Advaita Vedanta vs Buddhism

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Non-duality is when we see consciousness not as a background witnessing void but as all manifestation.

 

 

Yes, but not as everyone's consciousness as a super oneness. Yes, one's consciousness get's more and more vast, spacious and deeper, but that's the realization of your own mind stream's inherent emptiness realizing the emptiness of all mind streams and their products. Consciousness is your now liberated experience of all manifestation but not as a source of all beings, or reified as an ultimate even. It's your own source of experiencing, and when liberated, experiencing of constant D.O. is liberated, the D.O. that never began and never ends.

Edited May 31, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[xabir2005]

Yes, but not as everyone's consciousness as a super oneness. Yes, one's consciousness get's more and more vast, spacious and deeper, but that's the realization of your own mind stream's inherent emptiness realizing the emptiness of all mind streams and their products. Consciousness is your now liberated experience of all manifestation but not as a source of all beings, or reified as an ultimate even. It's your own source of experiencing, and when liberated, experiencing of constant D.O. is liberated, the D.O. that never began and never ends.

Yes, only the individual stream of consciousness is itself non-dual, there is no source or Brahman or a universal consciousness. Edited May 31, 2009 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

BTW I would like to clarify for readers here: my post #399 and #400 are talking about different things.

 

#399 is talking about non-duality (similar to thusness's phase 4) while #400 is talking about dependent origination and emptiness (which is thusness's phase 6). I discussed about Buddhism's No-Self (a.k.a thusness's phase 5) in post #367.

 

(url for the 7 phases: Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Experience on Spiritual Enlightenment)

 

Hari's post triggers me to clarify about the posts. Wrote this so that one will not confuse one as the other. Non-duality of subject and object does not imply the understanding of Dependent Origination or Emptiness... or even Buddhism's No-Self.

Edited May 31, 2009 by xabir2005

[dwai]

[Vajrahridaya]

There is no way to express that which is beyond the realm of phenomenology in phenomenological terms and concepts.

 

Again, a hindu and theist paradigm, part of the delusion of samsara. Conceptless-ness as an absolute.

 

Oh believe you me, these are far from words empty of experience!!

 

It's ok... you do have endless time to get it.

 

 

This is what I am trying to express to you. Categorical framework needs to be discarded. Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta, etc are all categorical frameworks. They have to be discarded for the direct experience.

 

Buddhists do this... but we truly do this. Which is why we can use so many words, because they are all empty of inherent existence. We can point through so many ways, because we see a deeper, subtler goal.

 

You still take up non-thinking as an absolute, you don't realize how part of the framework of samsara you and your friends are.

 

Dependent Origination is the framework killer, totally and fully... not trapped in non-concepts, and not trapped in concepts. But... this is a discussion board, so here we go... more concepts. Concepts that some are getting.

 

That's good enough. If these words were totally a waste, I'd be a sad Dharma pal.

[Vajrahridaya]

The difference between Buddhism and other traditions, is that the tradition itself IS the enlightenment, is it's expression, is it's qualities of realization, is Buddhahood in symbolic form.

 

Other traditions talk about transcending the tradition into a non-conceptual ground of reality. Buddhism cuts through that like fire to water...

 

Truth be told.

[Sunya]

one of the biggest surprises I got over a year ago when I met with a Tibetan Lama was when I asked if truth can be discussed intellectually with concepts (coming from a Taoist/Hindu/Zen background, I was all about the non-conceptual), I was shocked when he said yes.

 

Dwai, this is something you'll have to accept. Buddhists use concepts to point to the non-conceptual, using skillful means and method to not get stuck in concepts. and non-conceptual doesn't equal non-conceptual. since non-conceptual can also be an extreme position, ungrounded in reason, hopeful in idealism and expectation.

 

question, how is Advaita absolute truth non-conceptual if you're already given a concept to work with as a foundation (the existence of Brahman) ? even if you give it all these fancy words of attributeless, you're still positing this absolute existence, and this is something that Buddhism does not do.

[Vajrahridaya]

"Mere suffering is, not any sufferer is found

The deeds exist, but no performer of the deeds:

Nibbana (realization of D.O.) is, but not the man that enters it,

The path is, but no wanderer is to be seen.

