What is a phenomenon?

[Vajrahridaya]

It's infinite mind-streams connected through inherent non-abiding emptiness which is tied intrinsically with the experiential of any format; faceless, concept-less or concept-filled, doesn't matter.

 

It's an infinite sideways-ness. Not top down like everything superimposed over Brahman, as one with Brahman as core. It's no single identifiable core, which leads to utter compassion for infinite Samsara and continual expression as enlightened activity through Buddhahood realization of co-dependent arising.

 

It's not a superimposition over a non-conceptual non-dual substantial real-ness that expresses and consumes everything. Pratityasamutpada transcends absorption paths totally and clearly.

 

This is beyond pralaya. Link to an explanation of Pralaya according to Vedanta.

[sarnam]

Entering the cool pool of ZaZen-

The residue of a Darhmas floats to the top.

Tiny fish swimming,can then be seen clearly.

Fp

In gassho Sarnam

[xabir2005]

that's why Brahman is silence.

In silence and in noise, awareness is vividly clear.

 

Even a single dust floating in space is vividly seen.

[Vajrahridaya]

In silence and in noise, awareness is vividly clear.

 

Even a single dust floating in space is vividly seen.

 

What non-abiding emptiness means is this...

 

Which is why the Gelugpas of Vajrayana talk about the fact that each individual thing has it's own emptiness is that emptiness is not an all subsuming non-thing, non-phenomena, but rather intrinsic with the constant cycling flow of arising, sustaining and falling (brahma, vishnu, shiva) of cosmic expression. But that realizing the emptiness of all phenomena including consciousness, leads consciousness to be omnipresent even of it's own consciousness because the all-ness is inherently non-existent (thus realized Buddhahood "awakehood" blossoms endlessly), but only relative to its interconnectivity. So, there is no omnipotent one consciousness at fault here, it's all just infinite consciousness' (individual beings) karmas from formless to form to formless, on and on, inter-connected and co-creating.

 

It made more sense before I tried to put it into words... um...

 

Always flow...

 

Even the seeming balance is merely the heart of Samsara, and not Nirvana, seeing that the balance itself has no real core, one stays awake, even while the Brahma dies to the new Brahma (based on the merit of a being from the previous cosmos) this of the next cosmic expression.

 

Thus, Buddha realms transcend even the Pralaya and stay to churn the potentiality of the new cosmos in order to bring forth the potential for the activity to help infinite beings realize Buddhahood. This potential is based upon the previous cosmos' disillusion into an idea of abiding singularity, which is the illusion of a core that pulls like a black hole and re-expresses like a sun burst into a solar system. Those that follow the way of absorption, are blessed upon entering in bliss, but doomed to be re-expressed ignorantly according to their merits or de-merits as they fall into this.

 

hmmm... How to explain?

Edited June 13, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[xabir2005]

Well said It the interconnectedness that is without beginning, without end, without coming and without going.

Edited June 13, 2009 by xabir2005

[dwai]

Well said It the interconnectedness that is without beginning, without end, without coming and without going.

 

well said! That is Brahman...

[Vajrahridaya]

well said! That is Brahman...

 

No, Brahman is identified as being one entity that all is.

 

So, we are not talking about Brahman.

 

You see, realizing Brahman is an absorption into an identity of the universe, the true Self of everything. The idea of merging with the cosmos.

 

Nirvana does not exist in Buddhism, it's a realization of the inherent non-existence of things, the realization of the nature of the flow. There is no core, no true identity or essence to anything.

 

Brahman exists according to Vedanta, and is weather I realize it or not. For Buddhists, this is just not the Truth, nor real liberation.

Edited June 13, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[dwai]

No, Brahman is identified as being one entity that all is.

 

So, we are not talking about Brahman.

 

You see, realizing Brahman is an absorption into an identity of the universe, the true Self of everything. The idea of merging with the cosmos.

 

Nirvana does not exist in Buddhism, it's a realization of the inherent non-existence of things, the realization of the nature of the flow. There is no core, no true identity or essence to anything.

 

Brahman exists according to Vedanta, and is weather I realize it or not. For Buddhists, this is just not the Truth, nor real liberation.

