What is a phenomenon?

[Sunya]

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.

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.

 

 

Hi Nac.

 

about 'finding this level of autophenomenological level of consciousness', according to Buddha if you believe in it, you will find it. the experience of Jhana is the same for Buddhists and Advaitans, but only if you grasp at a self/observer will you come to the conclusion that there exists an ultimate Witness. this is called 'reification' or making something real. Madyamika is very important in making everything empty. this negation of ideas is paramount in clearing the way for true insight to arise the self is just an idea that is being grasped.

 

most likely you will come to the conclusion that it does exist, and become an Advaitan. :-P its impossible to remain neutral, you either grasp at a self or you don't. we all grasp at a self, its almost inherent.. a habit that is reinforced by countless lives. so giving it up isn't easy.. you can pretend to give up the self and say Atman is Brahman, but that is just identifying with the All, meaning there is still an Ultimate Subject. this is very subtle grasping at a self, instead of grasping at a limited self you grasp at an ultimate self. grasping is grasping. Emptiness says there is nothing to grasp because the idea of 'essence permeating All' is removed. without this essence how can one identify with the All and say I am That?

Edited June 30, 2009 by mikaelz

[Sunya]

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.

 

the ultimate goal of Buddhism (Mahayana) is to realize that there is no ultimate self, or observer, that the self is a phenomenona; Empty of essence and interdependent with all other phenomenona, and that even though other sentient beings are themselves too empty, they still suffer from their own side. so really there is no 'ultimate' goal, Buddhahood is just the beginning. finally you have the tools to help suffering empty and compounded sentient beings

 

the realization of Buddhahood is not a mental state, it's an insight that stays with you no matter which mental state you are in. waking, dreaming, deep sleep, and even deep meditative jhana [absorptions]. this is the difference between realization (insight) and experience. Buddhahood is not an experience.

[nac]

Yes, mikaelz. I myself do not have a goal though. (PS. Except maybe to help everything in existence realize it's own Buddha-nature )

 

Although it's true that even if a non-phenomenon type consciousness does objectively exist as Advaitins appear to assert, that would still beg the questions: Should we care? And if so, what exactly should we do about it? I'd rather not engage in this sort of second-degree speculation yet.

Edited June 30, 2009 by nac

[xabir2005]

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.

All your sentences contradict the statement 'Emptiness is Form'.

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

The general view of Advaita is that Brahman is non phenomenal -- not limited to a specific manifestation or form or attribute, for it is the unchanging background reality and the container of phenomena. Yet at the same time, it's seen to be inseparable from all forms. Actually at the highest level of realisation, Brahman is not seen as a void background but as all its dynamic expressions.

 

Adyashanti describes Thusness's Stage 4 (non-dual) insight quite well and relates it to Advaita:

 

"Being Stuck in Emptiness

 

Another of the traps you may discover is similar to being stuck in meaninglessness: being stuck in emptiness. Being stuck in emptiness is a form of being stuck in the transcendent, being stuck in the position of the witness.

 

Initially, it can feel wonderful to be in a state of witnessing, a state in which we realize that we are not somebody who is witnessing, but that we are witnessing itself. Although it is true that we are the witness to everything, there is also a deluded aspect that is easy to get caught in.

 

The ego can set up camp anywhere; it is a shapeshifter. If superiority doesn't work, then setting up camp as the disconnected witness might. The ego is constantly in flux. Once you're onto it -- once you've discovered it in one aspect of your being -- it will disappear, only to reappear somewhere else. It is very cunning, very subtle. In fact, as I see it, the ego's illusion is one of the most impressive forces in all of nature.

 

The "me," or the ego, can set itself up as the witness. Initially, this can feel tremendously freeing, especially for people who have experienced a lot of pain and suffering in life. All of a sudden they are the witness, and there is extraordinary relief in no longer being identified as the main character in their life. But the position of the witness can become a fixation, and when it does, a sense of dryness can start to creep in. In this situation, the witness sees itself as unconnected with what is being witnessed. This means, of course, that there hasn't been a true and thorough realization. It is more like a half realization; it's like being halfway awake.

