Advaita Vedanta vs Buddhism

[dwai]

Edited June 1, 2009 by dwai

[xabir2005]

More specifically: no eternal unchanging Self as opposed to coming and going phenomenon.

 

There is only manifestation, transience, but without coming and going.

 

 

 

Two truths simply mean: relatively dependently originated appearances, which are ultimately empty. However this Emptiness is not a non-phenomenal substance: rather, Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form.

 

There is no separation here.

Edited June 1, 2009 by xabir2005

[Sunya]

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.

 

if you can prove this, then you can prove that Shunyata is not Emptiness; Vedanta and Buddhism differ in view. this would be monumental for you since you've argued the complete opposite the whole time here.

 

by the way.. "non-phenomenal realm" --- careful... are you talking about a formless realm? or the way things truly exist, right here right now, which is what Buddha was concerned with? in a formless realm it may feel like all mind is one, but is this the way things exist right here right now?

Edited June 1, 2009 by mikaelz

[doc benway]

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.

I will take the position of disagreeing with this.

This is argument is simply semantics, the difference is not meaningful, but verbal, in my opinion.

 

There are infinite, beginningless, and endless mindstreams - let us all agree to that, shall we?

That is obvious from personal experience.

 

Brahman is a label that may be associated with the existence of infinite, beginningless, endless mindstreams.

What Brahman implies is the artificial nature of separation. There may be infinite mindstreams yet they can be equally (or more acurately) conisdered as Mindstream - the sum total of the existence of mindstreams, however and whenever many there are. Separation or distinction of each independent (or dependent, more accurately) mindstream is tantamount to attachment. That very distinction is the beginning of human suffering.

 

To take it a step further, it is unknowable whether or not there is some organizing intelligence or awareness at a level beyond the level of human awareness. Buddhism may say no - there's none, Vedanta may say yes - there is, Christianity - yes, Daoism - no; I favor the following position on that question: I don't and can never know and it doesn't matter! None of us knows, we simply are working from a paradigm in order to approximate something that is ineffable - forever and always beyond any level of human comprehension. But if I simply accept the question and sit with that at a deep and open place for a time, something may come of it. Once I think I know the answer, I can never know anything new. The question is alive, the answer is dead.

 

Vedanta does not imply that the mindstreams "come from" something else because they are already that thing - there is no separation. It is only a label used for the convenience of developing a paradigm - a framework for discussion (more words).

 

I hope that we can be mindful of our tendency to use words to create artificial difference in core truths. It simply furthers the tribal rifts that have torn humanity apart since the beginning.

[Seth Ananda]

Heheh, I just asked this over at Dharma Overground:

 

One of the Things I have been wondering about now Is Relative and Ultimate truth.

Is it possible that God/universal Being is in the domain of Relative truth? The Idea really gives me a giggle...

I am asking this partly because I and many Mystics from Other traditions have the experience of relating with an Intelligent force that 'Seems' to be behind all events and the universe.

My old tradition, Kashmir Shavism, says God Is an Active creative principle that is and is also behind everything.

This made it very easy to apply Emptiness and Dependent Origination teachings to 'Him' as 'he' is seen as interacting with everything...

The Musing I am having now is that although what I and many others have called God is changing and thus Impermanent and (in an absolute truth sense) Empty, but the experience is real and on going (in a reletive truth sense) just like the experience of having a body or seeming to have a 'self'.

lol, Could what some people call God actually be just part of the universe, as much as tables, dirt and sky are part of the universe, yet still completely subject to the teachings of Absolute Truth, Lacking inherent existence, dependently originated and ultimately unsatisfying?

This probably sounds strange but I have been applying these ideas, seeing the states I have access to in the light of E & D.O. and yet I still 'Know' exactly where this 'Being' is in the universe, just the same way I 'Know' where my hand is after meditating on my Bodys E&D.O.

What do you think?

 

There it is, so what do you think? Could A slightly better explained version of this Let 'God' or some underlying 'Principle' or foundation Exist the way my 'Hand' exists In relative truth Yet still Not be the Absolute Truths of Emptiness and Dependent Origination... (E&D.O.)

 

Still Giggling...

[xabir2005]

Edited June 2, 2009 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

The Musing I am having now is that although what I and many others have called God is changing and thus Impermanent and (in an absolute truth sense) Empty, but the experience is real and on going (in a reletive truth sense) just like the experience of having a body or seeming to have a 'self'.

First of all what do you mean by God?

lol, Could what some people call God actually be just part of the universe, as much as tables, dirt and sky are part of the universe, yet still completely subject to the teachings of Absolute Truth, Lacking inherent existence, dependently originated and ultimately unsatisfying?