 

That's what you think...Brahman is everything. That which you think is dependently co-rising and without true identity or essence is simply the result of superimposition on the Brahman.

 

I never claimed that Buddhism says it agrees with Vedanta. I said Vedanta's Brahman IS also Buddhism's ultimate truth. If you guys choose to not see the unity then that's your shortcoming, imo.

[Pero]

That's what you think...Brahman is everything.

 

Brahman is not a phenomena.

 

That which you think is dependently co-rising and without true identity or essence is simply the result of superimposition on the Brahman.

 

Brahman is everything.

 

........

 

I said Vedanta's Brahman IS also Buddhism's ultimate truth.

 

But you said nothing that would actually show that.

[Vajrahridaya]

That's what you think...Brahman is everything. That which you think is dependently co-rising and without true identity or essence is simply the result of superimposition on the Brahman.

 

I never claimed that Buddhism says it agrees with Vedanta. I said Vedanta's Brahman IS also Buddhism's ultimate truth. If you guys choose to not see the unity then that's your shortcoming, imo.

 

There is no real ultimate Truth in Buddhism.

 

The two truths model is entirely different for us. Things appear, but are inherently empty of any self substance. Faceless infinite consciousness is just a state of focus on non-conceptuality, but not an ultimate truth and is dependently originated according to the Buddha. This is what the Buddha found and why he left his Vedantin meditation teachers because he was looking for a subtler truth of how the cosmos works and he found it. Co-dependent arising, pratityasamutpada. He saw that the experience of seeing everything as Brahman was wrong and samsaric, so subverted this idea through debate.

 

Buddhism does NOT identify everything with an underlying reality that dependent origination superimposes onto. It does not in the Pali Suttas, it does not in the Mahayana sutras and it does not in Nagarjuna's explanations, it does not in Abhidharma.

 

Your talking Hinduism's cosmology and not Buddhist cosmology. Brahman is NOT equal to Buddhist emptiness and never was according to Buddhists.

 

If I were to agree with you, I would cease to be Buddhist.

Edited June 13, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[dwai]

........

But you said nothing that would actually show that.

 

I did...you weren't reading. You still don't. I guess you never will...

 

There is no real ultimate Truth in Buddhism.

 

The two truths model is entirely different for us. Things appear, but are inherently empty of any self substance. Faceless infinite consciousness is just a state of focus on non-conceptuality, but not an ultimate truth and is dependently originated according to the Buddha. This is what the Buddha found and why he left his Vedantin meditation teachers because he was looking for a subtler truth of how the cosmos works and he found it. Co-dependent arising, pratityasamutpada. He saw that the experience of seeing everything as Brahman was wrong and samsaric, so subverted this idea through debate.

 

Buddhism does NOT identify everything with an underlying reality that dependent origination superimposes onto. It does not in the Pali Suttas, it does not in the Mahayana sutras and it does not in Nagarjuna's explanations, it does not in Abhidharma.

 

Your talking Hinduism's cosmology and not Buddhist cosmology. Brahman is NOT equal to Buddhist emptiness and never was according to Buddhists.

 

If I were to agree with you, I would cease to be Buddhist.

 

Ah...so it boils down to an existential crisis!

Your buddhist identity is threatened by the fact that Vedanta says that Brahman is also Buddhist Ultimate truth.

Pratityasamutpada (dependent-origination) is simply a realization in the path. It demonstrates the illusory nature of phenomenal reality. Since every phenomenon is dependently originated, they are Maya (or illusory). That doesn't make them unreal...they are simply superimposed creations.

[Vajrahridaya]

I did...you weren't reading. You still don't. I guess you never will...

Ah...so it boils down to an existential crisis!

Your buddhist identity is threatened by the fact that Vedanta says that Brahman is also Buddhist Ultimate truth.

Pratityasamutpada (dependent-origination) is simply a realization in the path. It demonstrates the illusory nature of phenomenal reality. Since every phenomenon is dependently originated, they are Maya (or illusory). That doesn't make them unreal...they are simply superimposed creations.

 

No Dwai, for Buddhists, it's the entire path.

