What is a phenomenon?

[Siliconvalley1]

first, I never said Shaktipat was useless... and I don't need your advice. but of course, you will quote me out of context again and again, even after I've explained myself thoroughly.

 

second, i'm not playing a numbers game. you presumed that I just googled and I said no I actually lived close by, and now you have to respond with Oh well I lived there longer. AND THEN CALL ME A SILLY CHILD! haaaa!!

 

your posts just reek of pride, you always have to 'one-up' everyone, you just can't back down. my shamata sucks... what about your ego?

 

definition of one-upper: one who feels like they need to be better than everyone else, so they constantly "one-up" anything that anyone says.

 

someone who needs to make themselves feel better by making themselves seem greater than everyone else

 

someone who thinks they know everything, everyone, and has done everything you do, but better

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=one+upper

 

 

stop veiling your need to argue and bolster your ego by pretending that you're on a crusade to unmask the truth and expose people, or whatever, this has never been about anyone else but you. expose yourself.

 

here's an observation: you veil your arrogance and conceit pretending to help people. I do not need your help. Nobody needs your help. you should help yourself. don't bother responding, this is my last post to you. but of course you'll have to respond because you can't let anyone have the last say, you HAVE TO WIN! so sad.

 

you know you have to respond now, even though nobody cares. you have to "defend" yourself, you have to keep attacking me and keep making sarcastic comments that make yourself fell good and proud. you know you have to. c'mon karma keep churnin'!

 

Nobody cares except you? You seem to dig my posts .. you even un-ignored me and I am still to sufficiently thank you for that

 

Well, not to disappoint you I have to post ... I don't wanna make you cry ... continue observing me (your own breath would've been better, but what the heck, observe something!), you will keep collecting merits in your gunnysack..or you can write a thesis on me! You even know some words here and there and you claim to know enough about me as well

 

So, let's see how long you refrain yourself from expressing all that love inside you... till VH gets his comp back probably and there is Narayan Kaka-ji offering Shaktipat and getting that will do you a lot of good as well...just mentioning as you seem less averse to at least one Hindu thing - Shaktipat!

 

Seriously, I will miss talking to you

Edited June 28, 2009 by Siliconvalley1

[dwai]

first, I never said Shaktipat was useless... and I don't need your advice. but of course, you will quote me out of context again and again, even after I've explained myself thoroughly.

 

second, i'm not playing a numbers game. you presumed that I just googled and I said no I actually lived close by, and now you have to respond with Oh well I lived there longer. AND THEN CALL ME A SILLY CHILD! haaaa!!

 

your posts just reek of pride, you always have to 'one-up' everyone, you just can't back down. my shamata sucks... what about your ego?

 

definition of one-upper: one who feels like they need to be better than everyone else, so they constantly "one-up" anything that anyone says.

 

someone who needs to make themselves feel better by making themselves seem greater than everyone else

 

someone who thinks they know everything, everyone, and has done everything you do, but better

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=one+upper

 

stop veiling your need to argue and bolster your ego by pretending that you're on a crusade to unmask the truth and expose people, or whatever, this has never been about anyone else but you. expose yourself.

 

here's an observation: you veil your arrogance and conceit pretending to help people. I do not need your help. Nobody needs your help. you should help yourself. don't bother responding, this is my last post to you. but of course you'll have to respond because you can't let anyone have the last say, you HAVE TO WIN! so sad.

 

you know you have to respond now, even though nobody cares. you have to "defend" yourself, you have to keep attacking me and keep making sarcastic comments that make yourself fell good and proud. you know you have to. c'mon karma keep churnin'!

 

I see you quietly diverted attention from my question. What makes one class you took in India better than 26 years of my core being immersed in the culture, tradition and spiritual life in India? (26 years because I moved to the US when I was that age, a decade ago).

 

Those who live in glass houses should throw stones at passers-by. It is obvious that your bookish knowledge of not only Hinduism, but also Buddhism is mired in ego-fodder and you try and show the superiority of "YOUR" tradition (although at this point it is clear that there is a lot you have to learn from/about your tradition).

 

You and your friend VH should really stop making silly claims about the mythical superiority of Buddhism over other traditions and focus on your learning instead. It is clear that VH has minimal (if at all) any experiential knowledge. The same comes through from your writing as well.

 

Instead of wasting your time and effort chastising SV1, you should turn your gaze inward. I am sure if you are honest in your quest you will realize where the flaws in your entire argumentation and line of thinking have been!

 

Good luck...

 

Dwai

Edited June 28, 2009 by dwai

[Pero]

You and your friend VH should really stop making silly claims about the mythical superiority of Buddhism over other traditions and focus on your learning instead.

 

Dwai I really don't understand this. Of course Buddhism is superior, from Buddhisms point of view. I don't see what is so strange here.

[Siliconvalley1]

Dwai I really don't understand this. Of course Buddhism is superior, from Buddhisms point of view. I don't see what is so strange here.