God is generally seen as the unchanging ground which emanates the universe.

 

However then it is seen that All Appearance is Source and that there is no background Source emanating phenomenon, that there is no Source to fall back on, then the clinging to a behind reality, a Source, subsides.

 

The intensity of that pure beingness, the I AMness, is seen to be itself a manifestation and no more 'ultimate' than other manifestations. It is needless to compare when the all sensations other sensations are experienced in equally intense clarity. There will be no more layering. There is truly no inner and outer.

Edited June 2, 2009 by xabir2005

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Brahman is a label that may be associated with the existence of infinite, beginningless, endless mindstreams.

What Brahman implies is the artificial nature of separation. There may be infinite mindstreams yet they can be equally (or more acurately) conisdered as Mindstream

Just like there is no entity cosmos. There is only an infinite array of interdependent objects that connect but are not one. We label it cosmos for the sake of ease. Just as that is so, there is no one mind-stream. The attachment to one's mind-stream stops when one recognizes one's 12 links directly and their corresponding emptiness. There always is infinite mind-streams according to Buddhism and never is there one mind-stream called cosmos. That's just the convenience of calling a team of players a name, but really it's a bunch of individuals with one intention. In this case, the only intention of cosmos is movement due to ignorance. A Buddha moves due to ignorance too, but just to pacify it in others. So a Buddhas enlightenment is also a condition that is dependent.

 

Dwai,

 

You don't understand Nagarjunas Two Truths, which Dzogchen actually transcends, there is no two truths in Dzogchen.

 

Nagarjuna never reifies an ultimate, just like he never reifies the relative. But, both ultimate and relative are based on each other and equally empty of any self essence.

 

Your just not making the paradigm shift in comprehension. Which is what it is.

 

There is only the intermingling of infinite consciousness', there is not one consciousness. A Buddha attains omnipresence only be seeing dependent origination directly, but that seeing is also dependently originated. The maintaining of that awareness of dependent origination is also dependent. But, none of the above inherently exists. Thus no Buddha, no attainment... etc. But not because of a subverting oneness, but because of dependent origination and the meaning of dependent origination.

 

Nagarjuna totally disagrees with you and Vedanta/Monism/Theism. Taoism falls under Monism. Your still reifying something that is beyond all the talk that stands alone and is real and a true existence. Never is this so in Buddhism. I find it not true in life either as Buddhism explains everything succinctly and specifically, in levels of capacity to cognize from the 1st turning to the 4th turning. Though the turnings have different tenents, they are all links in the core truth of dependent origination.

 

- the sum total of the existence of mindstreams, however and whenever many there are. Separation or distinction of each independent (or dependent, more accurately) mindstream is tantamount to attachment. That very distinction is the beginning of human suffering.

 

There are intermingled, but not one, but they are not many either because they do not inherently exist in and of themselves. Since they don't exist in and of themselves and only dependently, neither does the endless and beginningless whole inherently exist. No ultimate being needed for this realization. There is also no ultimate awareness that all is one with.

 

To take it a step further, it is unknowable whether or not there is some organizing intelligence or awareness at a level beyond the level of human awareness.

 

There is no such thing as human awareness, that is just a convention that is popularly excepted due to apparent habitual limitations based upon identification with what houses the 5 senses. If you meditate deeper you will find that awareness is just awareness and is not confined to being human. You can enter into many different dimensions of awareness experience, if you went deeper in meditation. The stories of going to heavens, going to other planets, realms, changing form expression, even floating, supernatural powers, are all true. Your limiting your self experience by the condition of what you remember experiencing up to this point.

 

Buddhism may say no - there's none, Vedanta may say yes - there is, Christianity - yes, Daoism - no; I favor the following position on that question: I don't and can never know and it doesn't matter! None of us knows, we simply are working from a paradigm in order to approximate something that is ineffable - forever and always beyond any level of human comprehension. But if I simply accept the question and sit with that at a deep and open place for a time, something may come of it. Once I think I know the answer, I can never know anything new. The question is alive, the answer is dead.

 

Buddhahood is reaching the level of no more need for knowledge about how this infinitude works. The summit of the contemplative path is reached, the end of the longing to know more has ended. The end of psychological suffering has been reached. At this point there is just the expression of virtue through maybe non-conventional or conventional ways for the sake of pacifying Samsarins. A Buddha who is an alien with an alien capacity houses the wisdom differently, but the wisdom is the same. Wisdom is not an existing essence, it's a realization.

 

Vedanta does not imply that the mindstreams "come from" something else because they are already that thing - there is no separation. It is only a label used for the convenience of developing a paradigm - a framework for discussion (more words).