 

No doer of the deeds is found,

No one who ever reaps their fruits,

Empty phenomena roll on,

This view alone is right and true.

 

No god, no Brahma, may be called,

The maker of this wheel of life,

Empty phenomena roll on,

Dependent on conditions all."

 

- Visuddhimagga XVI 90

[Vajrahridaya]

From the Pali Suttas...

 

 

'As far as the suns and moons extend their courses and the regions of the sky shine in splendour, there is a thousandfold world system. In each single one of these there are a thousand suns, moons, Meru Mountains, four times a thousand continents and oceans, a thousand heavens of all stages of the realm of sense pleasure, a thousand Brahma worlds. As far as a thousandfold world system reaches in other words, the universe], the Great God is the highest being. But even the Great God is subject to coming-to-be and ceasing-to-be.' -- Anguttara-Nikaya X 29

 

"God truthfully answers [the questions of the Buddha] in succession: 'Good sir, those views I previously held are not mine; I see the radiance the world of God as passing; how could I say that I am permanent and eternal?'" MN 83

 

In Digha Nikaya 24 where the Buddha states:

 

"There are some ascetics and brahmins who declare as their doctrine that all things began with the creation by God, or Brahma."

 

"That Worshipful God, the Great God, the Omnipotent, the Omniscient, the Organizer, the Protection, the Creator, the Most Perfect Ruler, the Designer and Orderer, the Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be, He by Whom we were created, He is permanent, Constant, Eternal, Unchanging, and He will remain so for ever and ever."

 

Anguttara Nikaya 3.61: "Again, monks, I [the Buddha] approached those ascetic and brahmins and said to them: 'Is it true, as they say, that you venerable ones teach and hold the view that whatever a person experiences...all that is caused by God's creation?' When they affirmed it, I said to them: 'If that is so, venerable sirs, then it is due to God's creation that people kill, steal ...[and otherwise act badly]. But those who have recourse to God's creation as the decisive factor, will lack the impulse and the effort doing this or not doing that. Since for them, really and truly, no (motive) obtains that this or that ought to be done or not be done...."'

 

"If the pleasure and pain that beings feel are caused the creative act of a Supreme God [issara-nimmana-hetu], then the Niganthas [Jains] surely must have been created by an evil Supreme God." MajjhimaNikaya II 222.

 

"Monks, I will teach you the all. And what is the all? The eye and forms, the ear and sounds the nose and odors, the tongue and tastes, the body and touch, the mind and mental phenomena. This is called the all. If anyone, monks, should speak thus: ' Having rejected this all, I shall make known another all' - that would be a mere empty boast." SN IV 15.

 

"The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God." MN II 68.

[dwai]

one of the biggest surprises I got over a year ago when I met with a Tibetan Lama was when I asked if truth can be discussed intellectually with concepts (coming from a Taoist/Hindu/Zen background, I was all about the non-conceptual), I was shocked when he said yes.

 

Dwai, this is something you'll have to accept. Buddhists use concepts to point to the non-conceptual, using skillful means and method to not get stuck in concepts. and non-conceptual doesn't equal non-conceptual. since non-conceptual can also be an extreme position, ungrounded in reason, hopeful in idealism and expectation.

 

question, how is Advaita absolute truth non-conceptual if you're already given a concept to work with as a foundation (the existence of Brahman) ? even if you give it all these fancy words of attributeless, you're still positing this absolute existence, and this is something that Buddhism does not do.

 

It is not possible to do a phenomenological inquiry into something that is not phenomenal. If you think Buddhism does that, you are wrong. No one can.

[Vajrahridaya]

It is not possible to do a phenomenological inquiry into something that is not phenomenal. If you think Buddhism does that, you are wrong. No one can.

 

Dwai,

 

What your refusing to understand is that what you consider non-phenomenal, as in the objectless consciousness that Vedanta say's all things find refuge in and are in essence, is considered a subtle phenomena in Buddhism. Thus to ascribe any selfhood to that is delusion. The reifying of that experience saying, "this alone is true" is even considered a mis-comprehension of that state of dhyan, which is merely a formless realm, seemingly infinite and eternal, but really it's just long lasting and not final refuge from Samsaric experience.