 

Nothing strange, the debate really is about how to express one's views without sounding like a jerk. And there has never been a clarification that the view claiming Buddhism to be the ONLY way is just a Buddhist's perception. I even pointed that out several times - Fine, that's your view and you're good to stick to it and even flaunt it. And the response was: Not really, it is beyond frameworks and true to all - irrespective of one following Buddhist Faith or not. Forcing that fanaticism down others' throat, especially on a Taoist Forum is what I have problem with. And when that proclaimation of faith is frequently slandering other paths. There is also problem when lack of learning, historical perspective and experiential understanding form the basis of such claims.

 

Moreover, what is the relevance of that declaration of Superiority here?

Edited June 28, 2009 by Siliconvalley1

[dwai]

Dwai I really don't understand this. Of course Buddhism is superior, from Buddhisms point of view. I don't see what is so strange here.

 

That begs the question -- How would the Buddhist know, without doing a honest study of the other systems he/she is dismissing as being inferior?

 

The claims made (that triggered this monstrosity of three threads full of debates) were that other tradition (specifically one) was inferior to Buddhism, but this claim was rooted in misunderstanding of that tradition and confusion about the terminology used therein.

 

Since the discussants involved (on behest of Buddhism) claimed that it was superior, it necessarily needs to be pointed out, that their knowledge of the other (Advaita Vedanta or Taoism) was sketchy at best and dishonestly projected at worst.

Edited June 28, 2009 by dwai

[Sunya]

That begs the question -- How would the Buddhist know, without doing a honest study of the other systems he/she is dismissing as being inferior?

 

The claims made (that triggered this monstrosity of three threads full of debates) were that other tradition (specifically one) was inferior to Buddhism, but this claim was rooted in misunderstanding of that tradition and confusion about the terminology used therein.

 

Since the discussants involved (on behest of Buddhism) claimed that it was superior, it necessarily needs to be pointed out, that their knowledge of the other (Advaita Vedanta or Taoism) was sketchy at best and dishonestly projected at worst.

 

not true. nothing that was posited about Vedanta has been disproven. you objectivity a non-phenomenal self-existing reality, and that according to Buddha is grasping at an essence that doesn't exist. you can talk all day about non-conceptual this and non-conceptual that, but what it comes down to is that your definition of Brahman is not non-conceptual because you say that it exists and is non-phenominal, that is already a concept.

 

and yes, Buddhists, atleast good Buddhists, should study other paths. there was a comparative philosophy forum at E-Sangha, it was awesome. but then it got closed.

 

it's you that should study Buddhism since you keep equating Emptiness with Brahman over and over again.

Edited June 28, 2009 by mikaelz

[dwai]

not true. nothing that was posited about Vedanta has been disproven. you objectivity a non-phenomenal self-existing reality, and that according to Buddha is grasping at an essence that doesn't exist. you can talk all day about non-conceptual this and non-conceptual that, but what it comes down to is that your definition of Brahman is not non-conceptual because you say that it exists and is non-phenominal, that is already a concept.

 

and yes, Buddhists, atleast good Buddhists, should study other paths. there was a comparative philosophy forum at E-Sangha, it was awesome. but then it got closed.

 

it's you that should study Buddhism since you keep equating Emptiness with Brahman over and over again.

 

that shows how little you were willing to open your mind to see what some of us were trying to show you here.

 

Why can't Brahman be non-conceptual? Brahman can be realized. It cannot be described or talked about or rationalized or phenomenologically inquired into. Phenomenological inquiry will only take the seeker to the potentiality of realization, not the realization itself.

 

There is no way to refer to something without objectifying it. You call yourself Mikaelz...you give yourself a name, an identity, etc. You are objectifying yourself. In reality, what you truly are is non-objective, non-conceptual. That is the crux of all spiritual inquiry.

 

When Buddhists talk about Nirvana, they are objectifying it. When they talk about DO as the way to freedom in a descriptive manner they are objectifying it!

 

Taoists tallk about Tao, they are objectifying it. That's why the Great Masters through history have warned against describing that which cannot be described - Lao Tzu, Vyasa, Sandilya, Shankara, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Swami Vivekanada, Aurobindo, Raman Maharshi and so on.

 

We are sentient beings who unfortunately are bound in Samsara and have to use the tools available to us to break through the miasma of ignorance. Words happen to be essential part of our worldly existence, thus we type 100s of pages of comments back and forth on Tao bums.

 

I will most certainly do a deeper dive into Buddhism. I have equal respect for all serious traditions of Spirituality. I also know enough to not consider my knowledge to be supreme. I also happen to realize when someone debating with me needs some compassionate guidance to show him/her the errors of his/her way. We each bring insights into the unknowable.

