What is a phenomenon?

[xabir2005]

Edited June 16, 2009 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Thusness told me yesterday: "You must realize what is inseparability of conditions and awareness. Not realizing this will result in subtly creating an essence and this is the root cause of suffering. Take what Hari (Vajrahridaya) said seriously. But also take luminosity seriously, then realize that luminosity is most clear when Anatta and D.O. is understood."

[forestofclarity]

[dwai]

If you follow David Loy's article, you will know that Brahman is All phenomena. There is no distinction between phenomena and Brahman. This is the aspect of non-duality.

 

Secondly, D.O. is not a framework. But a framework dissolver by seeing everything as interdependent and empty of self-essence. It is not a concept we hold but a wisdom that flows into all our experience. First we establish the right view of Dependent Origination (it is a raft and skilful means but still important), and with practice, we can then realise this in direct experience, then it does not stay as a concept. This is no conventional understanding, there is just emptiness/D.O. happening. There is no knowing about it other than by actually experiencing it or realising it. It is the same case as with non-dual awareness -- it is directly experienced, and so is dependent origination (but non-dual shld not be confused with D.O.). A little more on the experience of D.O. in the quote below.

 

However prior to this realisation, we cannot give up the raft, and when insight/realisation arise, the raft is naturally let go of. You cannot let go of the raft prematurely otherwise wisdom of emptiness and D.O. cannot arise. And by Emptiness I mean D.O., not a non-phenomenal substance.

 

Also as I have explained earlier, phenomena, dependent origination, is always happening naturally and is independent of frameworks and concepts. It is prior to thought.

 

You are wrong. Brahman in non-phenomenal. It has no beginning, no end, it cannot be an object of consciousness as it IS consciousness itself.

Trust me, I have a good idea of what DO means to you buddhists...but that doesn't mean that it supplants the inexplicable, realized truth. DO demonstrates that phenomena are empty. DO is not empty of phenomena since it simply is a theory that posits that every phenomenon is dependently originated.

 

Shunyata is not DO. Shunyata is the implication of DO...you get to realize shunyata with DO. DO is a vehicle, Shunyata is the destination. Similarly, you get to Shunyata (or Brahman) by ceasing the modifications of the mind (Chitta Vritti Nirodhah).

 

Now, you claim that DO happens independent of frameworks and concepts. I don't agree. I give you this Zen Koan in response --

 

"If a tree falls in forest and there is no one to see it, did it really fall?"

[dwai]

Dwai,

 

Do you see how circular this argument is? You should, IMHO, bow out of this discussion and let VH get some sleep till a new Buddhist topic is triggered - unless of course you want to keep bumping this topic up in the good old Kunlun fashion! He bit his words on the Tao and all it took were some clever words to change his conviction. So, it is clear that his "experience" did not really matter there. The same probably is true with Advaita as well, but who knows or cares?

 

Both parties have beaten this topic to death and it seems there never will be any conclusion. Both parties (which includes me) seem to think that their logic beats the other's and that the other's does not make sense. Both parties think of their view as transcending frameworks while the other's is stuck up. This will go on and on without adding much value.

 

For once, I agree with Mikaelz.

 

Dear SV,

 

I am trying to avoid interacting with VH since I realize the circularity of his logic. He ate his words on the Tao thread because there were more people who took the effort to correct him.

 

I want a few parties here to realize this -- it is stupid to try and put a qualitative value to systems that work, have worked for millenia and will continue to work.

 

To make bombastic claims that Buddhism is better than Vedanta or Taoism demonstrates pure and simple ignorance on part of the claimant. Why? Because they fail to realize that while it might have worked better for them, given their psychological profile, it might not be the best for someone else. So it's not the system, but also the seeker who affects the efficacy of the system (dependent origination, no?)

 

I have tried to steer clear of TTB for some time now, but I guess it's my ego that keeps bringing me back to these debates. I think I will lay this to rest once and for all, now.

 

Best,

 

Dwai

[xabir2005]

Edited June 16, 2009 by xabir2005

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

I am trying to avoid interacting with VH since I realize the circularity of his logic. He ate his words on the Tao thread because there were more people who took the effort to correct him.

 

 

All logic is deemed circular eventually, if it clearly shows the circle.

 

Also in the Taoism Vs. Buddhism thread, I simply conceded to the possibility that the Tao was an attempt at pointing to the experience of dependent origination without essence, thus possibly leading to Buddhahood. You should check out the way you're reading affects emotional triggers and responses. I like to look at this in myself.

 

S.V.

 

I've read that story you posted in a Darshan magazine some years ago and that contemplation has lead me to see things beyond this birth.

 

Take care.

 

XABIR! Wonderful as usual!

[goldisheavy]

Secondly, D.O. is not a framework. But a framework dissolver by seeing everything as interdependent and empty of self-essence. It is not a concept we hold but a wisdom that flows into all our experience.

 

So long as you distinguish wisdom from foolishness, it's an aspect of discriminating awareness, and as such, is conceptual in nature. A concept is a discrimination. That's all. Not all concepts are trivial. Some are sublime and the discriminations they embody are subtle and hard to fathom. But they are still concepts, even then.

 

One thing I want to encourage is to gain some respect and new appreciation for concepts. Try to understand what it really means for a concept to be a concept. It's not as obvious as you think.