 

As the Buddha said, "If you see dependent origination you see buddhahood" Which is a realization, not an identity, not a merging with any source of existence as to Buddhism there is no source of existence. There is no soul of existence, not one bit, not even an iota, everything is relative, and that's what the ultimate Truth in Buddhism is. That's the two truths model, not that there IS ultimate identity, but that all things are relative and ultimately empty of inherent existence. Thats what Buddhism teaches. There is no ultimate consciousness, only ultimate realization.

 

Buddhism does not secretly teach Vedanta and Vedanta does not secretly teach Buddhism.

 

The Buddha also said, there is nothing that exists outside of dependent origination. Nagarjuna said, "There is nothing that is not dependently originated", and he included Brahman, because he too considered Vedanta and the Upanishads off the mark. Ngarjuna was a total Elitist and said, "Only the path shown by Shakyamuni is complete while other paths only lead to the edge of Samsara." Nagarjuna actually said that.

 

Vedanta say's whatever they want. It still has nothing to do with what Buddhism teaches and what Buddhists know Buddhism teaches. Your just superimposing your ideas over it, thinking subjectively and not seeing what Buddhism says at all.

 

You have not digested a single thing said by any of the Buddhists on this board.

 

Vedanta/Theism/Monism and Buddhism are fundamentally at odd's with what they feel liberation means and how the cosmos works.

 

There is no Brahman, no faceless consciousness that all things are, no emptiness that all things are in identity. Things are empty, they aren't emptiness. This subtle nuance is completely missed by you. Emptiness is not an identity or a reality, it's a quality and Brahman is also empty of inherent existence and in fact to Buddhists, is a mistaken interpretation of meditative experience.

 

Pratityasamutpada does not mean superimposition.

[dwai]

No Dwai, for Buddhists, it's the entire path.

 

As the Buddha said, "If you see dependent origination you see buddhahood" Which is a realization, not an identity, not a merging with any source of existence as to Buddhism there is no source of existence. There is no soul of existence, not one bit, not even an iota, everything is relative, and that's what the ultimate Truth in Buddhism is. That's the two truths model, not that there IS ultimate identity, but that all things are relative and ultimately empty of inherent existence. Thats what Buddhism teaches. There is no ultimate consciousness, only ultimate realization.

 

Buddhism does not secretly teach Vedanta and Vedanta does not secretly teach Buddhism.

 

The Buddha also said, there is nothing that exists outside of dependent origination. Nagarjuna said, "There is nothing that is not dependently originated", and he included Brahman, because he too considered Vedanta and the Upanishads off the mark. Ngarjuna was a total Elitist and said, "Only the path shown by Shakyamuni is complete while other paths only lead to the edge of Samsara." Nagarjuna actually said that.

 

Vedanta say's whatever they want. It still has nothing to do with what Buddhism teaches and what Buddhists know Buddhism teaches. Your just superimposing your ideas over it, thinking subjectively and not seeing what Buddhism says at all.

 

You have not digested a single thing said by any of the Buddhists on this board.

 

Vedanta/Theism/Monism and Buddhism are fundamentally at odd's with what they feel liberation means and how the cosmos works.

 

There is no Brahman, no faceless consciousness that all things are, no emptiness that all things are in identity. Things are empty, they aren't emptiness. This subtle nuance is completely missed by you. Emptiness is not an identity or a reality, it's a quality and Brahman is also empty of inherent existence and in fact to Buddhists, is a mistaken interpretation of meditative experience.

 

Pratityasamutpada does not mean superimposition.

 

You just don't get it. Advaita is not Monistic. It is Not-istic. There is no "Ism". There only "Is".

 

And Dependent Origination invariably means super-imposition. We had this entire thread about it. Without superimposing a categorical framework there IS no phenomenon. Without phenomena, there IS no Dependent Origination.

[Vajrahridaya]

You just don't get it. Advaita is not Monistic. It is Not-istic. There is no "Ism". There only "Is".

 

And Dependent Origination invariably means super-imposition. We had this entire thread about it. Without superimposing a categorical framework there IS no phenomenon. Without phenomena, there IS no Dependent Origination.