 

There's an ancient saying that the great sage Ramana Maharshi used to talk about, which goes like this: "The world is illusion. Brahman alone is real. The world is Brahman." This saying speaks to certain insights that come with awakening. The first insight, that "the world is illusion," is not a philosophical statement. Seeing that the world is illusion is part of the awakening experience. It is something that is known; we discover that there is no such thing as an objective world out there, separate from us. This first statement, then, is pointing to this insight, which comes with realization.

 

The next statement, "Brahman alone is real," points us toward the recognition of the eternal witness. The witness to the world is where all the reality is. From this perspective of awakening, the witness is experienced to be much more real than what is witnessed. What is witnessed is seen to be like a dream, like a movie or a novel, unfolding in front of us. There's a great amount of freedom in this, but also a great tendency to become stuck in the idea that "I am the witness to what is."

 

So far, we've seen that these two statements are true: "The world is illusion," and "Brahman alone is real." (The latter of these could be understood as "The witness alone is real.") But without the third statement, "The world is Brahman," we would not have true nonduality. In the statement, "The world is Brahman" collapses the position of the external witness. The witness position collapses into the totality, and suddenly we're not witnessing from the outside anymore. Instead, witnessing is taking place from everywhere simultaneously -- inside, outside, around, up, down. Everything everywhere is being witnessed from inside and outside simultaneously, because what is witnessed is what is witnessing. The seer and what is seen are the same. Unless that is realized, we can get stuck in the place of the witness. We can become stuck in a transcendent void, in emptiness.

 

.......... (continued: http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=nFF8XY...lt&resnum=1 )

 

...As long as we're staying at the summit of awakening, in the transcendent place of the absolute, where we are forever unborn and forever untouched and forever undying, there is an incompleteness to our realization.

 

Quite surprisingly, upon reentry, life becomes very simple and ordinary. We no longer feel driven to have extraordinary moments, to have transcendent experiences. Sitting at the table in the morning and drinking a cup of tea is perfectly adequate. Drinking a cup of tea is experienced as a full expression of ultimate reality. The cup itself is a full expression of everything we have realized. Walking down the hallway, each step is a complete expression of the deepest realization. Raising a family, dealing with children, going to work, going on vacation -- all of it is a true expression of that which is inexpressible."

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

The Form (be it a sound, a vision, a taste) before a moment of thought, before perception, before superimposition, that's Buddha-Nature. And it's not you smelling, tasting, seeing, but the sound itself is the hearing, the mountain itself is the seeing, the world itself is consciousness. Absolutely no 'witness' can be found when everything is the self-mirroring awareness. Edited June 30, 2009 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Edited June 30, 2009 by xabir2005

[dwai]

[xabir2005]

And who saw it all to tell the story?

The 'who' is the subtlest of stories.

 

Without the 'who', there is just pure seeing, pure hearing, etc... spontaneous presence in its diversities.

[dwai]

The 'who' is the subtlest of stories.

 

Without the 'who', there is just pure seeing, pure hearing, etc... spontaneous presence in its diversities.

 

That's what Brahman is

[dwai]

[Sunya]

Buddhism states that everyone is "aleady perfect" with Buddha-nature. If one is already perfect, what's the use of Samsara? Or Avidya? Or Nirvana?

 

No that is not what Buddhism states. There would be no reason to practice if one was already perfect and enlightened. the potential is there, not the actuality of it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature

 

we are not returning to an enlightenment that we had before. beings have been ignorant since beginning less time, unfortunately. if we were already enlightened before, it wouldn't make much sense for us to fall into ignorance. if enlightenment isn't permanent I don't see the point of realizing it.

 

Surely if something is empty of phenomena, then it too is empty right?

Can there be different types of emptiness?