 

Trying to elevate your pet doctrine to a higher status is really a mark of a fool. "Well my doctrine is not a framework, it is wisdom." Sure, sure... And your penis is 3 times as large as well. We're not in kindergarten here, are we? If it's structured and if it's expressed in words, it's a framework. Dependent origination is taught as a contemplation method, it's a way of thinking about phenomena. As a method, it has a certain structure, and its effects are claimed to be distinct and distinguishable from those of other methods. So it's conceptual through and through, no doubt about it.

 

Buddhism has many useful methods, and if people start to think that instead of having useful methods Buddhism is a description of the truth or "how things really are", then they miss the point.

 

In particular, dependent arising is not the truth. Nor is it "how things really are". It's a contemplative method. If you like, it's kind of a mind trick or a skill to be applied temporarily. When one reflects on dependent origination, the flavor of one's reality changes. It does not mean this new flavor is really how it is, and it does not mean you now have pure vision, or any of that. Hopefully it means you enjoy this new flavor better. That's it! It means no more than that. All manners of seeing are not the whole truth. Not even the sublime manners of seeing like the ones that Buddhism claims to lead toward are the whole truth. You cannot even state that they are a preferable truth. At best you can say you like it better right now. Even later you might not like it as well as you like it right now.

 

When nothing has any essence to back it up, what you see depends on your mindset. It also means that all mindsets are equally valid, and that preferences only arise within those mindsets, and it's not fair to judge one mindset by the preferences of another mindset. So when I say that all mindsets are equally valid, I don't mean that we shouldn't have any preferences, but I mean that there is no way to prove that anything is superior to anything else.

Edited June 17, 2009 by goldisheavy

[Sunya]

When nothing has any essence to back it up, what you see depends on your mindset. It also means that all mindsets are equally valid, and that preferences only arise within those mindsets, and it's not fair to judge one mindset by the preferences of another mindset. So when I say that all mindsets are equally valid, I don't mean that we shouldn't have any preferences, but I mean that there is no way to prove that anything is superior to anything else.

 

the experiences of Samsara and Nirvana are both equally valid yes, but obviously Nirvana is preferred since there is no longer suffering or ignorance. isn't then Nirvana superior to Samsara? it's not judging one mindset by the preferences of another mindset. nobody prefers Samsara, everyone prefers Nirvana. this is because of Buddha Nature, the hidden jewel inside all of us that beckons us to search deeper, the hidden insight that there is more than this world full of suffering and despair.

 

Trying to elevate your pet doctrine to a higher status is really a mark of a fool. "Well my doctrine is not a framework, it is wisdom." Sure, sure... And your penis is 3 times as large as well. We're not in kindergarten here, are we? If it's structured and if it's expressed in words, it's a framework. Dependent origination is taught as a contemplation method, it's a way of thinking about phenomena. As a method, it has a certain structure, and its effects are claimed to be distinct and distinguishable from those of other methods. So it's conceptual through and through, no doubt about it.

 

Buddhism has many useful methods, and if people start to think that instead of having useful methods Buddhism is a description of the truth or "how things really are", then they miss the point.

 

In particular, dependent arising is not the truth. Nor is it "how things really are".

 

you are right, I agree with you partly. but you see, dependent arising is not the truth, and it is the truth. it is both, it is concept and non-concept. i'll try to explain

 

Dependent origination is a tool, a skillful means, for someone to get the insight of how phenomena truly exist. there are 2 facets of emptiness. the first is the concept, which is a tool to break all concepts because it frees you from all extremes and grasping, and the second is the actual insight into emptiness beyond concepts; the way things truly exist, the wisdom if emptiness is different than the concept of emptiness. the latter is required before the former can arise. the concept is a tool to get to the non-concept, this non-concept is termed Emptiness or Shunyata or Dharmakaya for the sake of clarification, though nothing can truly be said about it.

Edited June 17, 2009 by mikaelz

[Vajrahridaya]

The main difference between Advaita Vedanta which is HUUUUUGLY important to distinguish is that to Vedanta there is only one consciousness manifesting as many consciousness. BUT, Buddha say's that there are infinite consciousness' manifesting this cosmos and not one consciousness that subsumes and absorbs everything. This experience is based upon a mis-comprehension of non-conceptual experience that does NOT see dependent origination as it is... which is infinite mind-streams.

 

THIS is a huge difference that means many, many things in how an enlightened being acts in either Buddhism, or single essence systems.

 

It's so huge... it's soooo subtle. Yes, hard to explain to someone without REAL experiential insight into dependent origination.

 

Which of course is the majority of human beings.

 

What to do... keep trying.

 

So when I say that all mindsets are equally valid, I don't mean that we shouldn't have any preferences, but I mean that there is no way to prove that anything is superior to anything else.

 

Then the only real preference is that mind-set that truly see's how the framework of the cosmos is and how it is not. It's not a non-conceptualness obviously. The cosmos is all how concepts and their validating experiences work. To Buddha, D.O. is what it is and uniform non-conceptual essence is not other than another bliss trap.

[xabir2005]

So long as you distinguish wisdom from foolishness, it's an aspect of discriminating awareness, and as such, is conceptual in nature. A concept is a discrimination. That's all. Not all concepts are trivial. Some are sublime and the discriminations they embody are subtle and hard to fathom. But they are still concepts, even then.

 

One thing I want to encourage is to gain some respect and new appreciation for concepts. Try to understand what it really means for a concept to be a concept. It's not as obvious as you think.