 

Yes, I realize it's an all one paradigm. But Vedanta considers all mind streams to be one mindstream always, just expressed differently. Buddha doesn't agree and considers this a Samsaric interpretation of meditative experience. I explained many times how this happens for a Vedantin in their mis-understanding the experience of the Jhanas.

 

I hope that we can be mindful of our tendency to use words to create artificial difference in core truths. It simply furthers the tribal rifts that have torn humanity apart since the beginning.

 

The core truths are different. Buddhism understands differences, but is not attached to them other than conventional need to pacify Samsarins, that's it's only motive, even though it sees that Samsarins don't inherently exist so doesn't cause wars over it, just debates. It has the most peaceful religious history of any religion in the world, the adherents are not perfect, because only the rare Buddhist is an Arhat, Bodhisattva or much less a Buddha.

[Vajrahridaya]

Heheh, I just asked this over at Dharma Overground:

 

One of the Things I have been wondering about now Is Relative and Ultimate truth.

Is it possible that God/universal Being is in the domain of Relative truth? The Idea really gives me a giggle...

I am asking this partly because I and many Mystics from Other traditions have the experience of relating with an Intelligent force that 'Seems' to be behind all events and the universe.

My old tradition, Kashmir Shavism, says God Is an Active creative principle that is and is also behind everything.

This made it very easy to apply Emptiness and Dependent Origination teachings to 'Him' as 'he' is seen as interacting with everything...

The Musing I am having now is that although what I and many others have called God is changing and thus Impermanent and (in an absolute truth sense) Empty, but the experience is real and on going (in a reletive truth sense) just like the experience of having a body or seeming to have a 'self'.

lol, Could what some people call God actually be just part of the universe, as much as tables, dirt and sky are part of the universe, yet still completely subject to the teachings of Absolute Truth, Lacking inherent existence, dependently originated and ultimately unsatisfying?

This probably sounds strange but I have been applying these ideas, seeing the states I have access to in the light of E & D.O. and yet I still 'Know' exactly where this 'Being' is in the universe, just the same way I 'Know' where my hand is after meditating on my Bodys E&D.O.

What do you think?

 

There it is, so what do you think? Could A slightly better explained version of this Let 'God' or some underlying 'Principle' or foundation Exist the way my 'Hand' exists In relative truth Yet still Not be the Absolute Truths of Emptiness and Dependent Origination... (E&D.O.)

 

Still Giggling...

Oh man... you got me giggling! Thanks so much. My girlfriend just moved in and we've made a total mess of the place, and now we're cleaning it up and organizing... all so fun, but my body hurts. Also, only got about 6 hours sleep over the last 3 days. Whew!!

 

You are great Seth, to even look at your deep experience objectively and scrutinize. I know how hard that can be, because your scrutinizing what gives so much security and questioning that, how great of you.

 

Basically, your seeing your deep formless Jhana which your experiences seem to superimpose over as the ultimate ground of all being. When really, that's just your mind-stream and it's conscious, sub-conscious and unconscious (which your busy illuminating and making conscious) layers. There are beings in these higher Jhanas that have attained that state of consciousness and identify it as the absolute Truth of things. They talk to those that believe this to be true and fortify that experience. You are talking to a being who through merit from the previous universe has attained to the level of a Brahma, that is all. Your just talking really to a deep impression in your infinite mind-stream that has been the cause of your path of re-absorption and re-expression over many universal expansions and contractions that you have gone through.

 

Please giggle!! More... I like your giggling... such lightness!!

[Seth Ananda]

First of all what do you mean by God?

God is generally seen as the unchanging ground which emanates the universe.

 

However then it is seen that All Appearance is Source and that there is no background Source emanating phenomenon, that there is no Source to fall back on, then the clinging to a behind reality, a Source, subsides.

 

The intensity of that pure beingness, the I AMness, is seen to be itself a manifestation and no more 'ultimate' than other manifestations. It is needless to compare when the all sensations other sensations are experienced in equally intense clarity. There will be no more layering. There is truly no inner and outer.

Hi Xabir.

There are many views of God of course, Fixed, Not Fixed, plural, Singular...

In Kashmir Shavism God is not seen as Unchanging and unmoving otherwise How would 'He' be Omnipotent? God is seen as an Ultimate Active principle full of Intelligence and Life and Creativity.

Thats what I mean by God and that is the experience I have and countless other Mystics have. That's why my slow painful conversion to Buddhism was so difficult, because I know and have a relationship with God yet Buddhism has no room for God in Ultimate truth.

The Funny thing is that No matter how much I look at E&D.O. and apply it to God - and It fits perfectly- God is still there.