 

Concept-less-ness is considered a phenomena in Buddhism. To put it another way, non-phenomenal is considered co-dependent with phenomena, so thereby, empty of inherent existence. Thus, is not reality either and not the source of liberation. Any level of experience, even that beyond experiencer and experienced, all non-dual formless states of consciousness, Buddha considers unworthy of refuge.

 

That's why the Buddha say's to take refuge in the teaching of dependent origination, and not a universal source or essence. We take refuge in the teacher, the teaching and the students of the teaching. We do not take refuge in any essence of things, or any essence of mind.

 

Because that is so, Buddhism talks about how one maintains enlightened awareness, because there is no self-dependent essence that all is based on to rely on that is inherently eternal and self standing.

 

That way to keep enlightened awareness eternally has everything to do with applying positive D.O. by offering merit's to the continuous ongoing flow of Samsara in specific ways only taught in the Mahayana, as the cosmos expands and contracts through endless display's of universes.

 

Basically, all the Buddha is saying, is that Karma goes deeper than concept. Karma of bondage and Samsara goes into bliss states, oceanic experiences where one feels like they are one with the universe, states of consciousness beyond thought, etc. None of these lead to permanent unbinding from Samsara without the proper view of Dependent Origination which has been explained in the last page by Loppon Namdrol in the quote of him by Xabir where he say's basically that dependent origination is a wisdom that pacifies all views. So it's the viewless view. It's the only view that works in fact to quit Samsaric experience entirely because it's the view that transcends views, not a state of non-conceptual consciousness. In buddhahood, that state is used merely as reflection, to go birds eye view on things and self, it is a function of consciousness to be featureless, but it's not the refuge of liberation. Conceptless-ness is not a refuge and not the way to liberation according to Buddhism, it is merely a way to find clarity, to comprehend subtler paradigms directly.

 

To the Buddha, this is still all Samsara. So, the Buddha's scrutiny and observation goes deeper than Advaita Vedanta for this reason.

Edited June 1, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[dwai]

Dwai,

 

What your refusing to understand is that what you consider non-phenomenal, as in the objectless consciousness that Vedanta say's all things find refuge in and are in essence, is considered a subtle phenomena in Buddhism. Thus to ascribe any selfhood to that is delusion. That experience is even considered a mis-comprehension of that state of dhyan, which is merely a formless realm, seemingly infinite and eternal, but really it's just long lasting and not final refuge from Samsaric experience.

 

Concept-less-ness is considered a phenomena in Buddhism. To put it another way, non-phenomenal is considered co-dependent with phenomena, so thereby, empty of inherent existence. Thus, is not reality either and not the source of liberation. Any level of experience, even that beyond experiencer and experienced, all non-dual formless states of consciousness, Buddha considers unworthy of refuge.

 

That's why the Buddha say's to take refuge in the teaching of dependent origination, and not a universal source or essence. We take refuge in the teacher, the teaching and the students of the teaching We do not take refuge in any essence of things, or any essence of mind.

 

Because that is so, Buddhism talks about how one maintains enlightened awareness, because there is no self-dependent essence that all is based on to rely on that is inherently eternal and self standing.

 

That way to keep enlightened awareness eternally has everything to do with applying positive D.O. by offering merit's to the continuous ongoing flow of Samsara in specific ways only taught in the Mahayana, as the cosmos expands and contracts through endless display's of universes.

 

Basically, all the Buddha is saying, is that Karma goes deeper than concept. Karma of bondage and Samsara goes into bliss states, oceanic experiences where one feels like they are one with the universe, states of consciousness beyond thought, etc. None of these lead to permanent unbinding from Samsara without the proper view of Dependent Origination which has been explained in the last page by Loppon Namdrol in the quote of him by Xabir where he say's basically that dependent origination is a wisdom that pacifies all views. So it's the viewless view. It's the only view that works in fact to quit Samsaric experience entirely because it's the view that transcends views, not a state of non-conceptual consciousness. In buddhahood, that state is used merely as reflection, to go birds eye view on things and self, it is a function of consciousness to be featureless, but it's not the refuge of liberation. Conceptless-ness is not a refuge and not the way to liberation according to Buddhism, it is merely a way to find clarity, to comprehend subtler paradigms directly.