 

Trying to elevate your pet doctrine to a higher status is really a mark of a fool. "Well my doctrine is not a framework, it is wisdom." Sure, sure... And your penis is 3 times as large as well. We're not in kindergarten here, are we? If it's structured and if it's expressed in words, it's a framework. Dependent origination is taught as a contemplation method, it's a way of thinking about phenomena. As a method, it has a certain structure, and its effects are claimed to be distinct and distinguishable from those of other methods. So it's conceptual through and through, no doubt about it.

 

Buddhism has many useful methods, and if people start to think that instead of having useful methods Buddhism is a description of the truth or "how things really are", then they miss the point.

 

In particular, dependent arising is not the truth. Nor is it "how things really are". It's a contemplative method. If you like, it's kind of a mind trick or a skill to be applied temporarily. When one reflects on dependent origination, the flavor of one's reality changes. It does not mean this new flavor is really how it is, and it does not mean you now have pure vision, or any of that. Hopefully it means you enjoy this new flavor better. That's it! It means no more than that. All manners of seeing are not the whole truth. Not even the sublime manners of seeing like the ones that Buddhism claims to lead toward are the whole truth. You cannot even state that they are a preferable truth. At best you can say you like it better right now. Even later you might not like it as well as you like it right now.

 

When nothing has any essence to back it up, what you see depends on your mindset. It also means that all mindsets are equally valid, and that preferences only arise within those mindsets, and it's not fair to judge one mindset by the preferences of another mindset. So when I say that all mindsets are equally valid, I don't mean that we shouldn't have any preferences, but I mean that there is no way to prove that anything is superior to anything else.

The explanation is conceptual, the seeing is non conceptual, not relying on concepts. An enlightened person does not depend on concepts, he sees D.O. all the time whether thinking or not. It is not concepts that is important -- it is the quantum leap of perception that is important. There is only D.O. happening, he experiences everything as seamlessly interconnected without essence. As Buddha says, one who sees D.O. sees dharma, one who sees dharma sees Buddha. It is the 'seeing' or awakening that is important. Prior to that leap of perception, yes, D.O. is conceptual. But just because you haven't had non-conceptual direct realisation does not mean nobody else has. It is not just a 'practice method' though prior to the seeing it might be seen as so. As Thusness said there will come a time when the experience of D.O. becomes effortless because it is realised that 'it is also a natural state.'

 

...........

 

The Perfect One is free from any theory, for the Perfect One has understood what the body is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what feeling is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what perception is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what the mental formations are, and how they arise, and pass away. He has understood what consciousness is, and how it arises, and passes away.

 

Therefore, I say, the Perfect One has won complete deliverance through the extinction, fading away, disappearance, rejection, and getting rid of all opinions and conjectures, of all inclination to the vainglory of I and mine.

 

- Majjhima Nikaya, 72

Edited June 17, 2009 by xabir2005

[contrivedname!]

"To make bombastic claims that Buddhism is better than Vedanta or Taoism demonstrates pure and simple ignorance on part of the claimant. Why? Because they fail to realize that while it might have worked better for them, given their psychological profile, it might not be the best for someone else. So it's not the system, but also the seeker who affects the efficacy of the system (dependent origination, no?)"

 

excellent dwai

 

"Buddha said: You are right, Subhuti! Verily there was no formula by which the Tathagata attained the Consummation of Incomparable Enlightenment. Subhuti, had there been any such formula, Dipankara Buddha would not have predicted concerning me: "In the ages of the future you will come to be a Buddha called Shakyamuni"; but Dipankara Buddha made that prediction concerning me because there is actually no formula for the attainment of the Consummation of Incomparable Enlightenment. The reason herein is that Tathagata is a signification implying all formulas. In case anyone says that the Tathagata attained the Consummation of Incomparable Enlightenment, I tell you truly, Subhuti, that there is no Formula by which the Buddha attained it. Subhuti, the basis of Tathagata`s attainment of the Consummation of Incomparable

 

Enlightenment is wholly beyond; it is neither real nor unreal. Hence I say that the whole realm of formulations is not really such, therefore it is called "Realm of formulations."

 

...

 

"The Great Way is not difficult,

Just don't pick and choose.

If you cut off all likes or dislikes

Everything is clear like space.

 

Make the slightest distinction

And heaven and earth are set apart.

If you wish to see the truth,

Don't think for or against.

 

Likes and dislikes

Are the mind's disease.

Without understanding the deep meaning

You cannot still your thoughts...

 

One is all,

All is one.

When you see things like this,

You do not worry about being incomplete.

 

Trust and Mind are not two.

Not-two is trusting the Mind.

 

Words and speech don't cut it,

Can't now, never could, won't ever."

 

***

 

"' What should one do not to fall into ranks or grades?' The Master said 'what work have you done?' he replied, 'i dont even work on the holy truths.' The Master said, "if you dont even work on the holy truths, what ranks or grades are there?' The Master deeply respected him as a vessel of the teaching and had Hsing-ssu lead the congregation."

 

"The Master said 'If i said i had a doctrine to teach people, i would be fooling you. I just untie bonds according to situations. That is provisionally labelled samadhi... We should realize that all things come from our own essential nature. This is the true principle of discipline, stabilization and wisdom.'"