Something like this:

Tune in to Divine energy, Divine Energy Increases, Ohh obviously subject to change, change is impermanence, empty and ultimately unsatisfying, lacking Inherent existence, wow God too.., "Hi God", God says "Hi Seth ", Seth says "Do you know that if you are constantly changing you lack inherent existence and aren't Ultimatly real?" God says "Sure but you always know where to find me old friend" and I am like "Damn Its true isn't it" I will always have the experience of God available at a thoughts distance, God just laughs...

[xabir2005]

Just like there is no entity cosmos. There is only an infinite array of interdependent objects that connect but are not one. We label it cosmos for the sake of ease. Just as that is so, there is no one mind-stream. The attachment to one's mind-stream stops when one recognizes one's 12 links directly and their corresponding emptiness. There always is infinite mind-streams according to Buddhism and never is there one mind-stream called cosmos.

 

....

 

There is no such thing as human awareness, that is just a convention that is popularly excepted due to apparent habitual limitations based upon identification with what houses the 5 senses. If you meditate deeper you will find that awareness is just awareness and is not confined to being human. You can enter into many different dimensions of awareness experience, if you went deeper in meditation. The stories of going to heavens, going to other planets, realms, changing form expression, even floating, supernatural powers, are all true. Your limiting your self experience by the condition of what you remember experiencing up to this point.

Yes... reminds me of an article written by a friend 'longchen':

 

http://www.dreamdatum.com/non-solidity.html

The non-solidity of existence

 

This article describes a spiritual insight. It may be quite hard to understand.

 

The things that we experience are registered by all the sense organs. The eye sight registers vision, the ears register sound, the body registers sensations. These perception, sensations and experiences are not happening in some places. They are the experience of the arising of certain conditions. There is no solidity and physicality in the actual experience.

 

 

What we experienced is not universal and common to all. Here's an example to illustrate that: We know that as human beings, we see in term of colours. Some animals are however colour-blind, thus they see differently from us. But none of us, is really seeing the truth nature directly. The senses of different species of sentient beings experience things differently. So who is seeing the real image of an object? None.

 

Likewise, the various planes of existence are due to different conditions arising. In certain types of meditation, one is said to be able to access these planes of existence. This is because they are not specific locations. They are mental states and are thus non-localised. In these meditations, our consciousness changes and 'aligned' more with these other states or planes of existence.

 

All the planes of existence are simultaneously manifesting, but because our senses are human-based conditioned arisings, we only see the human world and other beings that shared 'similar' resonating arising conditions. But nevertheless, the other planes of existences are not elsewhere in some other places.

 

 

What we think of as places are really just consciousness and there is no solidity whatsoever. Even our touch sense is just that. The touch sense gives an impression of feeling something that is physical and three-dimensional. But there is really no solid self-existing object there. Instead, it is simply the sensation that gives the impression of physical solidity and form.

 

OK, that all I can think of and write about this topic. I will revise and improve this article where the need arises.

 

For your necessary ponderance. Thank you for reading.

Edited June 2, 2009 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Hi Xabir.

There are many views of God of course, Fixed, Not Fixed, plural, Singular...

In Kashmir Shavism God is not seen as Unchanging and unmoving otherwise How would 'He' be Omnipotent? God is seen as an Ultimate Active principle full of Intelligence and Life and Creativity.

Thats what I mean by God and that is the experience I have and countless other Mystics have. That's why my slow painful conversion to Buddhism was so difficult, because I know and have a relationship with God yet Buddhism has no room for God in Ultimate truth.

The Funny thing is that No matter how much I look at E&D.O. and apply it to God - and It fits perfectly- God is still there.

Something like this:

Tune in to Divine energy, Divine Energy Increases, Ohh obviously subject to change, change is impermanence, empty and ultimately unsatisfying, lacking Inherent existence, wow God too.., "Hi God", God says "Hi Seth ", Seth says "Do you know that if you are constantly changing you lack inherent existence and aren't Ultimatly real?" God says "Sure but you always know where to find me old friend" and I am like "Damn Its true isn't it" I will always have the experience of God available at a thoughts distance, God just laughs...

So your God is a personal God and a separate theistic being (like the one in Old Testament where you can meet up and have a cup of coffee)?

[Seth Ananda]

Oh man... you got me giggling! Thanks so much.

 

You are great Seth, to even look at your deep experience objectively and scrutinize. I know how hard that can be, because your scrutinizing what gives so much security and questioning that, how great of you.