 

there is no "something" that is empty of phenomena. phenomena are empty, and thats it. nothing to replace phenomena with, no ideas of an ultimate It, no broader picture. phenomena are there but they are empty. as much as you try, you will not get Brahman out of this because Buddhism does not reject phenomena as vividly real in a mirage-like way and Buddhism does not replace phenomena with a non-conceptual background that is ultimate and real.

 

Surely an apple is an apple. But if it is empty then an apple is also an orange. At the perceptional level apples and oranges are unique and distinct from each other. But if Apples are empty and Oranges are empty, then surely they have emptiness as their common "essence" (or lack of it thereof?)

 

This is not a question of grasping at an essence. There is no essence to grasp? Can you grasp emptiness?!?

 

well thats the thing, the relative does not disappear in Buddhism. for Advaita, the relative is an illusion, for Buddhism, the relative is like an illusion. so the apple does not stop being an apple. and the orange does not stop being an orange. this is very much about grasping at an essence since you feel the need to make orange and apple one, just because they are empty of independent nature does not mean that they don't exist as vividly real forms. Buddhism strips away the ideas we have about phenomena containing independence and reality, but that doesn't mean that the phenomena stops existing and you can replace those ideas with a grand ultimate It that is All..... That is NOT non-conceptual. that is a very subtle concept. Brahman is not Emptiness, one is self-existing and real, while form is non-existing..The other is merely a description of mirage-like phenomena. Emptiness is as real as phenomena.

 

if you can't see that you are grasping at essence than you will not understand Buddhism. As much as you'd like to believe that you fully understand it better than Buddhist and Hindu scholars who have argued for a while against each other talking about these very matters themselves... I'm not trying to convert you to Buddhism, I just want you to see that they are very subtly different. but since I have failed at that, I will call it a night. It was great speaking with you. I appreciate you spending the time here to discuss all this.. I've learned a lot from these discussions and I hope you have too.

Edited July 1, 2009 by mikaelz

[nac]

Ow my head! This is what happens when you put two supersessionist doctrines together. 2 yangs = total chaos. Oneupmanship taken to a whole new level with every post! So far it seems to come down to whether you're already a believer in monism or not... (come to think of it, that's precisely what the Buddhists are saying )

 

Seriously though, trying to piece these arguments together in terms of modern western philosophy (with my limited understanding) is giving me a headache. Where do you all stand with respect to Panpsychism?

 

That's what Brahman is

I'm sure you've seen it before:

"To study the Way is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be enlightened by all things of the universe. To be enlightened by all things of the universe is to cast off the body and mind of the self as well as those of others. Even the traces of enlightenment are wiped out, and life with traceless enlightenment goes on forever and ever." - Dogen (Soto Zen founder)

 

This is not a question of grasping at an essence. There is no essence to grasp? Can you grasp emptiness?!?

Oh my God! Is that existentialism now??

 

PS. When did I get stuck with you spiritual types anyway? I used to like Zen because it's about as "spiritual" as I am.

Edited July 1, 2009 by nac

[nac]

If Advaita was Neoplatonism, Buddhism would be Mathematical Formalism. In Taoist terms: Doesn't asserting a oneness view presuppose an opposed "many-ness" view? Interconnected thusness elegantly transcends this false duality in my humble opinion. This is more of an aesthetic judgment than an alternate metaphysical model of how-things-really-are. Eg. consider a sine wave extending infinitely in either direction. Is it one single wave (holistic view) or infinite sine oscillations connected to form a stringed-together wave? (analytical view) Both views are obviously correct in their own way, but either can become lopsided and incomplete if it's proponents get dogmatic. In that case, just observe the phenomenon with minimal judgment: What you see is what you get, although any non-dogmatic elaboration could be helpful within it's own framework. This is close to my view of emptiness. Is it Buddhist or Advaita? I'm not so sure it matters...