 

interesting stuff. mostly zen but there is that one quote from the diamond sutra. to me these quotes from masters and shakyamuni buddha are in contradiction with many of the claims of Diamondheart. since you are obviously so enlightened and i am so ignorant, o' great master of buddhism w/ heart as hard as diamond, please explain these passages to me so that i may correct my "monistic" error.

[Sunya]

since you are obviously so enlightened and i am so ignorant, o' great master of buddhism w/ heart as hard as diamond, please explain these passages to me so that i may correct my "monistic" error.

 

what's with the sarcasm?

 

and where is the monism in any of those quotes? all I see are quotes taken out of context if you're implying that they are monistic

 

Buddhism isn't monistic, just get over it and stop trying. you'll have better luck trying to fit a square into a round hole. Buddhist masters have gone through great pains to create methods and views to get one out of this tendency to give substance, essence, or "oneness" to reality. it is a form of grasping coming from fear, coming from ignorance.

 

early Buddhism does sometimes appear monistic such as the Nikaya Suttas, but that is because Buddha was preaching to very deluded people who could only understand such teachings and nothing beyond.

 

Monism says that everything exists because everything is of one cosmic soul or essence, this is addressed in

 

the Lokayatika Sutta: The Cosmologist

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn...2.048.than.html

 

and

 

Kaccayanagotta Sutta: To Kaccayana Gotta (on Right View)

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn...2.015.than.html

 

"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle"

 

also, even though Mahayana does talk about a One Taste or some sort of Oneness, this is only saying that everything is empty of self-nature, there is no separation or duality because all phenomena are inter-dependent. but, that doesn't mean that phenomena doesn't exist and all phenomena are really of one substance. an apple is still an apple, an orange is still an orange. all these 2 forms have in common is that they are both empty of self-nature. they are not the same. interdependence is not the same as same-ness or monism.

Edited June 17, 2009 by mikaelz

[xabir2005]

"The Great Way is not difficult,

Just don't pick and choose.

If you cut off all likes or dislikes

Everything is clear like space.

 

Make the slightest distinction

And heaven and earth are set apart.

If you wish to see the truth,

Don't think for or against.

 

Likes and dislikes

Are the mind's disease.

Without understanding the deep meaning

You cannot still your thoughts...

 

One is all,

All is one.

When you see things like this,

You do not worry about being incomplete.

 

Trust and Mind are not two.

Not-two is trusting the Mind.

 

Words and speech don't cut it,

Can't now, never could, won't ever."

One is all, all is one, is talking about dependent origination, not a monistic essence.

 

From a great disciple of the 6th Chinese Zen/Ch'an Patriarch Hui-Neng, Zhitong:

Subject and object from the start

Are no different,

The myriad things nothing

But images in the mirror.

Bright and resplendent,

Transcending both guest and host,

Complete and realized,

All is permeated by the absolute.

A single form encompasses

The multitude of dharmas,

All of which are interconnected

Within the net of Indra.

Layer after layer there is no

Point at which it all ends,

Whether in motion or still,

All is fully interpenetrating.

 

What does it mean?

 

"If you are a poet, you will see clearly that there is a cloud floating in this sheet of paper. Without a cloud, there will be no rain; without rain, the trees cannot grow, and without trees we cannot make paper. The cloud is essential for the paper to exist. If the cloud is not here, the sheet of paper cannot be here either...

 

If we look into this sheet of paper even more deeply, we can see the sunshine in it. If the sunshine is not there, the tree cannot grow. In fact, nothing can grow. Even we cannot grow without sunshine. And so, we know that the sunshineis also in this sheet of paper. The paper and the sunshine inter-are. And if we continue to look, we can see the logger who cut the tree and brought it to the mill to be transformed into paper. And we see the wheat. We know that the logger cannot exist without his daily bread, and therefore the wheat that became his bread is also in this sheet of paper. And the logger's father and mother are in it too...

 

You cannot point out one thing that is not here -- time, space, the earth,the rain, the minerals in the soil, the sunshine, the cloud, the river, the heat. Everything co-exists with this sheet of paper... As thin as this sheet of paper is, it contains everything in the universe in it."

 

- Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh

 

INDRA'S JEWELED NET

GRAPHIC COPYRIGHT GAIL ATKINS

 

The metaphor of Indra's Jeweled Net is attributed to an ancient Buddhist named Tu-Shun (557-640 B.C.E.) who asks us to envision a vast net that:

 

* at each juncture there lies a jewel;

* each jewel reflects all the other jewels in this cosmic matrix.

* Every jewel represents an individual life form, atom, cell or unit of consciousness.

* Each jewel, in turn, is intrinsically and intimately connected to all the others;

* thus, a change in one gem is reflected in all the others.

 

This last aspect of the jeweled net is explored in a question/answer dialog of teacher and student in the Avatamsaka Sutra. In answer to the question: "how can all these jewels be considered one jewel?" it is replied: "If you don't believe that one jewel...is all the jewels...just put a dot on the jewel [in question]. When one jewel is dotted, there are dots on all the jewels...Since there are dots on all the jewels...We know that all the jewels are one jewel"

 

The moral of Indra's net is that the compassionate and the constructive interventions a person makes or does can produce a ripple effect of beneficial action that will reverberate throughout the universe or until it plays out. By the same token you cannot damage one strand of the web without damaging the others or setting off a cascade effect of destruction.