 

There is an old Upanishadic story about 5 blind men encountering an elephant and then trying to ascertain what it was. Each of us are like those blind men, the elephant is Brahman or Tao or Emptiness. The question is, do the blind men want to close their minds and consider only their part of the view/felt sensation as the ultimate view or do they have the integrity and honesty to consider the fact that their's might not be the only view and might just be a perspective. It is a difficult tightrope to walk...

 

That still doesn't answer how/why you or VH would be better authorities on Hinduism that myself? That you could pass judgement on such a diverse and ancient group of traditions that it is with your less than rudimentary exposure to it?

Edited June 28, 2009 by dwai

[Sunya]

Hi Dwai,

 

I must say, you are much more pleasing to talk to than your friend.

 

 

that shows how little you were willing to open your mind to see what some of us were trying to show you here.

 

Why can't Brahman be non-conceptual? Brahman can be realized. It cannot be described or talked about or rationalized or phenomenologically inquired into. Phenomenological inquiry will only take the seeker to the potentiality of realization, not the realization itself.

 

the realization of Nirvana is based on phenomenological inquiry and the realization is that there is nothing behind phenomena. phenemona are empty and yet fully vivid. nothing hiding behind phenomena. the impermanence of phenomena is also included in that realization. different realms exist where the experience is completely formless and that too is impermanent, so that realization also includes the impermanence of consciousness, which is considered a phenomena in Buddhism because it is constantly changing.

 

 

There is no way to refer to something without objectifying it. You call yourself Mikaelz...you give yourself a name, an identity, etc. You are objectifying yourself. In reality, what you truly are is non-objective, non-conceptual. That is the crux of all spiritual inquiry.

 

When Buddhists talk about Nirvana, they are objectifying it. When they talk about DO as the way to freedom in a descriptive manner they are objectifying it!

 

Nirvana and DO = non-conceptual view. one can not say that Nirvana exists because Nirvana is not a state or a being or 'something' or 'nothing' or anything, really. Nirvana is not a noun. Nirvana has no identity. Nirvana is not a subject, but Nirvana is non-conceptual view free from all extremes. Therefore one cannot say that Nirvana = Brahman. you cannot say I am Nirvana. there is no identifying with Nirvana like Advaitans identify with Brahman because Nirvana, DO, Sunyata etc is view. It wouldn't make sense to say I am proper view.

 

There is no objectifying in Buddhism, the philosophy of Madyamika was painstakingly created by Nagarjuna to correct the errors in objectification.

 

There is an old Upanishadic story about 5 blind men encountering an elephant and then trying to ascertain what it was. Each of us are like those blind men, the elephant is Brahman or Tao or Emptiness. The question is, do the blind men want to close their minds and consider only their part of the view/felt sensation as the ultimate view or do they have the integrity and honesty to consider the fact that their's might not be the only view and might just be a perspective. It is a difficult tightrope to walk...

 

I wish this were the case, I really do. I'm still hopeful.

[Siliconvalley1]

Hi Dwai,

 

I must say, you are much more pleasing to talk to than your friend.

 

Dwai,

 

You even got a compliment from Maste Mikeal courtesy me ... you sure owe me a coffee brother

 

Regards,

SV

[dwai]

Hi Dwai,

 

I must say, you are much more pleasing to talk to than your friend.

the realization of Nirvana is based on phenomenological inquiry and the realization is that there is nothing behind phenomena. phenemona are empty and yet fully vivid. nothing hiding behind phenomena. the impermanence of phenomena is also included in that realization. different realms exist where the experience is completely formless and that too is impermanent, so that realization also includes the impermanence of consciousness, which is considered a phenomena in Buddhism because it is constantly changing.

Nirvana and DO = non-conceptual view. one can not say that Nirvana exists because Nirvana is not a state or a being or 'something' or 'nothing' or anything, really. Nirvana is not a noun. Nirvana has no identity. Nirvana is not a subject, but Nirvana is non-conceptual view free from all extremes. Therefore one cannot say that Nirvana = Brahman. you cannot say I am Nirvana. there is no identifying with Nirvana like Advaitans identify with Brahman because Nirvana, DO, Sunyata etc is view. It wouldn't make sense to say I am proper view.

 

There is no objectifying in Buddhism, the philosophy of Madyamika was painstakingly created by Nagarjuna to correct the errors in objectification.

I wish this were the case, I really do. I'm still hopeful.

 

It is your delusion that Brahman is personified, objectified, etc.

To understand Brahman you have to first de-program the exclusivist ideology that ignorant teachers of Buddhism have loaded into your brain (in that they have claimed a certain stand on behalf of the Advaitins vis-a-vis Brahman in order to establish strawmen and then hack them down with impunity)...

 

If Nirvana is non-conceptual view free from all extremes, then Nirvana = Kaivalyam.

If Nirvana points to emptiness (Shunyata), then Shunyata = Nirguna Brahman

Since DO points to emptiness of Phenomena, then DO is a result of Adhyasa.