Edited July 1, 2009 by nac

[Sunya]

right on Nac, i get what you're saying. like the quote in my sig, its a famous buddhist quote.. even zen maybe, not sure. just 'not two, not one', you can also count not zero in there as well. as these are all extremes to be avoided. duality/monism/nihilism. non-duality doesn't have to be monistic, i think this is why its so important to carefully analyze our expectations and subtle beliefs.

[nac]

right on Nac, i get what you're saying. like the quote in my sig, its a famous buddhist quote.. even zen maybe, not sure. just 'not two, not one', you can also count not zero in there as well. as these are all extremes to be avoided. duality/monism/nihilism. non-duality doesn't have to be monistic, i think this is why its so important to carefully analyze our expectations and subtle beliefs.

It's not so much about avoiding than transcendence in my opinion. If you pay attention your own mind will often falsify unskillful ideas like solipsism of it's own accord when necessary. Keep paying attention. The trick is never to get stuck in dogmatic "final views".

 

And please look for find your own answer to dualities and paradoxes. <...etc etc insert more spiritual-sounding psychobabble here, they seem to like it>

 

BTW I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with oneness or plurality as long as one doesn't become attached to such ideas. Here's a hint from exploratory online spirituality: http://www.frontiernet.net/~scaves/mykwid.html

 

Bonus cat picture:

Edited July 1, 2009 by nac

[dwai]

No that is not what Buddhism states. There would be no reason to practice if one was already perfect and enlightened. the potential is there, not the actuality of it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature

 

we are not returning to an enlightenment that we had before. beings have been ignorant since beginning less time, unfortunately. if we were already enlightened before, it wouldn't make much sense for us to fall into ignorance. if enlightenment isn't permanent I don't see the point of realizing it.

there is no "something" that is empty of phenomena. phenomena are empty, and thats it. nothing to replace phenomena with, no ideas of an ultimate It, no broader picture. phenomena are there but they are empty. as much as you try, you will not get Brahman out of this because Buddhism does not reject phenomena as vividly real in a mirage-like way and Buddhism does not replace phenomena with a non-conceptual background that is ultimate and real.

well thats the thing, the relative does not disappear in Buddhism. for Advaita, the relative is an illusion, for Buddhism, the relative is like an illusion. so the apple does not stop being an apple. and the orange does not stop being an orange. this is very much about grasping at an essence since you feel the need to make orange and apple one, just because they are empty of independent nature does not mean that they don't exist as vividly real forms. Buddhism strips away the ideas we have about phenomena containing independence and reality, but that doesn't mean that the phenomena stops existing and you can replace those ideas with a grand ultimate It that is All..... That is NOT non-conceptual. that is a very subtle concept. Brahman is not Emptiness, one is self-existing and real, while form is non-existing..The other is merely a description of mirage-like phenomena. Emptiness is as real as phenomena.

 

if you can't see that you are grasping at essence than you will not understand Buddhism. As much as you'd like to believe that you fully understand it better than Buddhist and Hindu scholars who have argued for a while against each other talking about these very matters themselves... I'm not trying to convert you to Buddhism, I just want you to see that they are very subtly different. but since I have failed at that, I will call it a night. It was great speaking with you. I appreciate you spending the time here to discuss all this.. I've learned a lot from these discussions and I hope you have too.

 

 

You can ascribe anything you want to as being Advaitin thought. That doesn't change the facts.

Brahman is self-existing and self-natured where as phenomena are not. That's why they are considered empty.

Brahman being self-existent and self-natured does not contain phenomena, is not a phenomenon. That's why Brahman is considered empty. But is also full with potentiality since all vyavaharika reality is simply a result of superimposition.

 

The subtle difference is there only if you want it to be there. The Jiva will superimpose and create whatever reality he wants...