 

A good explanation of the Hindu/Buddhist myth of Indra's net can be found in The Tao of Physics, by Fritjof Capra: "...particles are dynamically composed of one another in a self-consistent way, and in that sense can be said to 'contain' one another. In Mahayana Buddhism, a very similar notion is applied to the whole universe. This cosmic network of interpenetrating things is illustrated in the Avatamsaka Sutra by the metaphor of Indra's net, a vast network of precious gems hanging over the palace of the god Indra." In the words of Sir Charles Eliot:

 

"In the Heaven of Indra, there is said to be a network of pearls, so arranged that if you look at one you see all the others reflected in it. In the same way each object in the world is not merely itself but involves every other object and in fact IS everything else. In every particle of dust, there are present Buddhas without number."

 

The similarity of this image to the Hadron Bootstrap is indeed striking. The metaphor of Indra's net may justly be called the first bootstrap model, created by the Eastern sages some 2,500 years before the beginning of particle physics.

 

Compare the first picture with:

 

Computer model of early universe. Gravity arranges matter in thin filaments.

 

-------------------------

 

...One of the images used to illustrate the nature of reality as understood in Mahayana is The Jewel Net of Indra. According to this image, all reality is to be understood on analogy with Indra's Net. This net consists entirely of jewels. Each jewel reflects all of the other jewels, and the existence of each jewel is wholly dependent on its reflection in all of the other jewels. As such, all parts of reality are interdependent with each other, but even the most basic parts of existence have no independent existence themselves. As such, to the degree that reality takes form and appears to us, it is because the whole arises in an interdependent matrix of parts to whole and of subject to object. But in the end, there is nothing (literally no-thing) there to grasp....

 

Source: Sunyata ('Emptiness')

Edited June 17, 2009 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

also, even though Mahayana does talk about a One Taste or some sort of Oneness, this is only saying that everything is empty of self-nature, there is no separation or duality because all phenomena are inter-dependent. but, that doesn't mean that phenomena doesn't exist and all phenomena are really of one substance. an apple is still an apple, an orange is still an orange. all these 2 forms have in common is that they are both empty of self-nature. they are not the same. interdependence is not the same as same-ness or monism.

Yes, everything is the one taste of luminosity and emptiness inseparable.

 

There is no One behind the many, rather, the multiplicity are all themselves the one taste of Mind.

Edited June 17, 2009 by xabir2005

[Vajrahridaya]

The problem I have with Zen is they have a tendency it seems to establish Buddhahood as an inherency, an essence that is real in and of itself and they take Tathagatagarbha, Dharmakaya and Shunyata as a kind of real essence instead of just seeing it as the realization of dependent origination.

 

Zen is a translated word for meditation (Jhana, Dhyan, Chan) and it seems that Zen get's too caught up in meditative experiences and objectifies the states of Jhana which Buddha warns about in the Pali Suttas even in the states of, infinite space, infinite consciousness, infinite nothingness and neither perception nor non-perception. If he say's these states aren't ultimate and real, then it is obviously a warning against any sort of cosmic mind (infinite consciousness) as an inherent and real essence. Most schools of Vajrayana except the rare Zhentong follower would have a problem with this.

 

Nagarjuna I think who is one of the forefathers of Mahayana would agree. As he says that emptiness is not an inherent essence and thus the emptiness of emptiness. There is nothing to not be emptied by understanding dependent origination experientially. Even a cosmic oneness is not true, real and ultimate. There is infinite connectivity and each of the jewels in the net reflect the infinite other jewels in a unique way, not as a oneness, but as a vast web of interconnectivity of uniqueness where each individual is based upon the other in a way that empties it of any real Atman thus we have Anatman. Because each aspect of the whole is inherently empty, thus the whole is also inherently empty, thus no Brahman, no one mind. Just flow... without self, Self, or essence of any sort to be established anywhere. That is freedom from proliferation and that is the profound Dharma of the Buddha which stands apart from all other traditions. Buddhahood is a realization, not an inherent essence to merge with, but the direct realization of dependent origination.

 

Yes, because all things and consciousness' are inherently empty, the realization of emptiness is replete with the Buddha qualities. That doesn't mean that Buddhahood or Nirvana is true and real, it's just a realization to be had that is inherent in as much as the all is inherently empty of inherency.

 

Do you understand? Think about the real meaning that the words are trying to convey.

 

Peace, love and understanding!

[xabir2005]

Edited June 17, 2009 by xabir2005

[Birch]

MSNBC ;-) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31393080/ns/te...ience-science//

 

I'm finding this thread a bit tough going so I thought I'd try an easier way. I'm unsure if this 'easy' version has holes in it or contradicts the traditions mentioned above.Probably does.

 

edit for URL

Edited June 18, 2009 by Kate

[Vajrahridaya]

It is a tendency of some masters but not all masters, as I've just quoted some above that clearly talks about dependent origination and emptiness and not reify an essence. Dogen, Bernie Glassman, and some other Zen masters are also good reads.

 

I do agree. I was being too broad stroked in my critic of Zen. I have read many Zen masters that I whole heartedly agree with. I just find that most westerners who read about Zen in English translation are really not getting it though. I'm mainly talking to Westerners. The greatness of Vajrayana is it's clarity, even in it's English translations. They are really clear about what Buddhahood means in all it's various way's of meaning it.

 

I'm just in love with Vajrayana... can't help my"self"...