 

 

Why is yours or VH's experience/knowledge of Hinduism superior to mine? You still haven't answered that.

 

 

Dwai,

 

You even got a compliment from Maste Mikeal courtesy me ... you sure owe me a coffee brother

 

Regards,

SV

 

I sure do my brother! But Nothing but the Best Mysore Filter Coffee...

[Sunya]

Why is yours or VH's experience/knowledge of Hinduism superior to mine? You still haven't answered that.

 

never said I know more about Hinduism than you lol, relax there bronco.

 

ok here's some quotes from the Gita

 

God in Hinduism is Nirguna or nirguna Brahman: the Imperishable, the Infinite, the Transcendent unmanifested, the Omnipresent; the Beyond all thought, the Immutable, the Never-changing and the Ever One (the Gita: Ch. 12 - V. 3, 4). Brahman is the ultimate creator of soul and the world (the Gita: Ch. 7 - V. 6). The Saguna or saguna Brahman, which merely is a manifestation of Nirguna during creation, can be envisioned physically as the waves or ripples in Nirguna where each "unique" ripple (wave) signifies a separate attribute for Saguna. Thus the ultimate nature of Brahman is Nirguna which is also the destination for soul (the Gita: Ch. 8 - V. 12, 13). Essence of Brahman is consciousness. Moreover, essence of soul is consciousness (the Gita: Ch. 13 - V. 14) and therefore same as Nirguna (the Gita: Ch. 10 - V. 20, Ch. 13 - V. 22, 31, 32).

 

Nirvana is not equal to Kaivalyam because Kaivalyam presupposes the essence of all reality being Self or pure consciousness. the insight of Nirvana negates this essence because consciousness is dependently originated. the presupposition of Advaita that there exists something behind phenomena, positing the existence of Nirguna, makes true Kaivalyam impossible because there is already a conceptual basis for the insight. true nonconceptual insight cannot arise because consciousness, essence, and identity have not been negated. Kaivalyam as presented in Hinduism is the insight of phenomena as Self, whereas Nirvana as presented in Hinduism is the insight of phenomena lacking any self. both seem to mean non-conceptual but how they define non-conceptual is different. in Buddhism all views are negated and thats how you arrive at non-conceptual view. in Advaita it is rather the positing of one self-existing essence permeating all reality. according to Buddhism this is not the way things are, and this view contaminates your experience and does not lead to true insight.

 

your whole argument of

 

If Nirvana is non-conceptual view free from all extremes, then Nirvana = Kaivalyam.

If Nirvana points to emptiness (Shunyata), then Shunyata = Nirguna Brahman

Since DO points to emptiness of Phenomena, then DO is a result of Adhyasa.

 

falls apart if you see that Nirvana does not equal Kaivalyam.

 

I can see that there is a lot in common here between the two respective traditions, but really it all rests on Buddhisms view that negation is important to engender proper insight.

 

and also, the insights gained by the two traditions cannot be the same for another important reason. in Buddhism there is no One Eternal Mind or Pure Consciousness or Pure Being. mind-streams are all separate, infinite, and beginningless. (this view actually differs between Theravada and Mahayana, so I'll post a quote explaining why, from the Mahayana perspective)

 

Question: What happens to the mind-stream when a person becomes a Buddha?

 

Answer: Before answering this question, I must explain that Buddha taught many people. Not everyone is the same. We have different dispositions and capacities. Buddha was extremely skillful and gave a variety of teachings so that each person would find an approach suitable to his or her character and disposition. Thus, the major traditions of the Buddhist teachings are Hinayana for modest- minded practitioners and Mahayana for vast- minded practitioners. Of the eighteen Hinayana schools that existed in ancient times, Theravada is the only one left in existence now.

 

If Buddha were to say to somebody who is modest in his or her aspiration and goal that everyone's mind-stream lasts forever, the person might become discouraged. Some people are overwhelmed with their own problems and therefore, to them, Buddha said, "You can get out of your problems, become a liberated being - an arhat - and achieve nirvana. When you die, you attain parinirvana. At that time, your mind-stream ends, just as a candle goes out when the wax is exhausted." For that person, such an explanation will be very encouraging, for he or she wishes to escape from the cycle of constantly recurring problems and rebirth, and not have to bother anymore. Thus, it is effective for that type of person. Please note, however, that Buddha did not teach that in the end, all mind-streams become one like streams of water merging in the ocean. That is the explanation of Hinduism.

 

To a more vast- minded person, Buddha would say, "I gave the previous explanation to benefit those who are modest. However, I did not mean what I explained literally because, in fact, the mind-stream goes on forever. After you have eliminated your problems and attained nirvana, the quality of your mind changes. Your mind does not continue in the same troubling manner as it did before." Thus, to people who have a vast-minded aim to attain enlightenment, Buddha explained that in fact the mind-stream lasts forever - no beginning, no end. When enlightened beings leave their present bodies, their mind-streams still go on.

