The Chicken or the Egg?

[Sunya]

None of the above disagree with me, except you and perhaps some equally misguided "experts" of neo-Buddhism.

 

Umm,, yes. they disagree with you. are the quotes provided for you not enough? maybe they were misquoted and you met the individuals personally and they whispered in your ear the New Age fable you hold so dearly to?

 

Advaita, Taoism, Tantra and Madhyamika Buddhism all lead to the same thing...something that is beyond categorical frameworks, something that cannot be fathomed using the mundane faculties of perception and cognition. They are all fingers that point to the same moon. Some choose to focus on the finger, others on the moon

 

That something is non-phenomenal, it is self-existent and self-aware/self-illuminated. It is also each and every one of us...sans our limiting adjunct. When we dissolve all objects from our consciousness and only it stands on it's own accord, that is Tao, Shunyata, Advaita, Brahman, Parama-Shiva.

 

Shunyata is not pure non-conceptual consciousness. nor is Shunyata self-existent or self-aware. Non-dual awareness is reached by Buddhists but that is not the goal of Buddhism nor is it the same as the insight of Emptiness.

 

you say that your goal is non-conceptual but then you are still stuck in concepts such as consciousness, self existent, self aware, self-illuminated. No Buddhist will ever describe Shunyata this way, because the two fingers are pointing at completely different moons. but why do you still hold so dearly that its the same? because of an idea that you hold very strongly to. this idea is that a non-conceptual reality exists and all one has to do is go beyond intellectualism and access that reality. That is an idea, that isn't truth. Buddhism will never agree with you about that idea. as stated to you 100 times before, right view is necessary in Buddhism to truly reach insight beyond concepts. Right view is not a conceptual framework but a conceptual framework dissolver.

[dwai]

Umm,, yes. they disagree with you. are the quotes provided for you not enough? maybe they were misquoted and you met the individuals personally and they whispered in your ear the New Age fable you hold so dearly to?

Shunyata is not pure non-conceptual consciousness. nor is Shunyata self-existent or self-aware. Non-dual awareness is reached by Buddhists but that is not the goal of Buddhism nor is it the same as the insight of Emptiness.

 

you say that your goal is non-conceptual but then you are still stuck in concepts such as consciousness, self existent, self aware, self-illuminated. No Buddhist will ever describe Shunyata this way, because the two fingers are pointing at completely different moons. but why do you still hold so dearly that its the same? because of an idea that you hold very strongly to. this idea is that a non-conceptual reality exists and all one has to do is go beyond intellectualism and access that reality. That is an idea, that isn't truth. Buddhism will never agree with you about that idea. as stated to you 100 times before, right view is necessary in Buddhism to truly reach insight beyond concepts. Right view is not a conceptual framework but a conceptual framework dissolver.

 

New Age and me? Is the Pot calling the Kettle black?

 

The right view you and your buddies are touting unfortunately is a categorical framework that you simply think of as a framework dissolver. No Dependent Origination or Middle Path or anything will get you there. They are merely tools you use in the journey.

 

To access Absolute reality, you have to simply drop all sensory cognition, intellectual categorization, all thoughts, all objects in your consciousness. Only then will you become it. Otherwise you will be stuck in the conundrum of making the ultimate truth claim that there is no ultimate truth.

 

Even if you repeat the same crap a million times, it will not make it any more valid than it was the first time you made such a claim.

 

Shunyata is self-aware and self-existent. You know why? Because nothing gives rise to it. It simply IS.

Being void of all properties, qualities, there is no way to observe it, measure or describe it.

 

Yet all Consciousness is encompassed in it. Because it IS consciousness itself. See Shankara's criticism of the Alaya Vigyana in an earlier post. It is self-aware and self-illumined because there is no other. Consciousness is self-aware...that's why you know that You Are, in other words, aware of yourself.

 

It's only that you don't yet know that I am also you and you are also VH and VH is also Taomeow and so on. And that we are all one...since there is only One Absolute Consciousness.

[Vajrahridaya]

You have had little to say about me personally because you first attacked and insulted my entire creed (if you haven't gone and deleted your pronouncements in those threads).

 

None of the above disagree with me, except you and perhaps some equally misguided "experts" of neo-Buddhism.

 

 

I said, "Sloppy Hindu Thinking" and you took that personally because you have an identity surrounding that being a "BRAHMIN". I meant the logic of Brahman based theology was sloppy. Not Indians... WOW!!