 

To the Buddha, this is still all Samsara. So, the Buddha's scrutiny and observation goes deeper than Advaita Vedanta for this reason.

 

Okay for the last time...

 

For something to be a phenomenon, it has to have a beginning and an end. It is shown that Brahman is beyond that, Brahman is emptiness, a void, nirguna. It cannot be a phenomenon.

Edited June 1, 2009 by dwai

[Vajrahridaya]

Okay for the last time...

 

For something to be a phenomenon, it has to have a beginning and an end. It is shown that Brahman is beyond that, Brahman is emptiness, a void, nirguna. It cannot be a phenomenon.

 

But you reify it. You consider it truth, the refuge and abode of all being, conceptual or non-conceptual. The real nature that all things are one with.

 

So, it's not what Buddha means by emptiness. You ascribe reality to "that". It's all over Vedanta.

 

Vedanta doesn't feel that there are infinitely beginningless and endless as well as separate mind streams.

 

Vedanta feels that all beings come from Brahman. In Buddhism, there is no place all beings come from.

 

It is a subtle difference that is very important.

[dwai]

But you reify it. You consider it truth, the refuge and abode of all being, conceptual or non-conceptual. The real nature that all things are one with.

 

So, it's not what Buddha means by emptiness. You ascribe reality to "that". It's all over Vedanta.

 

Vedanta doesn't feel that there are infinitely beginningless and endless as well as separate mind streams.

 

Vedanta feels that all beings come from Brahman. In Buddhism, there is no place all beings come from.

 

It is a subtle difference that is very important.

 

This is sheer stupidity. You are nitpicking over words. Words cannot describe...

 

what part of this do you NOT understand?

 

There aren't infinitely beginningless and endless mind streams because it is illogical to consider that there are.

If you see that happening, that is because of Adhyasa or Superimposition.

[Unconditioned]

I'll just toss my 2c in for kicks here as I've come up from both a Buddhist and A.V. background but am not for or against either one.

 

I look at the idea of Brahman as the same as the emptiness. However, even with emptiness one must go beyond that (the emptiness of emptiness). So we can use Brahman and emptiness in a similar way although both have much different contexts and traditions surrounding them. A label that doesn't carry so much weight might be "unmanifest"... still doesn't quite get it but then again no label can.

 

By 'abiding' and 'refuge' do you mean not identifying your sense experiences as a 'self' entity and acting from awareness as opposed to acting from conditioning?

 

And of course the are infinite mind-streams, from the perspective of form, they are there but the identification of 'me' with those mind-streams is the misidentification so they are essentially empty.

 

But, to be completely honest, I do not see the benefit to debating traditions. The representation from each side will likely be biased and argue their point over the other's. It is the false identification with conditioned thoughts that cause the argument and defensive positions, not the traditions themselves. "I KNOW I'm right! They are wrong!" is a function of the egoic mind, a trick to strengthen itself and it's hold over our awareness, consciousness, energy, whatever word you give it...

[Vajrahridaya]

This is sheer stupidity. You are nitpicking over words. Words cannot describe...

 

what part of this do you NOT understand?

 

There aren't infinitely beginningless and endless mind streams because it is illogical to consider that there are.

If you see that happening, that is because of Adhyasa or Superimposition.

 

Ok... that's where Advaita leads to an entirely different realization than Buddhism.

 

So there you have it... you are not correct in thinking that the Buddha taught the same goal as Vedanta.

 

Also... it's not sheer stupidity. The whole words cannot describe trap is as you said... "moodhata", that the ultimate truth is a concept-less ground of being is rejected by the Buddha.

 

When a Buddhist master say's, it's beyond concepts, they are talking about D.O. NOT superimposition over a beyond concept entity.

 

The samadhi experience is different as is the beyond concept realization. A Buddha stay's blissfully liberated beyond the end of the cosmos with an active mind stream liberated from itself. While a Theists mind-stream absorbs into a non-conceptual ground of being, that as you say, is beyond description. But see, that's it's description, that it's an "it" beyond description. Yes, not trapped in any of these conventions, but still subtly reified in the mind stream leading to dormant identity deep in the consciousness beyond concepts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

name='Unconditioned' date='Jun 1 2009, 10:22 AM' post='123259'

I'll just toss my 2c in for kicks here as I've come up from both a Buddhist and A.V. background but am not for or against either one.