 

LOL! Advaita Vedanta is MONISM, which means one-ism, as in only one exists. There also is no brahman and no emptiness according to Buddhism.

 

You can keep making things up though, you sure are imaginative.

 

To quote Adi Shankaracharya...

 

"[i am] the nature of Pure Consciousness. I am always the same to beings, one alone; [i am] the highest Brahman, which, like the sky, is all-pervading, imperishable, auspicious, uninterrupted, undivided and devoid of action. I do not belong to anything since I am free from attachment. [i am] the highest Brahman... ever-shining, unborn, one alone, imperishable, stainless, all-pervading, and nondual-That am I, and I am forever released."

 

This is the very definition of Monism.

 

The Buddha called this a mistaken cognition.

 

Your attachment to an essence, a soul of the universe is exactly what keeps you recycling. No matter how faceless, non-phenomenal it's made out to be, it's still a clinging to an identity, no matter how subtle, how non-dual, how all pervasive, it's a clinging.

 

This is what the Buddha taught and this is not what Advaita Vedanta teaches. Realization is different for both paths, they lead to different places.

 

Edit: Shankara talks about the Impersonal Brahman becomes Ishwara, the personality of the Lord of the Universe. He say's Brahman is both personal and impersonal.

 

In Buddhist cosmology, there is no lord of the universe, there is no being that could be called a creator of all things cosmically.

 

The intention of Emptiness in Buddhism points to an entirely different conclusion than Brahman does in Vedanta.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Pero]

I did...you weren't reading. You still don't. I guess you never will...

 

Yes I was (except the really long posts ).

Actually I read something that made me sure, but what that is I won't say because then we might have a discussion I don't want to have.

 

Your buddhist identity is threatened by the fact that Vedanta says that Brahman is also Buddhist Ultimate truth.

Pratityasamutpada (dependent-origination) is simply a realization in the path. It demonstrates the illusory nature of phenomenal reality. Since every phenomenon is dependently originated, they are Maya (or illusory). That doesn't make them unreal...they are simply superimposed creations.

 

DO is not something that is superimposed on emptiness.

 

You just don't get it. Advaita is not Monistic. It is Not-istic. There is no "Ism". There only "Is".

 

Ah you see, in Buddhism, there is not even "Is". Emptiness is not.

 

Anyway, it doesn't matter.

I read in one of Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche's books that when a certain Buddhist master (whose name I have forgetten) died, Atisha cried and said that there were only two people in the whole world who knew the difference between Hinduism and Buddhism, and now one of them has died.

[xabir2005]

Whatever we see, hear, smell, that is relative to all its conditions and factors and have no inherent substance or any defining characteristics. It's just a dependently originated appearance. By not seeing phenomena as it is, as dependent origination, we impose our ideas on self and objects, treating them as inherently self-existing, with substance.

 

As Buddha has said that he who sees dependent origination sees the Dharma and he who sees the Dharma sees the Buddha.

 

We do not see that:

 

When there is this, that is.

With the arising of this, that arises.

When this is not, neither is that.

With the cessation of this, that ceases.

 

so...

 

The sound of bell ringing is, because the conditions: The person, the stick, the bell, hitting, air, ear, etc, is.

 

When those conditions are not, then neither is the sound.

 

The sound's appearance is relative to all other conditions, hence it is not self-existing, nothing inherent.

 

Similar to apparent red flower -- a Buddha does not see a self-existing red flower with inherent characteristics (and anyway other beings see different colours and shapes), he sees dependent origination. Merely a dependently originated appearance, like an illusion that doesn't stay even a moment, unfindable and ungraspable. Nothing truly existing that has come into being or goes. Totally non-arising. Imposition means we treat self and objects as being inherent rather than as appearances. All there is is appearances.

 

 

The sound is not self-existing out there, it is relative and dependent upon all factors and conditions. This has nothing to do with imposition (and definitely not superimposition because there is no Brahman in Buddhism to be superimposed upon), this is truth, and it is Precisely because all phenomena are dependently originated that they are empty.