 

 

 

If Advaita was Neoplatonism, Buddhism would be Mathematical Formalism. In Taoist terms: Doesn't asserting a oneness view presuppose an opposed "many-ness" view? Interconnected thusness elegantly transcends this false duality in my humble opinion. This is more of an aesthetic judgment than an alternate metaphysical model of how-things-really-are. Eg. consider a sine wave extending infinitely in either direction. Is it one single wave (holistic view) or infinite sine oscillations connected to form a stringed-together wave? (analytical view) Both views are obviously correct in their own way, but either can become lopsided and incomplete if it's proponents get dogmatic. In that case, just observe the phenomenon with minimal judgment: What you see is what you get, although any non-dogmatic elaboration could be helpful within it's own framework. This is close to my view of emptiness. Is it Buddhist or Advaita? I'm not so sure it matters...

 

There is a problem with Interconnected Thusness as it seems to be portrayed. It CANNOT explain consciousness!

One-ness or Many-ness is only possible because of Consciousness.

 

If we are interconnected discrete entities rising and falling, how are you you? Your body changes but your consciousness and memory remains. It is even possible to remember hundreds of past lives. The underlying constant is the observing consciousness.

[xabir2005]

Edited July 1, 2009 by xabir2005

[nac]

There is a problem with Interconnected Thusness as it seems to be portrayed. It CANNOT explain consciousness!

One-ness or Many-ness is only possible because of Consciousness.

Er... Apart from other issues, didn't I just say Thusness doesn't seek to explain anything? Such is such whether Brahman exists or not. Surely even Advaita has this level of objectiveness. Otherwise it's yet another school of solipsism. No one can disprove solipsism. At least I can't, not without a fire hose.

 

On the other hand, if you mean that your great, transcendental One encapsulates both one-ness and many-ness, then our main difference lies in words. What you call One, I call Thus. Call it Tao if you like. Different words, different emphasis, more or less similar meaning.

 

If we are interconnected discrete entities rising and falling, how are you you? Your body changes but your consciousness and memory remains. It is even possible to remember hundreds of past lives. The underlying constant is the observing consciousness.

Delusion IMO. Sorry, but we're straying into shamanism here. OK maybe I won't be converting to Hinduism (or Tibetan Buddhism) anytime soon, for reasons other than just cosmology.

 

PS. Guys, panpsychism please. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism Could you please clarify where you stand in regard to this topic?

 

PPS. Hey dwai, imagine for one second it was proved that past life memories arise because of randomized RNA molecules in the brain. That after death, your consciousness simply ceases to function like an organic quantum computer. In this purely hypothetical situation, would there still be a conscious underlying Brahman observing all phenomena? Or is such a model too fundamentally alien compared to yours?

Edited July 1, 2009 by nac

[dwai]

Er... Apart from other issues, didn't I just say Thusness doesn't seek to explain anything? Such is such whether Brahman exists or not. Surely even Advaita has this level of objectiveness. Otherwise it's yet another school of solipsism. No one can disprove solipsism. At least I can't, not without a fire hose.

 

 

Thusness might not seek to explain anything...but the entire framework of DO has been put together to do just that --- explain the inexplicable.

 

On the other hand, if you mean that your great, transcendental One encapsulates both one-ness and many-ness, then our main difference lies in words. What you call One, I call Thus. Call it Tao if you like. Different words, different emphasis, more or less similar meaning.

I see you are getting what I meant when I said Buddhism, Taoism and Advaita Vedanta are pointing to the same thing. Hence the statement, everything is Brahman.

 

There is no denying the reality of phenomena -- they ARE real! It is just that they are empty of self-nature and self-existence.

 

Delusion IMO. Sorry, but we're straying into shamanism here. OK maybe I won't be converting to Hinduism (or Tibetan Buddhism) anytime soon, for reasons other than just cosmology.

 

Since the topic at hand is/was phenomenological inquiry, it is natural to want to investigate into this aspect. I have never asked anyone to convert to anything. This discussion needs to be taken in context of the hubris demonstrated by certain "Buddhists" in our midst. I hope their misconceptions have been answered.

 

PS. Guys, panpsychism please. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism Could you please clarify where you stand in regard to this topic?

 

I will look into this.