 

How many times does one have to quote from these great beings to get it through to you that, your assertion is the neo-Vedanta, and that Buddhism has never agreed with neither the old Vedanta that disagreed with Buddhism and the neo-Vedanta that thinks it's all one.

 

The Dalai Lama said in no uncertain terms that the Brahmayana, or absorption path leads to higher rebirth but not liberation because it does not understand dependent origination. Your still thinking it only applies to the reflections in the mirror, but it applies to the mirror as well.

 

Your assertion that Madhyamika leads to the same place as Advaita Vedanta is completely false as well. Nagarjuna himself said that the Hindu path's only lead to higher rebirth as well.

 

I could keep on going on, but we've already done this and your identity to Vedanta is too strong, so... it's fine. You'll get a higher rebirth, and greater faculties through your view. That's fine. I wish you blessings on your trek!

 

 

 

 

That something is non-phenomenal, it is self-existent and self-aware/self-illuminated. It is also each and every one of us...sans our limiting adjunct. When we dissolve all objects from our consciousness and only it stands on it's own accord, that is Tao, Shunyata, Advaita, Brahman, Parama-Shiva.

That is catagorically and unequivically NOT Shunyata. Where you get that idea is from Hindu commentators on Buddhist texts. Shunyata has NO inherent existence, it's not even an it, it's a way of explaining dependent origination. LOL! Oh boy... Never mind.

Edited July 28, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

 

To access Absolute reality, you have to simply drop all sensory cognition, intellectual categorization, all thoughts, all objects in your consciousness. Only then will you become it.

 

That's Hinduism, NOT Buddhism. That's called supression into seed form, and that my dear becomes that cause of your future recycling once the cosmos goes through Pralaya, because you identify with some non-conceptual ground of bliss, you will rest there for a while, and you won't have a body and no thought. This according to Buddhism is called the Samsaric formless Jhana realms, where you can't even hear the Dharma because you've dumbed and deafened yourself into a formless bliss realm. This is NOT Buddhist liberation and never has been. You don't read much of the actual teachings of the Buddha, this I can tell.

 

 

Shunyata is self-aware and self-existent. You know why? Because nothing gives rise to it. It simply IS.

Being void of all properties, qualities, there is no way to observe it, measure or describe it.

 

Shunyata is not an inherent self existence beyond time and space. That's the Jhana of nothingness, or the Jhana of neither perception nor non-perception. Read more Buddhism.

 

Yet all Consciousness is encompassed in it. Because it IS consciousness itself. See Shankara's criticism of the Alaya Vigyana in an earlier post. It is self-aware and self-illumined because there is no other. Consciousness is self-aware...that's why you know that You Are, in other words, aware of yourself.

 

The 8th Consciousness also is not to be taken as a Self in the Yogachara schematic, and one must couple the meditative path of Chittamatra with Madhyamika as not to grasp at a self in the formless jhana's. The Alaya Vijnana is NOT inherent reality of all being. It's the personal seed repository, made of the seeds in non-conceptual forms. Because in Buddhism, karma penetrates even non-conceptuality. Thus the formless Samadhi's are not considered absolute in Buddhism. As there is no absolute ground of pure being, and that is the ground of pure realization, not an essence, but a deeply intuitive understanding of dependent origination/emptiness which is non-abiding. You keep trying to make Shunyata some abiding thing. But, Nagarjuna was very clear that even Shunyata is not inherently existent.

 

It's only that you don't yet know that I am also you and you are also VH and VH is also Taomeow and so on. And that we are all one...since there is only One Absolute Consciousness.

 

I've had those experiences regularly before and they are very blissful, they are considered the oceanic bliss of a Brahma, but it's a mistaken cognition according to Buddhism, and this was stated over 2,000 years ago. You don't read Buddha's teachings at all. That is quite clear.

 

The blissful realizations of Buddhism is subtler, and to see Dharmakaya directly has nothing to do with merging with Brahman or thinking that I am you and you are me. I know, because I used to directly experience this interpretation of samadhi regularly and then I realized dependent origination to some degree and understood what the experience actually was. My consciousness was just blooming past phenomena and itself because it's all inherently empty of real substance. I wasn't merging with anything... I was just seeing the transparent quality of all things and the luminous nature of consciousness when it de-compounds from fixation, even on itself.

 

P.s. I didn't erase my post where I said that Hindu thinking is sloppy, it seems that posts just erase themselves after a certain time as I can't even find your Advaita vs. Buddhism thread for some reason?