 

Basically, your seeing your deep formless Jhana which your experiences seem to superimpose over as the ultimate ground of all being. When really, that's just your mind-stream and it's conscious, sub-conscious and unconscious (which your busy illuminating and making conscious) layers. There are beings in these higher Jhanas that have attained that state of consciousness and identify it as the absolute Truth of things. They talk to those that believe this to be true and fortify that experience. You are talking to a being who through merit from the previous universe has attained to the level of a Brahma, that is all. Your just talking really to a deep impression in your infinite mind-stream that has been the cause of your path of re-absorption and re-expression over many universal expansions and contractions that you have gone through.

 

Please giggle!! More... I like your giggling... such lightness!!

Lol, thanks dude.

But... I think Here it is just one persons word over Another. You cannot proove that it is reincarnated Brahmas any more that I can proove that it is God.

I have to trust my experience and keep looking as well to see if the experience changes.

I have spent the last 16 years learning how see the Light behind everything and how to relate to the consciousness within it. Can you see how the Light Intersects with form and actually flows into it and in a different way supports it very existence? Can you draw the light from something thus destroying its existence? I did this last week to a mole that went dodgy on my back. It dried and went crumbly then fell off over 3 days.

Can you Find this light any time you want anywhere and study/relate/play with it and feel it literally behind everything always? I can and you may be able to as well but You cant proove that your Interpretation of it is Truer that mine.

My argument is that All (at least theistic) mystics see and relate with the same experience. I easily talk with Sufi's, Hasids, Kabbalists, Alchemists, Hermetisists, Christian contemplatives, and when we come to the actual experiences we all Know exactly what each other talking about and recognise Immediately any brother or Sister that has the Light in them.

So my theory that this intelligent light is actually just part of the structure of the universe, like Air, or carbon, But yes is also Inherently empty, completely subject to dependent origination and does not for a second contradict any of the theory of Buddhism as long as Kept within the realm of Relative truth with all the other tangible things that seem to exist but don't really.

 

The Idea still makes me giggle

 

So your God is a personal God and a separate theistic being (like the one in Old Testament where you can meet up and have a cup of coffee)?

Lol, Yep.

Thats the Kashmir Shavite God view, but it also includes being Omnipresent, foundation of the universe and completely transcendent.

The universes are Its play, and we are it in our true nature playing with ourself. Being All powerfull means we can do that

A completely Fixed Unmoving God is basicly Impotent and stupid and could never cause such an amazing universe. Thats not me trying to insult Advaita, that what the Trika texts say. They spent as much time arguing the with the advaitins as they did with the Buddhists

[dwai]

if you can prove this, then you can prove that Shunyata is not Emptiness; Vedanta and Buddhism differ in view. this would be monumental for you since you've argued the complete opposite the whole time here.

 

by the way.. "non-phenomenal realm" --- careful... are you talking about a formless realm? or the way things truly exist, right here right now, which is what Buddha was concerned with? in a formless realm it may feel like all mind is one, but is this the way things exist right here right now?

 

I did...so here goes --

 

Think about Mathematics. How ludicrous would it be, logically if I were to say --

 

There are multiple zeroes. Each zero is unique and distinct from each other and together form a mesh of non-zeroes. Or Zeroes.

 

What's the end result of this activity? Zero! So is each zero unique and separate and distinct from the other zeroes?

 

A zero is a zero is a zero. You can multiply infinite zeros you'd still get a zero. You can add infinite zeros, guess what? Answer is a BIG ZERO!

 

You know what else? ZERO in Sanskrit is Shunya. When you point to the "Shunyata" of something, it refers to the "Zeroness" (or lack of properties) of that thing.

 

Brahman without properties? Nirguna == Shunya.

 

If you are hell bent on popping out strawmen from where ever they are coming from, do so. But they will remain exactly that ... straw men.

 

I don't know how else to make you guys understand this. Words don't help...maybe mathematics might?

 

Maybe you will never get it...or maybe you will...don't know, don't care anymore.

Edited June 2, 2009 by dwai

[Vajrahridaya]

Hi Xabir.

There are many views of God of course, Fixed, Not Fixed, plural, Singular...

In Kashmir Shavism God is not seen as Unchanging and unmoving otherwise How would 'He' be Omnipotent? God is seen as an Ultimate Active principle full of Intelligence and Life and Creativity.

Thats what I mean by God and that is the experience I have and countless other Mystics have. That's why my slow painful conversion to Buddhism was so difficult, because I know and have a relationship with God yet Buddhism has no room for God in Ultimate truth.

The Funny thing is that No matter how much I look at E&D.O. and apply it to God - and It fits perfectly- God is still there.