 

The Buddha felt they were different and debated that. So did Shankaracharya. Gaudapada didn't, but he was reifying emptiness and not seeing, or teaching dependent origination. So he wasn't seeing the Buddhas teaching. The Buddha says, "When you see dependent origination, you see Buddhahood". He did not say, When you realize the non-conceptual ground of being you attain Buddhahood.

 

By 'abiding' and 'refuge' do you mean not identifying your sense experiences as a 'self' entity and acting from awareness as opposed to acting from conditioning?

 

The whole treatment and thus experience of awareness differs. Awareness is seen as dependently originated and not an identity or a singular supremacy of all being. Of course, dependent origination which transcends the idea of superimposition, is the non-view, view.

 

And of course the are infinite mind-streams, from the perspective of form, they are there but the identification of 'me' with those mind-streams is the misidentification so they are essentially empty.

 

No, even from the perspective of formlessness are there infinite mind-streams. There, is no singular source of all mind streams that is a formless, conceptual-less ground of all being according to the Buddha.

 

The subtle difference is the difference between the edge of the cliff and the end of proliferation.

 

But, to be completely honest, I do not see the benefit to debating traditions. The representation from each side will likely be biased and argue their point over the other's. It is the false identification with conditioned thoughts that cause the argument and defensive positions, not the traditions themselves. "I KNOW I'm right! They are wrong!" is a function of the egoic mind, a trick to strengthen itself and it's hold over our awareness, consciousness, energy, whatever word you give it...

 

The Buddha disagrees and he debated against Jain's, Brahmin's and Forest meditators who didn't understand the middle-way. Vedanta is not the middle way. They consider the concept-less state of consciousness to be absolute, beyond time and eternal in and of itself. That's NOT Buddhahood. It's a different level of experience that is not completely liberated from conditionality.

[Unconditioned]

While a Theists mind-stream absorbs into a non-conceptual ground of being, that as you say, is beyond description. But see, that's it's description, that it's an "it" beyond description.

 

Isn't that the same thing as when a Buddhist refers to D.O.? Aren't we're arguing over the label to a 'no-thing'?

 

Vedanta doesn't believe there is a THING that superimposes when using the Brahman label (and if they do they're delusional). Just as Buddhists don't believe there is a THING superimposed when talking about D.O. (and if they do they're delusional too).

 

I see the point about the subtly between the descriptions but the same point can be made about the Buddhist descriptor as well, no? Both can be looked at as 'things' or as references.

[Unconditioned]

The Buddha disagrees and he debated against Jain's, Brahmin's and Forest meditators who didn't understand the middle-way.

 

Interesting, then I disagree with the Buddha's actions of debating against other's method's towards liberation. But it can also be interpreted as him debating with people of those traditions who were caught in the dogma and didn't understand what they were pointing at.

 

Even the Buddha said (in so many words) not to just accept his teachings.

 

My impression of the Buddha is that he wouldn't go around telling everyone else their wrong and he's right. Anyway, interesting topic none the less and my last post on it since I'm not here to convince anyone of anything, just to contribute.

[Vajrahridaya]

Isn't that the same thing as when a Buddhist refers to D.O.? Aren't we're arguing over the label to a 'no-thing'?

 

Vedanta doesn't believe there is a THING that superimposes when using the Brahman label (and if they do they're delusional). Just as Buddhists don't believe there is a THING superimposed when talking about D.O. (and if they do they're delusional too).

 

I see the point about the subtly between the descriptions but the same point can be made about the Buddhist descriptor as well, no? Both can be looked at as 'things' or as references.

 

The mere view of Dependent Origination as described by the Buddha never reifies any absolutes, beyond concept, or not. There's no absolute non-concept.

 

Vedanta does believe that there is a subtle something that the Jiva superimposes over. Which to the Buddha, was described as a mis-identification with one of the formless Jhanas. Vedanta and different absorption paths talk like this. One meditates and gets to supreme consciousness through "neti-neti", then one meditates deeper and gets beyond supreme consciousness, then one meditates deeper and gets beyond even that.