Edited July 28, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[dwai]

That's Hinduism, NOT Buddhism. That's called supression into seed form, and that my dear becomes that cause of your future recycling once the cosmos goes through Pralaya, because you identify with some non-conceptual ground of bliss, you will rest there for a while, and you won't have a body and no thought. This according to Buddhism is called the Samsaric formless Jhana realms, where you can't even hear the Dharma because you've dumbed and deafened yourself into a formless bliss realm. This is NOT Buddhist liberation and never has been. You don't read much of the actual teachings of the Buddha, this I can tell.

Shunyata is not an inherent self existence beyond time and space. That's the Jhana of nothingness, or the Jhana of neither perception nor non-perception. Read more Buddhism.

The 8th Consciousness also is not to be taken as a Self in the Yogachara schematic, and one must couple the meditative path of Chittamatra with Madhyamika as not to grasp at a self in the formless jhana's. The Alaya Vijnana is NOT inherent reality of all being. It's the personal seed repository, made of the seeds in non-conceptual forms. Because in Buddhism, karma penetrates even non-conceptuality. Thus the formless Samadhi's are not considered absolute in Buddhism. As there is no absolute ground of pure being, and that is the ground of pure realization, not an essence, but a deeply intuitive understanding of dependent origination/emptiness which is non-abiding. You keep trying to make Shunyata some abiding thing. But, Nagarjuna was very clear that even Shunyata is not inherently existent.

I've had those experiences regularly before and they are very blissful, they are considered the oceanic bliss of a Brahma, but it's a mistaken cognition according to Buddhism, and this was stated over 2,000 years ago. You don't read Buddha's teachings at all. That is quite clear.

 

The blissful realizations of Buddhism is subtler, and to see Dharmakaya directly has nothing to do with merging with Brahman or thinking that I am you and you are me. I know, because I used to directly experience this interpretation of samadhi regularly and then I realized dependent origination to some degree and understood what the experience actually was. My consciousness was just blooming past phenomena and itself because it's all inherently empty of real substance. I wasn't merging with anything... I was just seeing the transparent quality of all things and the luminous nature of consciousness when it de-compounds from fixation, even on itself.

 

P.s. I didn't erase my post where I said that Hindu thinking is sloppy, it seems that posts just erase themselves after a certain time as I can't even find your Advaita vs. Buddhism thread for some reason?

 

That is a bunch of BS invented by Buddhists who didn't understand what Madhyamika is all about to "prove" that their flawed understanding is "superior".

 

Try as you may, you cannot disprove the existence of the Self.

[Vajrahridaya]

That is a bunch of BS invented by Buddhists who didn't understand what Madhyamika is all about to "prove" that their flawed understanding is "superior".

 

Try as you may, you cannot disprove the existence of the Self.

 

Then why did Nagarjuna the inventor Madhyamika say that only Buddhadharma leads to freedom from Samsara and Hinduism does not? He said that, in no uncertain terms.

 

Riddle me that.

 

Also, no you'd have to have your own realizations of the non-abiding flow.

 

Sorry, from the very beginning the Buddha said that there is no static Self, or self.

 

You should read some Pali Suttas, in context!

Edited July 29, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[dwai]

Then why did Nagarjuna the inventor Madhyamika say that only Buddhadharma leads to freedom from Samsara and Hinduism does not? He said that, in no uncertain terms.

 

Riddle me that.

 

Also, no you'd have to have your own realizations of the non-abiding flow.

 

Sorry, from the very beginning the Buddha said that there is no static Self, or self.

 

You should read some Pali Suttas, in context!

 

Nagarjuna's references might have been towards those darshanic systems that stopped at Saguna Brahman.

 

The Anatta that Buddhism talks about is validated by Advaita and Tantra. All Anatta is saying is that Jiva is not Atman, Antahkarana is not Atman. Atman is beyond concepts and percepts...it simply is...when you peel away every object, phenomenon, the unfiltered, ever present awareness that exists...that is Atman.

 

In fact Atman/Brahman/Tao/Shiva/Shunyata is totally free. Absolute freedom is freedom of knowledge (jnata) and freedom of action (karta). That's why there is no "Static" self. The Absolute Self is Dynamic.