 

There is a difference between arhats, liberated beings who have achieved nirvana, and Buddhas, who are fully enlightened. While arhats are free from their problems, suffering and its causes, Buddhas have overcome all their limitations and realized all their potentials in order to benefit everyone in the most effective ways.

 

http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archi...ma_rebirth.html

[nac]

Doesn't making consciousness the main focus of inquiry (as in Tibetan Buddhism) and making it immortal (permanent as in Advaita) both stray into psychologism? This thread might as well be titled Samsara.

[dwai]

Doesn't making consciousness the main focus of inquiry (as in Tibetan Buddhism) and making it immortal (permanent as in Advaita) both stray into psychologism? This thread might as well be titled Samsara.

 

Of what value is anything else if you aren't aware of them? To you ie, the Subject...

 

never said I know more about Hinduism than you lol, relax there bronco.

 

I guess google-shastra is a very good tool to have, but might give the false impression of knowledge where none really exists.

In future if you want to express your opinion, do so with the disclaimer that it is your opinion. In any case, your opinion on Hinduism is derived from ignorance (as I had pointed out in the past)

 

ok here's some quotes from the Gita

Nirvana is not equal to Kaivalyam because Kaivalyam presupposes the essence of all reality being Self or pure consciousness. the insight of Nirvana negates this essence because consciousness is dependently originated. the presupposition of Advaita that there exists something behind phenomena, positing the existence of Nirguna, makes true Kaivalyam impossible because there is already a conceptual basis for the insight. true nonconceptual insight cannot arise because consciousness, essence, and identity have not been negated. Kaivalyam as presented in Hinduism is the insight of phenomena as Self, whereas Nirvana as presented in Hinduism is the insight of phenomena lacking any self. both seem to mean non-conceptual but how they define non-conceptual is different. in Buddhism all views are negated and thats how you arrive at non-conceptual view. in Advaita it is rather the positing of one self-existing essence permeating all reality. according to Buddhism this is not the way things are, and this view contaminates your experience and does not lead to true insight.

 

Consciousness can never be negated. That is the point of Advaita. If you aren't conscious, you don't exist. Since you are conscious, you surely must exist. But you are not a phenomenon. So what are you? A non-phenomenon. Any attempts at description will fail because you are beyond categorical frameworks.

 

your whole argument of

falls apart if you see that Nirvana does not equal Kaivalyam.

 

I can see that there is a lot in common here between the two respective traditions, but really it all rests on Buddhisms view that negation is important to engender proper insight.

 

I don't see that Nirvana != Kaivalyam. They are the same in my mind.

 

and also, the insights gained by the two traditions cannot be the same for another important reason. in Buddhism there is no One Eternal Mind or Pure Consciousness or Pure Being. mind-streams are all separate, infinite, and beginningless. (this view actually differs between Theravada and Mahayana, so I'll post a quote explaining why, from the Mahayana perspective)

http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archi...ma_rebirth.html

 

Mind-stream is not consciousness. It is simply a mind-stream. It is like debris floating in the river called Consciousness. Taoists too talk about Mind-stream and their take on it is very similar to the Advaitin view.

 

Anyway, gotta go...Yoga time.

[Sunya]

Edited June 30, 2009 by mikaelz

[xabir2005]

Consciousness can never be negated. That is the point of Advaita. If you aren't conscious, you don't exist. Since you are conscious, you surely must exist. But you are not a phenomenon. So what are you? A non-phenomenon.

Phenomenon also cannot be negated. All phenomenon are consciousness. To experience an aspect of consciousness and separate it from other phenomena is being equally blind to the Totality.

[dwai]

Phenomenon also cannot be negated. All phenomenon are consciousness. To experience an aspect of consciousness and separate it from other phenomena is being equally blind to the Totality.

 

But phenomena CAN be eliminated from consciousness. Consciousness with phenomena is objective consciousness. That without phenomena is Objectless Consciousness. That Objectless Consciousness is called Aatman/Brahman.

 

Phenomena rise and fall...objectless consciousness does not.

[Sunya]

But phenomena CAN be eliminated from consciousness. Consciousness with phenomena is objective consciousness. That without phenomena is Objectless Consciousness. That Objectless Consciousness is called Aatman/Brahman.

 

Phenomena rise and fall...objectless consciousness does not.

 

then this is where Buddhist and Advaita non-duality differ.

 

Advaitins believe that consciousness is behind phenomena, but emptiness means there is nothing behind phenomena. when one says phenomena is empty that is not simply negating phenomena to imply that there is more behind phenomena, no that is not what emptiness means. it is negating the idea that phenomena are self-arisen objects. there is more to emptiness than interdependence of phenomena, there is also the aspect of consciousness being interdependent with phenomena.