[xenolith]

INDRA'S JEWELED NET

Yours is the post that I've been seeking that I didn't know I was looking for. I've seen this every time I've experienced Crown Center Awareness. I didn't know it had a name...Indra's Jeweled Net...thank you...most important post to me possible. You've made my participation in this Forum worthwhile in terms other than contributions...I've received something. You have my eternal thanks.

 

My experience with it has been like this: the matrix pulses with an electricity of it's own but is energized locally by energy given off by the jewels...the jewels are spirits...some mortal some not...possessive of dynamos they all are..as am I. A clear hierarchy exists...up is better, down is worse. Travel upon lines of the web is possible by the simultaneous energizing of one's own dynamo with thoughts of Love for a spirit (person) in particular and focusing one's attention on finding that spirit (person)...combine those, and rapid movement along the web lines of the matrix ensues. These transport phases are excruciating in every way. I'm smiling beyond reason and crying with a joy beyond description as I experience my dynamo revving with thoughts of mrs. x and viewing loved ones, living and passed, streaming by...occupying nodes of the net...deep feelings of loneliness and belonging coincide. What I've learned through my explorations of this space is that finding her is not possible...the thought of her IS her...she and I are together, one.

 

The rest is the Tao, the fabric of God...it's us.

 

Thank you xabir.

 

xeno

[Vajrahridaya]

MSNBC ;-) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31393080/ns/te...ience-science//

 

I'm finding this thread a bit tough going so I thought I'd try an easier way. I'm unsure if this 'easy' version has holes in it or contradicts the traditions mentioned above.Probably does.

 

edit for URL

 

Well, consciousness transcends physicality, which is why one NEEDS to meditate on consciousness in order to realize how deeply rooted in subtler dimensions it truly is. This still shouldn't reify consciousness as an all absorbing singular essence of all things. But, things are most definitely the creation of co-arising, intermingling consciousness'. So really yes, consciousness is indeed the final frontier.

[goldisheavy]

The main difference between Advaita Vedanta which is HUUUUUGLY important to distinguish is that to Vedanta there is only one consciousness manifesting as many consciousness. BUT, Buddha say's that there are infinite consciousness' manifesting this cosmos and not one consciousness that subsumes and absorbs everything. This experience is based upon a mis-comprehension of non-conceptual experience that does NOT see dependent origination as it is... which is infinite mind-streams.

 

I see what your problem is. You think that Advaita and Buddhism are different descriptions of reality and that Buddhism is an accurate description while Advaita is an inaccurate one.

 

Oh my. And you know what? Maybe even many people inside those respective movements really believe that too. But all that is wrong I say. Both Advaita and Buddhism are methods. They suggest a way of living and a way of looking at things, topics for contemplation, that are said to lead to sublime insights and better life, and dare I say it, fun. Yup. Just good old fun.

 

Then the only real preference is that mind-set that truly see's how the framework of the cosmos is and how it is not. It's not a non-conceptualness obviously.

 

It's damned hard to pin a definitive description on it. This is why in all the sublime paths we deal with methods rather than descriptions. This is why science is half-failure. Science has a method (a decent method which relies on some assumptions, which makes it good in some domains and bad in others), but science also struggle to find a perfect description, which is a strong departure from the secret wisdom.

 

How many Sutras and Tantras are there where when the Buddha or Bodhisattva is asked for a final statement or some conclusive and definitive line, they remain silent? How many? A SHIT-TON. That's how many. One would think the message would be able to penetrate our thick skulls.

 

How many poems? How many tantras? The other name for Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra is "Reconciliation of all dichotomies." Why? Why? Why? Why would you want to reconcile the dichotomies when you can just pick your favorite viewpoint and battle all the enemy views? Isn't that better?

 

Quotes from Vimalakirti Nirdesa:

 

"The Buddha said, "Ananda, this exposition of the Dharma is called 'The Teaching of Vimalakirti,' or 'The Reconciliation of Dichotomies,' or even 'Section of the Inconceivable Liberation.' Remember it thus!"

 

"Manjusri replied, "Lord, it is difficult to attend upon the Licchavi Vimalakirti. He is gifted with marvelous eloquence concerning the law of the profound. He is extremely skilled in full expressions and in the reconciliation of dichotomies. His eloquence is inexorable, and no one can resist his imperturbable intellect."

 

The cosmos is all how concepts and their validating experiences work. To Buddha, D.O. is what it is and uniform non-conceptual essence is not other than another bliss trap.

 

Yea... concepts and what we consider to be non-conceptual are of one flavor to a contemplator who attempts to find a solid difference between them (and fails miserably).

 

To be a Lord you have to think like one. What would you do if you created this world? Would you defend a piece of it?

[Vajrahridaya]

I'm smiling beyond reason and crying with a joy beyond description as I experience my dynamo revving with thoughts of mrs. x and viewing loved ones, living and passed, streaming by...occupying nodes of the net...deep feelings of loneliness and belonging coincide. What I've learned through my explorations of this space is that finding her is not possible...the thought of her IS her...she and I are together, one.

 

The rest is the Tao, the fabric of God...it's us.

 

Thank you xabir.

 

 

 

xeno

 

I'm very familiar with this experience and can truly understand where your coming from. Try not to reify a substance. Your consciousness is blooming seeing the interconnectedness of all things, but there is still no singular being that all being is. It's all still just interconnected unique beings all dependent on each other in infinitely complex ways. But yes... your having some beautiful high up experiences here.