 

PPS. Hey dwai, imagine for one second it was proved that past life memories arise because of randomized RNA molecules in the brain. That after death, your consciousness simply ceases to function like an organic quantum computer. In this purely hypothetical situation, would there still be a conscious underlying Brahman observing all phenomena? Or is such a model too fundamentally alien compared to yours?

 

What is putting these randomized RNA molecules in the specific configuration that I can remember each life successfully each time I am born?

 

Simple probability cannot satisfy this condition. Think about it in terms of Mathematics...given the mind-boggling number of permutations and combinations possible in nature, what gives rise to the memory/consciousness over and over again?

[Sunya]

You can ascribe anything you want to as being Advaitin thought. That doesn't change the facts.

Brahman is self-existing and self-natured where as phenomena are not. That's why they are considered empty.

Brahman being self-existent and self-natured does not contain phenomena, is not a phenomenon. That's why Brahman is considered empty. But is also full with potentiality since all vyavaharika reality is simply a result of superimposition.

 

I'm not ascribing anything to being Advaitin thought. I'm using your own words here, and quotes from Advaita sources. the idea of "Brahman being self-existent and self-natured and not containing phenomena" is the Advaitin concept that is not compatible whatsoever with Buddhist philosophy, practice, and realization. you are trying very hard to make something fit which won't.

 

this absolutist tendency is very deeply ingrained in you, so i can see why its so difficult for you to see the subtle differences, which are there.

 

phenomena are empty of inherent existence, this does not mean that there IS something that has inherent existence, Brahman.... Emptiness is not self-natured and self-existent and non-phenomenal, therefore Emptiness cannot equal Brahman. they are infact diametrically opposed views. Buddhism does not negate the self-existence of phenomena just to replace that with another idea of Allness. you are taking your thought-train further than the Buddhists do. the Buddhists stop at interdependence, they do not further say that phenomena does not exist and reify that non-conceptuality.

 

Focus on the word inter-dependence, does this automatically point to One-ness or Same-ness? or can phenomena remain in the balance between one and many by simply being interdependent? Can phenomena remain in the balance between existing and non-existing by simply being empty of essence?

 

 

Dwai: "Brahman is self-existing and self-natured...is not a phenomenon." ---- "That's why Brahman is considered empty."

 

these two statements oppose each other. If Brahman were empty, Brahman would not be self-existent and self-natured. Empty does not mean "non-phenomenal". Empty is a description of phenomena used to denote the lack of intrinsic and inherent essence, individuality, and substance. Since Brahman is, as you say, non-phenomenal, then according to Buddhism, Brahman cannot be empty since this is a description of the nature of phenomena. Reality consists of interdependent phenomena, nothing beyond that, therefore Brahman does not exist, according to Buddhism.

[dwai]

I'm not ascribing anything to being Advaitin thought. I'm using your own words here, and quotes from Advaita sources. the idea of "Brahman being self-existent and self-natured and not containing phenomena" is the Advaitin concept that is not compatible whatsoever with Buddhist philosophy, practice, and realization. you are trying very hard to make something fit which won't.

 

this absolutist tendency is very deeply ingrained in you, so i can see why its so difficult for you to see the subtle differences, which are there.

 

 

Is there some pre-condition that if something is not a phenomenon, it automatically becomes not empty?

 

Xabir just posted how Shining Luminosity (or whatever you guys call it) is self-existent (because it was not created by anything) but is empty.

 

 

phenomena are empty of inherent existence, this does not mean that there IS something that has inherent existence, Brahman.... Emptiness is not self-natured and self-existent and non-phenomenal, therefore Emptiness cannot equal Brahman. they are infact diametrically opposed views. Buddhism does not negate the self-existence of phenomena just to replace that with another idea of Allness. you are taking your thought-train further than the Buddhists do. the Buddhists stop at interdependence, they do not further say that phenomena does not exist and reify that non-conceptuality.