 

So since emptiness being form. emptiness is not BEHIND form, emptiness IS form. there is no such thing as objectless consciousness in Buddhism since there are no such things as objects. objects are themselves emptiness. so one can say "everything is phenomena" or "everything is consciousness" because, as xabir said, all phenomenon are consciousness, there is no difference between consciousness and phenomena, they depend on each other, and are empty of essence. but what you are talking about is dualistic since phenomena and consciousness are different, phenomena is contained within consciousness, like drawings on a blank screen. this is simply not so according to Buddhism.

 

phenomena rise and fall, from no source at all. they simply are. there is nothing containing phenomena, no objectless consciousness, no eternal screen or blank page.

 

this is the philosophy of it, and the error in Vedanta philosophy causes you to reify a jhana experience as true and absolute. so i'll quote my friend on this since he already addressed this

 

Dwai,

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Sunya]

Consciousness can never be negated. That is the point of Advaita. If you aren't conscious, you don't exist. Since you are conscious, you surely must exist. But you are not a phenomenon. So what are you? A non-phenomenon.

 

you have many assumptions here such as "you are not a phenomenon", the "you" is a combination of the 5 Skhandas, this teaching is the cornerstone of Anatta, Buddhist teaching of no-self

 

1) Matter or Form (rupa) - the physical form responded to the five organs of senses, i.e., eye, ear, nose, tongue and body;

(2) Sensation or Feeling (vedana) - the feeling in reception of physical things by the senses through the mind;

(3) Perception and/or cognition (Pali, sanna) (Skr, sanjna) - the functioning of mind in distinguishing appearances;

(4) Volition or Mental Formation (Pali, sankara) (Skr, samskara) - habitual action, i.e., a conditioned response to the object of experience, whether it is good or evil, you like or dislike;

(5) Consciousness (Pali, vinnana) (Skr, vijnana) - the mental faculty in regard to perception, cognition and experience;

 

all of these 5 aspects make up the self, and they are interdependent with perceived phenomenon and are themselves phenomenona. therefore you cannot say 'you are not phenomenon" because there is no you that is separate from phenomena. there is no soul or anything beyond the 5 skhandas. yes there are formless realms and are experienced through the 5th skhanda but they are temporary and not to be taken refuge in.

 

ear consciousness is dependent upon sound, likewise all the senses that make up the 1st skhanda are dependent upon their respective phenomena that they sense. same with the 2nd skhanda, the 3rd, cognition, is dependent on form and appearances. the 4th on objects of experience, and the 5th, perception and experience, is dependent on the experience itself. this is the "Witness" and if there would be nothing to witness than there would be no witness itself.

 

so taking this logic further, the example of the ear consciousness being dependent upon sound, the sound IS consciousness. there is no separate "sound" and "ear consciousness", one being aware of the other, the two are one. likewise the witness is not separate from the experience, the experience is consciousness itself. the sound is the hearing, the sight is the seeing, the perception of objects are the objects.

 

the two extremes that Buddhism opposes are eternalism and nihilism. eternalism focuses on the consciousness aspect and ignores phenomena, while nihilism, or materialism, only focuses on phenomena, objects, and ignores consciousness. Buddhist non-dual realization brings them together because phenomena is consciousness.

 

i was taught in Kashmir Shivaism that there are 2 aspects to God, the static and the dynamic. consciousness and creation. Shiva and Shakti, and that Shakti is an aspect of Shiva so everything is Shiva. everything is consciousness.. in Buddhism, there is no static, there is no Shiva. Shiva is Shakti, consciousness IS action, IS process. there is no duality herein.

Edited June 30, 2009 by mikaelz

[Siliconvalley1]

i was taught in Kashmir Shivaism that there are 2 aspects to God, the static and the dynamic. consciousness and creation. Shiva and Shakti, and that Shakti is an aspect of Shiva so everything is Shiva. everything is consciousness.. in Buddhism, there is no static, there is no Shiva. Shiva is Shakti, consciousness IS action, IS process. there is no duality herein.

 

There are three classes of Shaiva Tantra, revealed to three kinds of aspirants respectively, inferior, mediocre and qualified - and they are: Dualisitic, mixture of duality and non-duality and non-dualistic. Statements such as those above where Shakti is an accessory of Shiva is generally belonging to the first school. Most traditions of Kashmiri Shaivism however fall under the third category. Here, Shiva IS Shakti, as Shakti here represents the Jiva and the goal of entire Tantra is to realize the oneness of Shakti and Shiva, that is symbolically expressed as the ascent or unfolding of Kundalini. Unlike classes of qualified monism, where this act of emancipation is involving the individual self merging into the universal self, in shaiva advaita, there is nothing to be merged into as the two are really one and the same and cognition of this reality is what really is the goal of the practice. The distinction between Shiva and Shakti, even in the case where they are spoken off as two , like chandrachandrikayoriva - moon and the moonbeam etc., is clarified as being just for the sake of easy comprehension of the Trika or the Philosophy. So, the polarity that is seen as Shiva and Shakti is merely an apparent truth. Shiva is akula, shakti is kula and the experiential dispelling of the wrong-knowledge or notion of separateness between them is kaula. As a side note, there really is not much of difference between the brahman of an advaitin and the shiva of a shaivaite. Its how they associate this substratal essence with causality that the differences arise, with the former adopting vivarta and the latter parinama to explain causality. My 2 cents ...