Something like this:

Tune in to Divine energy, Divine Energy Increases, Ohh obviously subject to change, change is impermanence, empty and ultimately unsatisfying, lacking Inherent existence, wow God too.., "Hi God", God says "Hi Seth ", Seth says "Do you know that if you are constantly changing you lack inherent existence and aren't Ultimatly real?" God says "Sure but you always know where to find me old friend" and I am like "Damn Its true isn't it" I will always have the experience of God available at a thoughts distance, God just laughs...

 

 

We'll you could be just speaking to your own mind's true nature and causing a dualistic split out of the nicety of devotion to... which is a great bliss. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you keep applying D.O.E.

 

The sum total of all Buddhas is basically the Tathagatagarbha, which is the womb of enlightened expression. This voice could very well be a part of that if it's not arguing for supreme identity as a subsuming entity.

 

Tathagatagarbha is just emptiness, so not an inherent substratum.

 

Subtle stuff here...

 

I did...so here goes --

 

Think about Mathematics. How ludicrous would it be, logically if I were to say --

 

There are multiple zeroes. Each zero is unique and distinct from each other and together form a mesh of non-zeroes. Or Zeroes.

 

What's the end result of this activity? Zero! So is each zero unique and separate and distinct from the other zeroes?

 

A zero is a zero is a zero. You can multiply infinite zeros you'd still get a zero. You can add infinite zeros, guess what? Answer is a BIG ZERO!

 

You know what else? ZERO in Sanskrit is Shunya. When you point to the "Shunyata" of something, it refers to the "Zeroness" (or lack of properties) of that thing.

 

Brahman without properties? Nirguna == Shunya.

 

If you are hell bent on popping out strawmen from where ever they are coming from, do so. But they will remain exactly that ... straw men.

 

I don't know how else to make you guys understand this. Words don't help...maybe mathematics might?

 

Maybe you will never get it...or maybe you will...don't know, don't care anymore.

 

Oh boy...

 

Dwai...

 

Don't you see! Your whole logic revolves around reifying Zero. Emptiness is NOT zero. Zero is also empty of inherent existence and dependently originated.

 

Your just not seeing Nagarjuna at all, nor dependent origination. Your reading Hindu conditioning into everything...

[Vajrahridaya]

Can you see how the Light Intersects with form and actually flows into it and in a different way supports it very existence?

Yes, I literally see lots of things, including the different colors of the elements as if everything was just a rainbow emanating from light, coagulating into seeming forms. Still D.O.E.

 

Can you draw the light from something thus destroying its existence?

 

No, I at times can see right through "it's" and my own existence. I am not the soul of anything, but my consciousness can intermingle through the chain of connectivity and influence.

 

I did this last week to a mole that went dodgy on my back. It dried and went crumbly then fell off over 3 days.

Can you Find this light any time you want anywhere and study/relate/play with it and feel it literally behind everything always? I can and you may be able to as well but You cant proove that your Interpretation of it is Truer that mine.

 

I can't liberate you, but merely influence you. The same goes for you to me. Thus no single mindstream.

 

My argument is that All (at least theistic) mystics see and relate with the same experience. I easily talk with Sufi's, Hasids, Kabbalists, Alchemists, Hermetisists, Christian contemplatives, and when we come to the actual experiences we all Know exactly what each other talking about and recognise Immediately any brother or Sister that has the Light in them.

 

Samsara is inherent. Liberation is dependently originated. The masses will not attain liberation in this kalpa. Most spiritual beings will go to higher re-births.

 

So my theory that this intelligent light is actually just part of the structure of the universe, like Air, or carbon, But yes is also Inherently empty, completely subject to dependent origination and does not for a second contradict any of the theory of Buddhism as long as Kept within the realm of Relative truth with all the other tangible things that seem to exist but don't really.

 

Light is intelligent? Light just shines, but D.O. is the infinite web of action, relatively.

 

The Idea still makes me giggle

Lol, Yep.

Thats the Kashmir Shavite God view, but it also includes being Omnipresent, foundation of the universe and completely transcendent.

 

As well as omnipotent. Shaivism still feels that only Shiva has the power of Universal creation. Shaivism sets up a primal cause of the relative, then subsumes it saying it's all one with the substratum. That's just the interpretation of the Jhanic experience as ultimate.

 

Still not seeing D.O.

 

The universes are Its play, and we are it in our true nature playing with ourself. Being All powerfull means we can do that

A completely Fixed Unmoving God is basicly Impotent and stupid and could never cause such an amazing universe.

 

Yes, I know of the Spanda Karikas and have experienced Spanda directly for elongated periods of time and can get there though mantra at any moment. Still, that's just the conscious experience of D.O. pulse. Don't reify.