 

But the Allness is also One-ness. It is also No-thing-ness! Again, Advaita is not negating the "self-existence" of phenomena, which by admission of your own Nagarjuna are inherently lacking in self-existence or self-nature. That's why they have to be dependently originated.

 

You forget that your theravada is not the only school of Buddhist thought around. There are others and they do acknowledge that there is an eternal non-phenomenal consciousness that they reach at the pinnacle of their meditation.

 

Focus on the word inter-dependence, does this automatically point to One-ness or Same-ness? or can phenomena remain in the balance between one and many by simply being interdependent? Can phenomena remain in the balance between existing and non-existing by simply being empty of essence?

 

Dwai: "Brahman is self-existing and self-natured...is not a phenomenon." ---- "That's why Brahman is considered empty."

 

these two statements oppose each other. If Brahman were empty, Brahman would not be self-existent and self-natured. Empty does not mean "non-phenomenal". Empty is a description of phenomena used to denote the lack of intrinsic and inherent essence, individuality, and substance. Since Brahman is, as you say, non-phenomenal, then according to Buddhism, Brahman cannot be empty since this is a description of the nature of phenomena. Reality consists of interdependent phenomena, nothing beyond that, therefore Brahman does not exist, according to Buddhism.

 

Emptiness and phenomena don't have an exclusive relationship. Why is it a must that non-phenomenal cannot be empty?

 

Okay, in order to refute my argumentation, you have to first accept that there IS a non-phenomenal. Otherwise, what is the point of your debating with me?

Edited July 2, 2009 by dwai

[Sunya]

[xabir2005]

Yeah, Xabir threw in Yogacara (Mind-Only) teachings into the mix when I was mostly talking about Madhyamika.

Actually the point is nothing is created, nothing has origination, this is very Madhyamika. Samsara itself is Unborn.

 

Lankavatara Sutra: Even Nirvana and Samsara's world of life and death are aspects of the same thing, for there is no Nirvana except where is Samsara, and Samsara except where is Nirvana. All duality is falsely imagined.

 

Vishesacinta-brahma-pariprccha Sutra: Samsara is Nirvana, because there is, when viewed from the ultimate nature of the Dharmakaya, nothing going out of, nor coming into, existence (Samsara being only apparent): Nirvana is samsara, when it is coveted and adhered to.

 

What dependently originates is in essence empty and unborn. It is not the kind of linear 'A causes B'. This is still seeing in terms of entities instead of emptiness. This is not what dependent origination is about. I think Lankavatara Sutra stated somewhere that the philosophers' conception of cause and effect is not the same as how the Buddha sees it. Rather, D.O. is everything interacting with everything coming together in an instantaneous moment of manifestation Complete and Whole of itself, without movement, origination, coming-from and going-to. And this complete manifestation/appearance is vivid, luminous, but is illusion-like like a mirage, without substance, nothing inherently 'there' -- it is empty.

 

When dependently origination is correctly understood everything is seen as being like an illusion and ultimately unborn. There is nothing causing anything. As Dogen says, firewood does not turn into ash, firewood abides in the phenomenal expression of firewood, ash abides in the phenomenal expression of ash. Similarly, birth is birth, death is death, there is no birth turning into death, and understood this way Birth is no-birth, Death is no-death. Seen in this way, there is no inherently existing firewood, ash, birth, death, that has origination and death or 'it' turns into something -- rather there is only moment by moment (transient) dependently originated appearances and all appearances are luminous and empty.

 

 

But if you reify something something, i.e. The Source, as uncreated and everything emerges and subsides from/within that, then you have an eternalist view. In Buddhism, Awareness is Unborn but it is not reified as "The Unborn", because everything is unborn, everything has no origination, everything is source, everything is awareness, everything is empty.

Edited July 2, 2009 by xabir2005

[dwai]

[Sunya]

i think we can end this safely knowing Advaita and Buddhism cannot agree

[Siliconvalley1]

A Question for Xabir ...