 

I will leave a poem... I have left a couple of comments for you that maybe would be pertinent.

 

Saraha's Dohakosa: The Royal Song

 

 

 

 

Doha mdzod spyod pa'i glu: Dohakosa nama caryagiti

HOMAGE TO ARYAMANJUSRI!

Homage to the destroyer of demonic power!

 

The wind lashes calm waters into rollers and breakers;

The king makes multifarious forms out of unity,

Seeing many faces of this one Archer, Saraha.

 

The cross-eyed fool sees one lamp as two;

The vision and the viewer are one,

You broken, brittle mind!

 

Many lamps are lit in the house,

But the blind are still in darkness;

Sahaja (spontaneity) is all-pervasive

But the fool cannot see what is under his nose.

 

Just as many rivers are one in the ocean

All half-truths are swallowed by the one truth; (the inherently empty nature of all experientials high or low)

The effulgence of the sun (of realization) illuminates all dark corners.

 

Clouds draw water from the ocean to fall as rain on the earth

And there is neither increase nor decrease;

Just so, reality remains unaltered like the pure sky.

 

Replete with the Buddha's perfections

Sahaja is the one essential nature; (seeing dependent origination, one see's through all things even consciousness)

Beings are born into it and pass into it,

Yet there is neither existence nor non-existence in it. (it... i.e.. "emptiness" is not established as an essence but rather the cause of movement, the flow)

 

Forsaking bliss the fool roams abroad,

Hoping for mundane pleasure;

Your mouth is full of honey now,

Swallow it while you may!

 

Fools attempt to avoid their suffering,

The wise enact their pain.

Drink the cup of sky-nectar

While others hunger for outward appearances.

 

Flies eat filth, spurning the fragrance of sandalwood;

Man lost to nirvana furthers his own confusion,

Thirsting for the coarse and vulgar.

 

The rain water filling an ox's hoof-print

Evaporates when the sun shines;

The imperfections of a perfect mind,

All are dissolved in perfection.

 

Salt sea water absorbed by clouds turns sweet;

The venom of passionate reaction

In a strong and selfless mind becomes elixir.

 

The unutterable is free of pain;

Non-meditation gives true pleasure.

Though we fear the dragon's roar

Rain falls from the clouds to ripen the harvest.

 

The nature of beginning and end is here and now,

And the first does not exist without the last;

The rational fool conceptualising the inconceivable

Separates emptiness from compassion.

 

The bee knows from birth

That flowers are the source of honey;

How can the fool know

That samsara and nirvana are one?

 

Facing himself in a mirror

The fool sees an alien form;

The mind with truth forgotten

Serves untruth's outward sham.

 

Flowers' fragrance is intangible

Yet its reality pervades the air,

Just as mandala circles are informed

By a formless presence.

 

Still water stung by an icy wind

Freezes hard in starched and jagged shapes;

In an emotional mind agitated by critical concepts

The unformed becomes hard and intractable.

 

Mind immaculate by nature is untouched

By samsara and nirvana's mud;

But just like a jewel lost in a swamp

Though it retains its lustre it does not shine.

 

As mental sloth increases pure awareness diminishes;

As mental sloth increases suffering also grows.

Shoots sprout from the seed and leaves from the branches.

 

Separating unity from multiplicity in the mind

The light grows dim and we wander in the lower realms;

Who is more deserving of pity than he

Who walks into fire with his eyes wide open?

 

Obsessed with the joys of sexual embrace

The fool believes he knows ultimate truth;

He is like someone who stands at his door

And, flirting, talks about sex.

 

The wind stirs in the House of Emptiness

Exciting delusions of emotional pleasure;

Fallen from celestial space, stung,

The tormented yogin faints away.

 

Like a brahmin taking rice and butter

Offering sacrifice to the flame,

He who visualises material things as celestial ambrosia

Deludes himself that a dream is ultimate reality.

 

Enlightening the House of Brahma in the fontanelle (which is an aspect of experiencing the crown chakra, to be transcended)

Stroking the uvala in wanton delight,

Confused, believing binding pleasure to be spiritual release,

The vain fools calls himself a yogin. (vain as in the experience of, "I AM" is all or, "I is all that this cosmos is", these experiences are deluded experiences considered high in Vedanta but false grasping in Buddhism.)

 

Teaching that virtue is irrelevant to intrinsic awareness,

He mistakes the lock for the key;

Ignorant of the true nature of the gem

The fool calls green glass emerald.

 

His mind takes brass for gold,

Momentary peak experience for reality accomplished;

Clinging to the joy of ephemeral dreams

He calls his short-thrift life Eternal Bliss.

 

With a discursive understanding of the symbol EVAM,

Creating four seals through an analysis of the moment,

He labels his peak experience sahaja:

He is clinging to a reflection mistaken for the mirror.

 

Like befuddled deer leaping into a mirage of water

Deluded fools in their ignorance cling to outer forms

And with their thirst unslaked, bound and confined,

They idealize their prison, pretending happiness.

 

The relatively real is free of intellectual constructs,

And ultimately real mind, active or quiescent, is no-mind, (not established as real or unreal in any way)

And this is the supreme, the highest of the high, immaculate;

Friends, know this sacred high!