 

This is all elaborated in the Pali Suttas as the the four levels of the formless Jhanas/ sanskrit=Dhyana.

 

Dimension of infinite space.

Dimension of infinite consciousness.

Dimension of nothingness.

Dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, or the Jhana of beyond being and non-being.

 

He said considering any of these beyond concept experiences as absolute and the true identity of all things was a trap. When one comes out of these meditations, it seems as if the subconscious, subtle realms, the mind, it's perceptions, memories, past lives, etc. are superimposed over this non-conceptual realization. Thus the Hindu texts all revolve around this experience. They integrate the wonderful bliss of these formless states with the superimposed form, calling it all one, thus non-dual.

 

Buddhists non-duality has a different cause and different experience as well.

 

This of course, is very subtle stuff.

 

It's because of D.O. that infinite and unique mind streams from formless to form that are all equally empty is possible. Emptiness is not a ground of being, as you said, the emptiness of emptiness. But, rather emptiness is a way of describing how each dependent thing and non-thing as in these formless seemingly concept free states are each empty of self existence and are co-dependent with the rest of the ALL. Each thing is unique, but co-dependent and thus also each things emptiness is it's unique emptiness. There is not some grand emptiness that all things flow through. Rather things just flow, because they are individually empty and interdependent with the rest of the ALL

 

So, when consciousness, which is part of the 12 chains of D.O. see's the emptiness directly of each individual element of D.O. it unconditions and turns the experience of Samsara into Nirvana, yet D.O. never stops and never began, it's endless and beginning-less!

 

As the Buddha said, the All is dependent origination, there is not a beyond dependent origination that is outside of the all, he said that would be an empty boat. Rather because the all is dependent origination that the state of realization and freedom from proliferation is possible, so dependent origination as elucidated by the Buddha is the supreme transcendent/eminent. It goes beyond itself by being what it all is. There's no Nirvana beyond, Samsara is Nirvana by seeing and cutting through, that's it.

 

To the Buddha, Brahman is a Samsaric experience, a delusional interpretation of meditative absorption.

 

name='Unconditioned' date='Jun 1 2009, 11:52 AM' post='123281'

Interesting, then I disagree with the Buddha's actions of debating against other's method's towards liberation. But it can also be interpreted as him debating with people of those traditions who were caught in the dogma and didn't understand what they were pointing at.

 

No, he was recorded as saying his tradition was unique and different.

 

Even the Buddha said (in so many words) not to just accept his teachings.

 

Of course, one should experience them directly.

My impression of the Buddha is that he wouldn't go around telling everyone else their wrong and he's right. Anyway, interesting topic none the less and my last post on it since I'm not here to convince anyone of anything, just to contribute.

 

But he did... because he wanted people to attain liberation.

 

That's also why Brahmin's didn't like him and people tried to kill him and what not, he threatened the old way's by preaching for 40 years all over the place. He set out to create a religion and convert people. He was a missionary. That was his whole reason for coming here. To create a movement for the sake of liberating beings. A non-violent movement of course, he persuaded through presence, action and word. Body, voice and mind.

 

You should read the Pali Cannon. It's mostly filled with him rebuking other traditions. He say's again and again, "Oh Monks", a Brahmin believed this, so I said that, "Oh Monks", a Jain believed this, so I said that. He even preaches to Gods and all sorts of people all over the earliest records of the Buddhas stay here on earth.

 

But... see ya round the bend cosmic companion!

Edited June 1, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[xabir2005]

Okay for the last time...

 

For something to be a phenomenon, it has to have a beginning and an end. It is shown that Brahman is beyond that, Brahman is emptiness, a void, nirguna. It cannot be a phenomenon.

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

[Vajrahridaya]

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

 

Exactly. D.O. is beginning-less and endless! In Buddhism, the formless void experience or any of the formless experiences in meditation is considered a formless form and is part of D.O.

[Unconditioned]

The mere view of Dependent Origination as described by the Buddha never reifies any absolutes, beyond concept, or not. There's no absolute non-concept.