 

Thats not me trying to insult Advaita, that what the Trika texts say. They spent as much time arguing the with the advaitins as they did with the Buddhists

 

Yes, they did and I felt Kaula was deeper. Abhinavagupta was quite the genius, but not as smart as Nagarjuna and Buddha, or Padhmasambhava in my opinion, thus he missed the boat.

 

Stay giggly!!

Edited June 2, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Everyone wants to hide behind the non-conceptual view it seems and not investigate deeper?

 

Like I said, the Buddha said that Karma penetrates into the non-conceptual experience.

 

I have found this to be true, because once I realized this, a whole other universe of karmas manifested through the light of investigation, directly out of the formless non-conceptual realms of my own infinite mind stream.

 

Man! I thought I was sooo close too... then I realized that I was just hiding a seed for a new ignorant manifestation in the next universe. This seed en-lodges very deep and just continues to reify, reify, reify from the non-conceptual ground of reality... so subtle attachment keeps saying. The cause of Theist and Monist interpretations.

 

All Samsaric!

[Sunya]

dwai,

 

Zero is a symbol, that's what numbers are. when you say I have one apple, and I say I have one apple too. does that mean that we both have the same apple? No. does an apple have an inherent 1-ness about it or is the 1-ness simply a symbol? you can write many 1's and 0's on a paper and its the same symbol written over and over again, but if you have a basket full of apples.. its a different story. i'll show you this quite easily if you come over and i'll eat an apple and you still have yours left.

 

the apples still exist separately. likewise, Shunyata (emptiness) is a symbol, describing the nature of all mind streams but mind streams are still separate.

 

you are still holding on to the idea that there is 1 behind everything, that individuality does not exist because there has to be some essence to everything. the clay that all reality is made from. i like Hinduism more than Western religions which have a separate clay maker, but now i think that the whole idea of everything made from one clay is also just an idea, and holding on to this idea means you will experience that since the Mind is of infinite power. you will see your deepest desires, but it won't free you.

 

Shunyata in contrast is not an essence, like the clay that all phenomena are part of, Shunyata is a symbol to how things exist but there is nothing to get stuck on. Brahman is an easy concept to get stuck on because of its absolute nature. Advaitans identify with Brahman, and this identity is superimposed, as you like to say, and the experience is very real. thus these practitioners feel they have made it because they have experiences of grand unity; Ultimate Self with no boundaries, but really thats just a grand fantasy. can you not see what i'm saying?

 

with Emptiness there is no identity with. you can't say I am Sunyata! Sunyata is a description, a symbol, not an essence or something to identify with..

Edited June 2, 2009 by mikaelz

[Seth Ananda]

 

We'll you could be just speaking to your own mind's true nature and causing a dualistic split out of the nicety of devotion to... which is a great bliss. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you keep applying D.O.E.

 

 

Hehehee I have often wondered about this possibility.

My only question then would be how does that explain the minds true nature's level of controll over events and even matter itself? The experiences of it says it is behind and interpenetrates all matter...

 

Although the experience isn't fully dualistic either as It always feels like it is me/everything in a cosmic kind of way - or better said that Its wisdom that is so much greater than mine, is somehow my potential Wisdom...

[Vajrahridaya]

Hehehee I have often wondered about this possibility.

My only question then would be how does that explain the minds true nature's level of controll over events and even matter itself? The experiences of it says it is behind and interpenetrates all matter...

 

Although the experience isn't fully dualistic either as It always feels like it is me/everything in a cosmic kind of way - or better said that Its wisdom that is so much greater than mine, is somehow my potential Wisdom...

 

You are only controlling your individually infinite mind streams intermingled manifestation. You are not controlling mine. When awareness gets subtler than density, or 5 sense expression, it influences with more power. Like a trickling river running over a stone in early spring finally gets the stone rolling when the snow on the mountain finally fully melts after a long winter and turns the trickle into a great avalanche of water.

 

Which is why great masters can only manifest great super natural powers in front of those who's mind streams have intense mingling with the masters mind stream.

 

The universe is more complex than oneness and more simple than manyness. Niether should be reified.

 

I talk to my future enlightened conventional self sometimes... does that make me enlightened in the conventional now? No... only a stream enterer... maybe once or twice returner. Maybe this lifetime too?? It does have my current face!

 

Anyway... try to be more objective about your experiences and read more Buddhist scripture, it will contextualize your experiences differently. Start Pali though... I recommend at least.

[Sunya]

 

 

Anyway... try to be more objective about your experiences and read more Buddhist scripture, it will contextualize your experiences differently. Start Pali though... I recommend at least.