Edited July 29, 2009 by dwai

[Sloppy Zhang]

@_@

 

Quite frankly, I'm very impressed, the names that everyone is using here are all very long and have a lot of letters and I'd be misspelling them every which way, so props to you guys for spelling

 

It seems that these past couple of posts have come down to "This is the Buddhist way, that is the Hindu interpretation" "well the Hindu way is right to begin with" "no not really because see...." (which is probably the cause of the debate in the first place )

 

In which case it's more of a dogmatic thing and I don't think anyone is going to convince anyone by using that method If you find the Buddhist interpretation to your liking, or the Hindu interpretation, that's a personal thing and you won't be winning any arguments with it.

 

Anyway, keep going if you want, keep up the good spelling!

Edited July 29, 2009 by Sloppy Zhang

[Lucky7Strikes]

The Anatta that Buddhism talks about is validated by Advaita and Tantra. All Anatta is saying is that Jiva is not Atman, Antahkarana is not Atman. Atman is beyond concepts and percepts...it simply is...when you peel away every object, phenomenon, the unfiltered, ever present awareness that exists...that is Atman.

 

In fact Atman/Brahman/Tao/Shiva/Shunyata is totally free. Absolute freedom is freedom of knowledge (jnata) and freedom of action (karta). That's why there is no "Static" self. The Absolute Self is Dynamic.

 

Ok um, reading this post...I think you have misunderstood Atman/the Self or whatever. It is not beyond concepts, it IS the concepts. If you peel away all object phenomenon, well maybe you'll be left with that "state" of awareness alone (if you go deaf there is the state of deafness), but really all there ever was was that Awareness (note: capitalized).

 

Awareness is not a separate thing. It IS the rising phenomena.

 

Isn't there a quote that goes something like "there IS no God, God IS" (you might be the one who typed it).

 

BTW, I am more inclined to agree that Hinduism and Buddhism actually do point to the same moon. So you have a convert here... .

 

But then again, I have not fully understood what is meant by 'total extinction' in Buddhism, as I cannot fathom whether it is even possible for Awareness to extinguish itself by any means...

Edited July 29, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[dwai]

Ok um, reading this post...I think you have misunderstood Atman/the Self or whatever. It is not beyond concepts, it IS the concepts. If you peel away all object phenomenon, well maybe you'll be left with that "state" of awareness alone (if you go deaf there is the state of deafness), but really all there ever was was that Awareness (note: capitalized).

 

Awareness is not a separate thing. It IS the rising phenomena.

 

Isn't there a quote that goes something like "there IS no God, God IS" (you might be the one who typed it).

 

BTW, I am more inclined to agree that Hinduism and Buddhism actually do point to the same moon. So you have a convert here... .

 

But then again, I have not fully understood what is meant by 'total extinction' in Buddhism, as I cannot fathom whether it is even possible for Awareness to extinguish itself by any means...

 

Actually Consciousness is not a phenomenon. It doesn't rise and fall...it simply IS. By this I am referring to the consciousness that is devoid of objects (thoughts, etc). It is pure knowing. It is not a phenomenon because it is self-illumined.

 

Think about it this way -- The only thing that is certain is that You Are (I am). That awareness is not something that someone has to make you aware of. It simply is. It is does not begin and end...not even in deep sleep state. Infact, meditation's role is to take the seeker to the "Deep sleep-like" state (called Turiya in yogic parlance) while not asleep.

 

Someone had asked me "are you aware of who you are in Deep sleep state"? My reply is what is there to be aware about awareness? That is a logical impossibility. Objectless Consciousness cannot be the object of itself, it is self-aware, self-illumined.

 

Consciousness (Atman) cannot extinguish itself because it doesn't have a beginning or an end. The infinite eternal mind-stream(s) that Buddhists refer to as Alaya Vijnana is actually wrongly ascribed as being so. It is only one...and that is Atman/Brahman/Tao/Shunyata/Shiva (add on your favorite word here).

 

 

@_@

 

Quite frankly, I'm very impressed, the names that everyone is using here are all very long and have a lot of letters and I'd be misspelling them every which way, so props to you guys for spelling

 

It seems that these past couple of posts have come down to "This is the Buddhist way, that is the Hindu interpretation" "well the Hindu way is right to begin with" "no not really because see...." (which is probably the cause of the debate in the first place )

 

In which case it's more of a dogmatic thing and I don't think anyone is going to convince anyone by using that method If you find the Buddhist interpretation to your liking, or the Hindu interpretation, that's a personal thing and you won't be winning any arguments with it.