 

Vedanta does believe that there is a subtle something that the Jiva superimposes over. Which to the Buddha, was described as a mis-identification with one of the formless Jhanas. Vedanta and different absorption paths talk like this. One meditates and gets to supreme consciousness through "neti-neti", then one meditates deeper and gets beyond supreme consciousness, then one meditates deeper and gets beyond even that.

 

This is all elaborated in the Pali Suttas as the the four levels of the formless Jhanas/ sanskrit=Dhyana.

 

Dimension of infinite space.

Dimension of infinite consciousness.

Dimension of nothingness.

Dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, or the Jhana of beyond being and non-being.

 

He said considering any of these beyond concept experiences as absolute and the true identity of all things was a trap. When one comes out of these meditations, it seems as if the subconscious, subtle realms, the mind, it's perceptions, memories, past lives, etc. are superimposed over this non-conceptual realization. Thus the Hindu texts all revolve around this experience. They integrate the wonderful bliss of these formless states with the superimposed form, calling it all one, thus non-dual.

 

Buddhists non-duality has a different cause and different experience as well.

 

This of course, is very subtle stuff.

 

It's because of D.O. that infinite and unique mind streams from formless to form that are all equally empty is possible. Emptiness is not a ground of being, as you said, the emptiness of emptiness. But, rather emptiness is a way of describing how each dependent thing and non-thing as in these formless seemingly concept free states are each empty of self existence and are co-dependent with the rest of the ALL. Each thing is unique, but co-dependent and thus also each things emptiness is it's unique emptiness. There is not some grand emptiness that all things flow through. Rather things just flow, because they are individually empty and interdependent with the rest of the ALL

 

So, when consciousness, which is part of the 12 chains of D.O. see's the emptiness directly of each individual element of D.O. it unconditions and turns the experience of Samsara into Nirvana, yet D.O. never stops and never began, it's endless and beginning-less!

 

As the Buddha said, the All is dependent origination, there is not a beyond dependent origination that is outside of the all, he said that would be an empty boat. Rather because the all is dependent origination that the state of realization and freedom from proliferation is possible, so dependent origination as elucidated by the Buddha is the supreme transcendent/eminent. It goes beyond itself by being what it all is. There's no Nirvana beyond, Samsara is Nirvana by seeing and cutting through, that's it.

 

To the Buddha, Brahman is a Samsaric experience, a delusional interpretation of meditative absorption.

No, he was recorded as saying his tradition was unique and different.

Of course, one should experience them directly.

But he did... because he wanted people to attain liberation.

 

That's also why Brahmin's didn't like him and people tried to kill him and what not, he threatened the old way's by preaching for 40 years all over the place. He set out to create a religion and convert people. He was a missionary. That was his whole reason for coming here. To create a movement for the sake of liberating beings. A non-violent movement of course, he persuaded through presence, action and word. Body, voice and mind.

 

You should read the Pali Cannon. It's mostly filled with him rebuking other traditions. He say's again and again, "Oh Monks", a Brahmin believed this, so I said that, "Oh Monks", a Jain believed this, so I said that. He even preaches to Gods and all sorts of people all over the earliest records of the Buddhas stay here on earth.

 

But... see ya round the bend cosmic companion!

 

Very interesting indeed, I see what you're getting at with the 'underlying formless' as something not to be caught in. I think I had interpreted it personally in a different way than traditional A.V. in that it must be not seen as something absolute. That could be seen as another way of saying 'I know the unknown', fat chance. Thanks for the reminder on the nothing added or removed, I've even posted that a few times around here!

 

I'm honestly not sure whether there is a unified formless from which all the unique forms arise or an interdependent form-formless. But I am certain that my head is spinning

 

And zeal to spread a technique for THE liberation (vs. 'your' liberation) still leaves a bad-taste with me since I see this as one of the main causes for division and violence in humanity. But none the less I've felt some internal agitation during these conversations which is a good indication of clinging that I might not have otherwise noticed, all good stuff, thanks for the conversation and taking the time to explain.

[xabir2005]

Edited June 1, 2009 by xabir2005

[dwai]

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

 

And Vedanta is against this locus standii how?

 

I will post for the last time on this thread this evening and demonstrate why there aren't infinite streams in the non-phenomenal realm but only one.

[xabir2005]