Edited June 30, 2009 by Siliconvalley1

[dwai]

you have many assumptions here such as "you are not a phenomenon", the "you" is a combination of the 5 Skhandas, this teaching is the cornerstone of Anatta, Buddhist teaching of no-self

 

1) Matter or Form (rupa) - the physical form responded to the five organs of senses, i.e., eye, ear, nose, tongue and body;

(2) Sensation or Feeling (vedana) - the feeling in reception of physical things by the senses through the mind;

(3) Perception and/or cognition (Pali, sanna) (Skr, sanjna) - the functioning of mind in distinguishing appearances;

(4) Volition or Mental Formation (Pali, sankara) (Skr, samskara) - habitual action, i.e., a conditioned response to the object of experience, whether it is good or evil, you like or dislike;

(5) Consciousness (Pali, vinnana) (Skr, vijnana) - the mental faculty in regard to perception, cognition and experience;

 

all of these 5 aspects make up the self, and they are interdependent with perceived phenomenon and are themselves phenomenona. therefore you cannot say 'you are not phenomenon" because there is no you that is separate from phenomena. there is no soul or anything beyond the 5 skhandas. yes there are formless realms and are experienced through the 5th skhanda but they are temporary and not to be taken refuge in.

 

ear consciousness is dependent upon sound, likewise all the senses that make up the 1st skhanda are dependent upon their respective phenomena that they sense. same with the 2nd skhanda, the 3rd, cognition, is dependent on form and appearances. the 4th on objects of experience, and the 5th, perception and experience, is dependent on the experience itself. this is the "Witness" and if there would be nothing to witness than there would be no witness itself.

 

so taking this logic further, the example of the ear consciousness being dependent upon sound, the sound IS consciousness. there is no separate "sound" and "ear consciousness", one being aware of the other, the two are one. likewise the witness is not separate from the experience, the experience is consciousness itself. the sound is the hearing, the sight is the seeing, the perception of objects are the objects.

 

There are assumptions made by Buddhists vis-a-vis Advaita's stance on various matters. From Vedantic perspective, The five skhandas are considered phenomenological apparatii. So is the mind (or Antahkarana which is the complex of mind, objective consciousness, ego and discriminating intelligence). These are all apparatii...

 

Vijnana is not considered objectless consciousness in Vedanta. It is also part of the "mind" complex. The Buddhist is spot on in that these are not the self (Anatta (anAtma)). Advaita never claims that these form the Atman. Infact, these are the limitations by which Atman becomes Jiva (the sufferer), the concept of Upadhi.

 

The question is not whether the perceived, the heard, the tasted, the smelled are the observer. If you take these away, the observer still exists...you do it in meditation when you go into a state of objectless consciousness (the gap between thoughts, remember).

 

You should read some contemporary threads on Nisargadatta Maharaj's Gita right here in TTB (he was an exponent of Advaita Vedanta).

 

the two extremes that Buddhism opposes are eternalism and nihilism. eternalism focuses on the consciousness aspect and ignores phenomena, while nihilism, or materialism, only focuses on phenomena, objects, and ignores consciousness. Buddhist non-dual realization brings them together because phenomena is consciousness.

 

i was taught in Kashmir Shivaism that there are 2 aspects to God, the static and the dynamic. consciousness and creation. Shiva and Shakti, and that Shakti is an aspect of Shiva so everything is Shiva. everything is consciousness.. in Buddhism, there is no static, there is no Shiva. Shiva is Shakti, consciousness IS action, IS process. there is no duality herein.

 

Silicon gave a very good explanation about why that is so.

[dwai]

then this is where Buddhist and Advaita non-duality differ.

 

Advaitins believe that consciousness is behind phenomena, but emptiness means there is nothing behind phenomena. when one says phenomena is empty that is not simply negating phenomena to imply that there is more behind phenomena, no that is not what emptiness means. it is negating the idea that phenomena are self-arisen objects. there is more to emptiness than interdependence of phenomena, there is also the aspect of consciousness being interdependent with phenomena.

 

So since emptiness being form. emptiness is not BEHIND form, emptiness IS form. there is no such thing as objectless consciousness in Buddhism since there are no such things as objects. objects are themselves emptiness. so one can say "everything is phenomena" or "everything is consciousness" because, as xabir said, all phenomenon are consciousness, there is no difference between consciousness and phenomena, they depend on each other, and are empty of essence. but what you are talking about is dualistic since phenomena and consciousness are different, phenomena is contained within consciousness, like drawings on a blank screen. this is simply not so according to Buddhism.