 

Anyway, keep going if you want, keep up the good spelling!

 

Actually Hindus accept all sincere spiritual systems as valid. There are different means for people with different capabilities. Some can show unconditional and infinite love so Bhakti (or the path of devotion). Some can act impeccably (wu wei), so Karma. Yet others use the path of Ashtanga Yoga, so Raja and yet others use their intellect, so Jnana.

 

These are all valid (and every system out there has to fall in one of these four categories). The debate was not beacause of exclusivistic claims on behalf of Hindu thought. The debate was because some bums here decided that Buddhism is the "Only valid way".

 

BTW, spellings are easy...try firefox and spellchecker.

[Sunya]

These are all valid (and every system out there has to fall in one of these four categories). The debate was not beacause of exclusivistic claims on behalf of Hindu thought. The debate was because some bums here decided that Buddhism is the "Only valid way".

 

not the only way, just the way to realizing emptiness. i'm tired of repeating myself and if you haven't yet understood how emptiness does not equal objectless consciousness or samadhi or Brahman or whatever, then you don't have the karma to understand it, so be it. it really would be fruitful for you to drop your baggage and actually study Buddhist thought. you're very flip floppy, first you say the goal is the same and then you say Buddhists are wrong about everything, they misinterpret everything. so make up your mind, do some studying.

 

 

Nagarjuna's references might have been towards those darshanic systems that stopped at Saguna Brahman.

 

The Anatta that Buddhism talks about is validated by Advaita and Tantra. All Anatta is saying is that Jiva is not Atman, Antahkarana is not Atman. Atman is beyond concepts and percepts...it simply is...when you peel away every object, phenomenon, the unfiltered, ever present awareness that exists...that is Atman.

 

In fact Atman/Brahman/Tao/Shiva/Shunyata is totally free. Absolute freedom is freedom of knowledge (jnata) and freedom of action (karta). That's why there is no "Static" self. The Absolute Self is Dynamic.

 

You're going to teach what Nagarjuna and Buddha really meant now? maybe you should write a book. this is interesting!

 

the Anatta that Buddha talked about says that there is no Self beyond the 5 skhandas. nothing whatsoever that can be identified with. so how then, can you sit there, identifiying with Atman, and say that Anatta points to the same insight? There is NO Absolute Self in Buddhism. you sit there and say 'beyond concepts and percepts' and then you say 'Absolute Self', and then you say 'Atman' which MEANS Self. you reek of concepts and you worship non-conceptuality? what a confusing mannerism you have.

[Stigweard]

Erm ... are we still talking about a Chicken or an Egg?

[Vajrahridaya]

Nagarjuna's references might have been towards those darshanic systems that stopped at Saguna Brahman.

 

Nope, he talks about the meditative experience of seeming non-conceptual abiding as well as being inherently empty and dependently originated and non-abiding, just as the Buddha did in the first turning which is generally known as Theravada at this point.

 

The Anatta that Buddhism talks about is validated by Advaita and Tantra. All Anatta is saying is that Jiva is not Atman, Antahkarana is not Atman. Atman is beyond concepts and percepts...it simply is...when you peel away every object, phenomenon, the unfiltered, ever present awareness that exists...that is Atman.

 

I used to think this way and if you look at my posts in E-Sangha from 6 years ago, you'll see that I argued very strongly with many quotes for this view. Then I had some other level of experiences and also got transmission from a Dzogchen Master where I had another type of experience that showed me where I was validating a non-conceptual essence not in accordance with Madhyamika or Theravada as well.

In fact Atman/Brahman/Tao/Shiva/Shunyata is totally free. Absolute freedom is freedom of knowledge (jnata) and freedom of action (karta). That's why there is no "Static" self. The Absolute Self is Dynamic.

 

Vedanta posits a Static Self that is also simultaneously Dynamic. A Self that is both the mirror and the reflections in the mirror. It say's that all being is one with this mirror as well as being the seemingly separate images in the mirror. The Pratyabhijnahridayam goes deeply into this. There's a good translation by Jayadev Singh and Swami Shantananda with good commentary. Yet for Buddhism, both are interdependent and empty of any self essence. Vedanta does not commit to a non-abiding flow in all it's texts it commits to a static, selfless Self that is all selves. It posits a real essence behind the seeming illusions of separate beings that all things subsume back into at the end of a cosmic eon. It talks of a oneness that all being sprouts from and returns to to be repressed as in the next cosmic eon. Buddhism transcends this.