 

In mind absorbed in samadhi that is concept-free,

Passion is immaculately pure;

Like a lotus rooted in the slime of a lake bottom,

This sublime reality is untouched by the pollution of existence.

 

Make solid your vision of all things as visionary dream

And you attain transcendence,

Instantaneous realisation and equanimity;

A strong mind binding the demons of darkness

Beyond thought your own spontaneous nature is accomplished.

 

Appearances have never ceased to be their original radiance,

And unformed, form never had a substantial nature to be grasped;

It is a continuum of unique meditation,

In an inactive, stainless, meditative mind that is no-mind.

 

Thus the I is intellect, mind and mind-forms,

I the world, all seemingly alien show,

I the infinite variety of vision-viewer,

I the desire, the anger, the mental sloth -

And bodhicitta.

 

Now there is a lamp lit in spiritual darkness

Healing the splits riven by the intellect

So that all mental defilements are erased.

Who can define the nature of detachment?

 

It cannot be denied nor yet affirmed,

And ungraspable it is inconceivable.

Through conceptualisation fools are bound,

While concept-free there is immaculate sahaja.

 

The concepts of unity and multiplicity do not bring integration;

Only through awareness do sentient beings reach freedom.

Cognition of radiance is strong meditation;

Abide in a calm, quiescent mind.

 

Reaching the joy swollen land

Powers of seeing expand,

And there is joy and laughter;

Even chasing objects there is no separation.

 

From joy, buds of pure pleasure emerge,

Bursting into blooms of supreme pleasure,

And so long as outflow is contained

Unutterable bliss will surely mature.

 

What, where and by whom are nothing,

Yet the entire event is imperative.

Whether love and attachment or desirelessness

The form of the event is emptiness.

 

Like pigs we wallow in this sensual mire

But what can stain our pearly mind?

Nothing can ever contaminate it,

And by nothing can we ever be bound.

 

This song of existential freedom was composed by

the Glorious Master Yogin Saraha.

 

This Dohakosa of Saraha has been translated by

Kunzang Tenzin in Kathmandu over many years,

finished on the full moon of the seventh month

of the wood-ox year. May all beings be happy!

May all manner of things be well!

 

 

Now I join you in tears of joy!!

 

I see what your problem is. You think that Advaita and Buddhism are different descriptions of reality and that Buddhism is an accurate description while Advaita is an inaccurate one.

 

Yes...

 

You obviously don't have direct experience of the truth of dependent origination.

 

To be a Lord you have to think like one. What would you do if you created this world? Would you defend a piece of it?

 

No ONE created this world. It's origination is dependent upon a vast interconnecting web of infinite consciousness' of various levels of self experience and inter-projection.

Edited June 18, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[goldisheavy]

This still shouldn't reify consciousness as an all absorbing singular essence of all things.

 

I think that's good advise for those who are just starting to depart from the views of physicalism. It serves as an antidote to the tendency of the physicalist mindset-affected mind to cease up.

 

However, at some point one sees that concepts and non-conceptual are hardly different, or at best, are a a single continuum rather than a set of discrete realities. DO is good at showing people how everything must belong to a single continuum or it cannot be what it appears to be. DO is a method to get people to switch to seeing continuum instead of discrete/quantized spaces. It's like switching to analog from digital. But once you see the continuums, once you see that the meaning of "essence" and the meaning of "empty" are also on a continuum and are not extremely different, once you see that phenomena are beyond ALL extremes (and not just beyond SOME extremes), you really can't be so proud about your doctrine and so dismissive of another doctrine that associates descriptions of essence with consciousness.

 

At some point physicalism can be safely integrated and dissolved. At first it's good to reject it, as it clogs the mind. But a subtle mind can absorb it and melt it without rejecting it. Kind of like the endless sea rolling over the sea floor. It just washes right over... it doesn't fight or have an antagonistic relationship with the floor. Something like that. And I don't mean to say that the limitations of physicality are accepted! Quite the opposite! Once physicality melts away into a non-rejection, it vanishes together with its limitations.

 

No ONE created this world. It's origination is dependent upon a vast interconnecting web of infinite consciousness' of various levels of self experience and inter-projection.

 

So what does DO depend on? Is it self-caused? That'd be a no-no in Buddhism.

 

Body listen... you tAke me too seriously and too literally. Don't be so dense if you want to fly. Relax. I speak in poems and songs. Don't worry about defending your doctrine because I don't really attack it. I have high esteem for Buddha because I understand what he's saying. Why so? How do I know I understand Buddha? I am his mother and father. That's how. His intent is my intent. I know what he wanted to say because that's what I want to say. He's my minion in the world of appearances. He can be your minion if you begin to own the concepts instead of being owned by them, which is your current modus operandi.

[xenolith]

I'm very familiar with this experience...

How...by what means? (question 1)

Try not to reify...

If you think I am you're mistaken. Why do you think I am? (question 2)

...a substance.

What substance? (question 3)

Your consciousness is blooming seeing the interconnectedness of all things...

Duh...

...but there is still no singular being that all being is.

Duh...why do you think I think that? (question 4)

It's all still just interconnected unique beings all dependent on each other in infinitely complex ways.

Uh, yea.

But yes... your having some beautiful high up experiences here.

No kidding.

 

Would appreciate answers to my four questions.

 

I've not read anything that you've posted here other than that which I've now responded to...your first impression negatively impresses. Hoping for better. Answers to my questions would be a good start.