 

phenomena rise and fall, from no source at all. they simply are. there is nothing containing phenomena, no objectless consciousness, no eternal screen or blank page.

 

this is the philosophy of it, and the error in Vedanta philosophy causes you to reify a jhana experience as true and absolute. so i'll quote my friend on this since he already addressed this

 

We have covered this before. Advaita says Brahman is emptiness because it is bereft of any phenomena. It is non-phenomenal and thus can never contain any phenomena. Emptiness IS form.

Advaita never claims Brahman is BEHIND form or that it "contains" phenomena. Au contraire, it is empty of all phenomena.

 

What is form? Form is a result of superimposition of a categorical framework on the Brahman.

But who is superimposing? Jiva.

What is Jiva? a limit-bound Atman

What is Atman? Atman is none other than Brahman.

What is purpose of this superimposition? The better question would be, "what is the purpose of Upadhi (limitation)?"

So what is the purpose of Upadhi? Without limitation, there IS NO inquirer and there IS NO realization!

Edited June 30, 2009 by dwai

[contrivedname!]

hello mikalez,

 

 

it is absolutely disgusting that you would use a mentally challenged child in an attempt to slander your "opponents" by trying to make them look "retarded"; good job on the compassion there (i think i want that prize, that kid looks ecstatic about it...)

 

buddhism has never had violence? where the fuck did you get that from? the air? you can even use youtube to find clips quite to the contrary check out the thai monks who recently got in a brawl over "sects". of course their view is probably wrong because they dont agree with your stary eyed view of buddhism, oh well.

 

lets not forget that Mr. Trungpa Rimpochee said something to the effect of "a bodhisattva wouldnt just stand there and be killed he would strike back" if you need the direct quotation of that i may just oblige you, though i would have to dig through all of his books i have as i cannot remember which it is in. of course i am sure he must've had "wrong view" because he was a drunk who smoked cigarettes (lets keep attatching to appearances folks ).

 

i suppose, though, i have slipped into the error of ad hominem argumentation and any response of course would not be considered such, so i will depart (methaphorically and for the time being )

 

signing out,

chris

 

not one blood has been shed in the history of Buddhism, its a peaceful religion. it's not about worshiping our God and doing our rituals or else you go to hell. No. it's about recognizing that grasping for an ultimate state or essence leads to suffering not liberation. that is all. that is the Buddhist view and Buddhists will never budge on this. it makes complete logical sense if you study why grasping leads to suffering and how every other religion have some sort of subtle, or not so subtle, grasping in their ultimate realization or truth.

 

[Sunya]

it is absolutely disgusting that you would use a mentally challenged child in an attempt to slander your "opponents" by trying to make them look "retarded"; good job on the compassion there (i think i want that prize, that kid looks ecstatic about it...)

 

I'm sorry if I offended you.

 

buddhism has never had violence? where the fuck did you get that from? the air? you can even use youtube to find clips quite to the contrary check out the thai monks who recently got in a brawl over "sects". of course their view is probably wrong because they dont agree with your stary eyed view of buddhism, oh well.

 

lets not forget that Mr. Trungpa Rimpochee said something to the effect of "a bodhisattva wouldnt just stand there and be killed he would strike back" if you need the direct quotation of that i may just oblige you, though i would have to dig through all of his books i have as i cannot remember which it is in. of course i am sure he must've had "wrong view" because he was a drunk who smoked cigarettes (lets keep attatching to appearances folks ).

 

i suppose, though, i have slipped into the error of ad hominem argumentation and any response of course would not be considered such, so i will depart (methaphorically and for the time being )

 

signing out,

chris

 

I meant no war has ever been waged in the name of Buddhism and trying to convert people. i don't even remember the context of that conversation since it was said a week ago..

[Sunya]

Edited June 30, 2009 by mikaelz

[nac]

But phenomena CAN be eliminated from consciousness. Consciousness with phenomena is objective consciousness. That without phenomena is Objectless Consciousness. That Objectless Consciousness is called Aatman/Brahman.

 

Phenomena rise and fall...objectless consciousness does not.

I guess my bottom line is: If this autophenomenological level of consciousness defined by Advaita really exists, (ie. I find it) I'll become an Advaitin. The whole oneness argument seems to rest on the existence of a transcendental soul common to all sentient beings. Whether this concept is based on fact or self-delusion remains to be seen as far as this one is concerned.

 

Of what value is anything else if you aren't aware of them? To you ie, the Subject...

Don't get me wrong. Either way, I'm grateful for helping me overcome my certainty and clinging to fixed views by a great extent. You know what the Zennists say, don't-know mind is the greatest expedient towards enlightenment.

 

PS. I'm having trouble shaking the idea that the main difference between these religions is they have set different mental states as the "ultimate" goal. As for me, I don't have such a goal.