 

 

I need to do this too, but starting with the Abhidharma is very daunting, so I was recommended these

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors...efriending.html

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/buddha.html

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors...i/wheel017.html

[Pero]

Samsara is inherent. Liberation is dependently originated.

 

What?

[dwai]

dwai,

 

Zero is a symbol, that's what numbers are. when you say I have one apple, and I say I have one apple too. does that mean that we both have the same apple? No. does an apple have an inherent 1-ness about it or is the 1-ness simply a symbol? you can write many 1's and 0's on a paper and its the same symbol written over and over again, but if you have a basket full of apples.. its a different story. i'll show you this quite easily if you come over and i'll eat an apple and you still have yours left.

 

the apples still exist separately. likewise, Shunyata (emptiness) is a symbol, describing the nature of all mind streams but mind streams are still separate.

 

you are still holding on to the idea that there is 1 behind everything, that individuality does not exist because there has to be some essence to everything. the clay that all reality is made from. i like Hinduism more than Western religions which have a separate clay maker, but now i think that the whole idea of everything made from one clay is also just an idea, and holding on to this idea means you will experience that since the Mind is of infinite power. you will see your deepest desires, but it won't free you.

 

Shunyata in contrast is not an essence, like the clay that all phenomena are part of, Shunyata is a symbol to how things exist but there is nothing to get stuck on. Brahman is an easy concept to get stuck on because of its absolute nature. Advaitans identify with Brahman, and this identity is superimposed, as you like to say, and the experience is very real. thus these practitioners feel they have made it because they have experiences of grand unity; Ultimate Self with no boundaries, but really thats just a grand fantasy. can you not see what i'm saying?

 

with Emptiness there is no identity with. you can't say I am Sunyata! Sunyata is a description, a symbol, not an essence or something to identify with..

 

Yes Zero is a symbol, but the role of the symbol is to convey a meaning...

 

Oh...What's the point?!?

 

You assume that Advaitins have a certain locus standii -- ie your strawmen. Which you then proceed to kill with circular logic.

 

So you guys say Buddhism doesn't recognize Two-truths. But then when shown you are wrong, you backpedal and say "Uh...well those Two-truths are not the same as Buddha's two truths". The point is that two-truths indicate two levels of Satya. Which is what Vedanta says. One to be understood in the conventional/worldly sense and the other in light of the "Ultimate" or "Absolute" Truth.

 

Vedanta says there is no self because all there is is Emptiness (Nirguna Brahman).

You guys say..no Vedanta is wrong about what it thinks it's saying...property-less Brahman is not Emptiness, since the label of "That", "I" and "Brahman" are ascribed to it.

 

You first said there is no need for categorical frameworks and then turned around and tried to beat other people over the head about "Learn framework to discard framework".

 

You said there are infinite streams of unknowable, eternal (no beginning no end) consciousness that dependently originate and give rise to all reality. You don't even see the flawed logic in such a statement. When something doesn't have a beginning or an end, where is the dependent origination?

Can there be two types of emptiness? Doesn't emptiness inherently symbolize lack of properties? How then can you distinguish from one emptiness to another?

 

You say that Nirguna Brahman, which is devoid of properties of any kind, is a "subtle" phenomenon. How? Show me how something that is devoid of any properties can be a "phenomenon"?

 

You guys don't even understand what Phenomena are. You cannot do a phenomenological inquiry without establishing that...and flash news for you guys is that Buddhism is very much a phenomenological inquiry.

 

I say a phenomenon is something that is time-bound and space-bound and is an object in objective consciousness. What is you stand on it?

 

You don't know that your understanding of both Buddhism and Vedanta are woefully flawed...you are too caught up in words to catch the essence of what is being conveyed.

[evZENy]

Still in the wheel guys?

The Buddhist-Dharma one or not - doesn't matter?

:-)

Edited June 2, 2009 by evZENy

[Vajrahridaya]

What?

 

It's a poetic way of putting things.

 

Samsara is what everyone experiences even Gods except Buddhas and Buddhas attain Buddhahood through comprehension of dependent origination.

 

You can meditate in a cave for centuries and attain high states of consciousness, but without the view of Buddhadharma, no liberation.

 

The 1st of the noble 8 fold path is... "Right View" and the Buddha is very specific about what this means. It does not mean take refuge in a conceptual-less state of mind.

 

 

 

 

Still in the wheel guys?

The Buddhist-Dharma one or not - doesn't matter?

:-)

 

Yes, I love discussion! I'm gaining clarity and insight which if you really want to know the Dharma you engage in it's discussion.

 

If you just want to know the place of no thought, then you go to a formless realm and reify it thinking this is it, such bliss. But, that's not Buddhadharma.