 

Emptiness and dependent origination is not talking about two different things, rather, it is precisely because of D.O. that things are empty, not non-existing but empty of independent and inherent existence.

 

Emptiness does not mean anything mystical or mysterious or 'silence', it just means non inherent, unlocatable, unfindable, without essence. No inherent 'flowerness' or 'soundness'.

 

Similarly, there is no 'selfness' serving as a background witnessing either -- pristine awareness is not the witnessing background. Rather, the entire whole of the moment of manifestation is our pristine awareness; lucidly clear, yet empty of inherent existence. This is the way of 'seeing' the one as many, the observer and the observed are one and the same. This is also the meaning of formlessness and attributelessness of our nature.

 

The tendency to solidify consciousness into a permanent independent Self or background is removed through correct understanding.

Edited June 14, 2009 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Edited June 14, 2009 by xabir2005

[dwai]

LOL! Advaita Vedanta is MONISM, which means one-ism, as in only one exists. There also is no brahman and no emptiness according to Buddhism.

 

You can keep making things up though, you sure are imaginative.

 

To quote Adi Shankaracharya...

 

"[i am] the nature of Pure Consciousness. I am always the same to beings, one alone; [i am] the highest Brahman, which, like the sky, is all-pervading, imperishable, auspicious, uninterrupted, undivided and devoid of action. I do not belong to anything since I am free from attachment. [i am] the highest Brahman... ever-shining, unborn, one alone, imperishable, stainless, all-pervading, and nondual-That am I, and I am forever released."

 

This is the very definition of Monism.

 

The Buddha called this a mistaken cognition.

 

Your attachment to an essence, a soul of the universe is exactly what keeps you recycling. No matter how faceless, non-phenomenal it's made out to be, it's still a clinging to an identity, no matter how subtle, how non-dual, how all pervasive, it's a clinging.

 

This is what the Buddha taught and this is not what Advaita Vedanta teaches. Realization is different for both paths, they lead to different places.

 

Edit: Shankara talks about the Impersonal Brahman becomes Ishwara, the personality of the Lord of the Universe. He say's Brahman is both personal and impersonal.

 

In Buddhist cosmology, there is no lord of the universe, there is no being that could be called a creator of all things cosmically.

 

The intention of Emptiness in Buddhism points to an entirely different conclusion than Brahman does in Vedanta.

 

 

Monism indicates duality. In all monistic systems, there is ONE God but the individual (soul, whatever you call it) is separate and distinct from this god.

 

Dvaita is Monistic.

Advaita is not monistic.

 

Don't go by definition of the word Mono, try and understand what it signifies in any given context. That's the first lesson you need to learn about Dependent Origination.

 

Shankara is referring to Nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman (Ishwara). Why? Because that is the nature of superimposition. As long as Jiva exists, superimposition is invariably happening. So, Ishwara is a limit-bound way to get to a stage where Ishwara can be transcended. You need to go from form to formless.

 

Again, you are making an assumption that Advaita Vedanta claims that there is such a lord, which shows the flaw in your understanding of Advaita Vedanta.

 

In fact, Advaita says that anything that is non-dual is a result of superimposition and a result of a limitation upon the objectless consciousness that is aatman (also brahman). This superimposition gives birth to phenomena. The phenomena are all dependently originated. But phenomena exist in the realm of samvritti satya (or lower truth).

 

There is only one higher truth, the absolute truth and that is Brahman, Tao, Universal Consciousness (pick the word of your choice). This higher truth cannot be known by intellectual means. There is only one way to know it...that is to become it (or rather cease the modifications of the mind, till only that remains).

 

By positing that Brahman is, doesn't mean that it is the Lord and Master of the universe. There is no relation of causality between phenomenal world and Brahman. Brahman simply is...eternal, consciousness, bliss. So Brahman is not the CREATOR of the universe since the Universe is only a reflection of Brahman as perceived due to superimposition of categorical framework(s).

