transforms the Presence into an 'ENTITY' that is pure, formless,

clear, brilliance bright, boundless and luminous.

This entity, this something is the 'Self' added by a divided mind.

Without creating this 'center', this base, this something, a divided mind does not know how to function. Because the thinking mind understands through measurement and comparison.

 

In buddhism, this 'Self' is extra and created. In reality it does not exist.

This is the wisdom to be awaken in order to see reality in its nakedness.

When this is clear, the stream always IS.

Just to relate to what I pasted previously on 'stream entry':

 

(11:39 PM) Thusness: how did Zen I AMness becomes stream entry?

all sort of nonsense.

what stream entry?

why stream entry?

why stream winner?

why 'stream' at all?