 

The Kesamutti Sutta (Pāli: Kesamuttisuttaṃ), or better known as Kalama Sutta (Sanskrit: Kalama Sutra; Thai: กาลามสูตร, Kalama Sut), is a Buddhist sutta in the Anguttara Nikaya[1] of the Tipitaka. It is often cited by Mahayana and Theravada Buddhists alike. Kalama sutta is also called Buddha's charter of free inquiry.

 

The Buddha instructs the Kalama People on which basis one should decide which religious teaching to accept as true. The Buddha tells the Kalamas to not just believe religious teachings because they are claimed to be true by various sources or through the application of various methods and techniques. He urges that direct knowledge from one's own experience should be called upon. He counsels that the words of the wise should be heeded and taken into account when deciding upon the value of a teaching. This is not a dogmatic acceptance but rather a constantly questioning and testing acceptance of those teachings which can be proven to reduce suffering.

 

Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing,

nor upon tradition,

nor upon rumor ,

nor upon what is in a scripture,

nor upon surmise,

nor upon an axiom,

nor upon specious reasoning,

nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over,

nor upon another's seeming ability,

nor upon the consideration, "The monk is our teacher."

Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness," enter on and abide in them.'

 

Thus, the Buddha provides ten specific sources which should not be used to accept a specific teaching as true, without further verification:

 

Oral history

Traditional

News sources

Scriptures or other official texts

Logical reasoning

Philosophical reasoning

Common sense

One's own opinions

Authorities or experts

One's own teacher

 

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

 

"Do not believe something just because it has been passed along and retold for many generations.

[simpler: Do not be led by what you are told (including by elders).]

 

Do not believe something merely because it has become a traditional practice.

[Do not be led by whatever has been handed down from past generations.]

 

Do not believe something simply because it is well-known everywhere.

[Do not be led by hearsay or common opinion.]

 

Do not believe something just because it is cited in a text.

[Do not be led by what the scriptures say.]

 

Do not believe something solely on the grounds of logical reasoning.

[Do not be led by mere logic.]

 

Do not believe something merely because it accords with your philosophy.

[Do not be led by mere deduction or inference.]

 

Do not believe something because it appeals to "common sense".

[Do not be led by considering only outward appearance.]"

 

Do not believe something just because you like the idea.

[Do not be led by preconceived notions (and the theory reflected as an approval)]

[Do not be led by preconceived and perceived notions (and the theory reflected as (to be) an approval)]

 

Do not believe something because the speaker seems trustworthy.

[Do not be led by what seems acceptable; do not be led by what some seeming believable one says.]

 

Do not believe something thinking, "This is what our teacher says".

[Do not be led by what your teacher tells you is so, including myself the Buddha.]

 

 

One must be watchful for those who would say the Buddha's teachings are unquestionable. Basically, Buddhism is meant to be a struggle to constantly test our understanding of the world. One should neither accept nor reject unproven the teachings of the wise, or even the Buddha. The Buddha tells the Kalamas to not just believe religious teachings because they are claimed to be true by various sources or through the application of various methods and techniques. He urges that direct knowledge from one's own experience should be called upon. He also counsels that the words of the wise should be heeded and taken into account when deciding upon the value of a teaching.

 

Of course Dignaga, Dharmakirti and medieval Sautrantikas have their peculiar position on what is a Pramana or an authority but the above Sutta seems to be simple and clear and acceptable in validity to most Buddhist traditions.

 

So, how do you interpret this sutta? Do you validate the theories you write about through direct experience or assume them to be true based on logic, common sense, authority of the sutta or someone who claims to have validated them? I would be genuinely interested to know as my area of study is Vajrayana to be specific where there is an explicit statement in Tantras like Kalachakra or Guhyasamaja to accept in good faith the teachings therein, much on the lines of Hindu Tantras like Mahanirvana. What I am interested to know though is what is the Mahayana/Theravada position on teaching or propagation or even debates based on authorities other than direct experience.

Edited July 2, 2009 by Siliconvalley1