Edited June 14, 2009 by dwai

[xabir2005]

Both are considered Monism.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism

 

[edit] Hinduism

 

Monism is found in the Nasadiya Sukta of the Rigveda, which speaks of the One being-non-being that 'breathed without breath'. The first system in Hinduism that unequivocally explicated absolute monism was the non-dualist philosophy of Advaita Vedanta as expounded by Shankara. In short, Advaita declares - All is Brahman. It is part of the six Hindu systems of philosophy, based on the Upanishads, and posits that the ultimate monad is a formless, ineffable divine ground of all being.

 

Vishishtadvaita, qualified monism, is from the school of Ramanuja. Shuddhadvaita, in-essence monism, is the school of Vallabha. Dvaitadvaita, differential monism, is a school founded by Nimbarka. Dvaita, dualist monism, is a school founded by Madhvacharya. All Vaishnava schools are panentheistic and view the universe as part of Krishna or Narayana, but see a plurality of souls and substances within Brahman. Monistic theism, which includes the concept of a personal God as a universal, omnipotent Supreme Being who is both immanent and transcendent, is prevalent within many other schools of Hinduism as well.

[Trevcaru]

 

 

We think we make decisions in life. Did you just move your hand? Did you just do that? Did you intend to do that or did it just happen?

 

 

Agreed, the confused mind chooses. This may be helpful...

 

See the bottom post.... Intention, Desire, and the Functions of The Mind

[xabir2005]

Agreed, the confused mind chooses. This may be helpful...

 

See the bottom post.... Intention, Desire, and the Functions of The Mind

Nice blog.. thanks for sharing

[dwai]

Both are considered Monism.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism

 

[edit] Hinduism

 

Monism is found in the Nasadiya Sukta of the Rigveda, which speaks of the One being-non-being that 'breathed without breath'. The first system in Hinduism that unequivocally explicated absolute monism was the non-dualist philosophy of Advaita Vedanta as expounded by Shankara. In short, Advaita declares - All is Brahman. It is part of the six Hindu systems of philosophy, based on the Upanishads, and posits that the ultimate monad is a formless, ineffable divine ground of all being.

 

Vishishtadvaita, qualified monism, is from the school of Ramanuja. Shuddhadvaita, in-essence monism, is the school of Vallabha. Dvaitadvaita, differential monism, is a school founded by Nimbarka. Dvaita, dualist monism, is a school founded by Madhvacharya. All Vaishnava schools are panentheistic and view the universe as part of Krishna or Narayana, but see a plurality of souls and substances within Brahman. Monistic theism, which includes the concept of a personal God as a universal, omnipotent Supreme Being who is both immanent and transcendent, is prevalent within many other schools of Hinduism as well.

 

That's a label wrongly ascribed to Advaita. Just because a bunch of folks say it is monism doesn't make it so. Advaita is Non-dualism and nothing else.

[Pero]

Well one thing we have forgotten than in Buddhism itself there are different views which don't agree with each other. So coincidentally I just read on E-Sangha, that shentong position is more or less the same as that of advaita. I think Rex (hi) already mentioned something about shentong in the begining but it was overlooked.

[Vajrahridaya]

'dwai' date='Jun 14 2009, 05:24 AM'

 

There is only one higher truth, the absolute truth and that is Brahman, Tao, Universal Consciousness (pick the word of your choice).

 

That's what monism means. That only one exists. It indicates substantial non-duality where everything is just a single substance.

 

There is no relation of causality between phenomenal world and Brahman.

 

Then it's dualistic and makes no real sense unless you make imaginative jumps in logic, which you have shown that you do, over and over again.

 

Brahman simply is...eternal, consciousness, bliss. So Brahman is not the CREATOR of the universe since the Universe is only a reflection of Brahman as perceived due to superimposition of categorical framework(s).

 

When is the act of superimposition? How does it happen if they are not intrinsically linked?

 

Like I said, the Buddha considers all this a mistaken cognition.

 

XABIR Wonderful explanations!

 

Well one thing we have forgotten than in Buddhism itself there are different views which don't agree with each other. So coincidentally I just read on E-Sangha, that shentong position is more or less the same as that of advaita. I think Rex (hi) already mentioned something about shentong in the begining but it was overlooked.

 

Yes, but not many Masters agree with Shentong or take it literally.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Pero]

Not many maybe, but some prominent ones like Tulku Urgyen.