 

I'm sorry brother, but I'm well versed in all of Hindu's major scriptures, the well known and not so well known ones. Trika, Kaula Ritual, even the ones that seem very close to Dzogchen, but are slightly different in view, which is like the slight difference between the cliffs edge and the endless end of the cliff.

 

Both Kaula, Trika, and Advaita Vedanta, even the Siddhars of ancient Tamil Nadu posit a real, static Self that is the causeless cause of Spanda (dynamic pulsation) spoken of in the Spanda Karikas.

 

Have you read Jnaneshwars Amrit Anubhava? Or his Jnaneshwari? The first common language non-sanskrit rendering of the Bhagavad Gita with incredible commentary in Marathi? It's amazing for it's time and paradigm! Jnaneshwar is probably my favorite Hindu saint, with an incredibly erudite intellect. But... his explanations still miss the mark of what Pratityasamutpada means.

Edited July 29, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Lucky7Strikes]

Actually Consciousness is not a phenomenon. It doesn't rise and fall...it simply IS. By this I am referring to the consciousness that is devoid of objects (thoughts, etc). It is pure knowing. It is not a phenomenon because it is self-illumined.

 

Think about it this way -- The only thing that is certain is that You Are (I am). That awareness is not something that someone has to make you aware of. It simply is. It is does not begin and end...not even in deep sleep state. Infact, meditation's role is to take the seeker to the "Deep sleep-like" state (called Turiya in yogic parlance) while not asleep.

 

Someone had asked me "are you aware of who you are in Deep sleep state"? My reply is what is there to be aware about awareness? That is a logical impossibility. Objectless Consciousness cannot be the object of itself, it is self-aware, self-illumined.

 

Consciousness (Atman) cannot extinguish itself because it doesn't have a beginning or an end. The infinite eternal mind-stream(s) that Buddhists refer to as Alaya Vijnana is actually wrongly ascribed as being so. It is only one...and that is Atman/Brahman/Tao/Shunyata/Shiva (add on your favorite word here).

Actually Hindus accept all sincere spiritual systems as valid. There are different means for people with different capabilities. Some can show unconditional and infinite love so Bhakti (or the path of devotion). Some can act impeccably (wu wei), so Karma. Yet others use the path of Ashtanga Yoga, so Raja and yet others use their intellect, so Jnana.

 

These are all valid (and every system out there has to fall in one of these four categories). The debate was not beacause of exclusivistic claims on behalf of Hindu thought. The debate was because some bums here decided that Buddhism is the "Only valid way".

 

BTW, spellings are easy...try firefox and spellchecker.

 

I still don't think you understand what the Self is. It is phenomena. That Consciousness is not devoid of objects but IS the objects themselves. It is not local anywhere because Awareness is the only thing that exists. Your confusing various states of that awareness with the very nature of Awareness that shines always as reality itself. You are misinterpreting the words "it simply "is"" to point to something else then...what truly "is."

 

If you think meditation will "get" you there, you aren't meditating right. You're furthering the delusional ego's attempt to carry you somewhere. Meditation is a cure of the ignorant habit energies you have gathered for eons thinking that there was a separate "you" or an awareness experiencing an objective world.

[dwai]

I still don't think you understand what the Self is. It is phenomena. That Consciousness is not devoid of objects but IS the objects themselves. It is not local anywhere because Awareness is the only thing that exists. Your confusing various states of that awareness with the very nature of Awareness that shines always as reality itself. You are misinterpreting the words "it simply "is"" to point to something else then...what truly "is."

 

If you think meditation will "get" you there, you aren't meditating right. You're furthering the delusional ego's attempt to carry you somewhere. Meditation is a cure of the ignorant habit energies you have gathered for eons thinking that there was a separate "you" or an awareness experiencing an objective world.

 

You say that because you don't understand what phenomenon is and you haven't known Turiya yet.

[Lucky7Strikes]

The universe that is the "I" yet exists only in relation to the various other planes of existences and consciousness creations. Hence I guess you could say that my own existence is empty...

 

But the scripture do talk about how one only IS because of God's every present grace.

 

 

You say that because you don't understand what phenomenon is and you haven't known Turiya yet.

 

I sleep. I think that's enough.

 

Don't you know the tale of the Yogi who went into Turiya desiring water, only to come out of that state calling for water while being immersed in a flood? .

[dwai]

The universe that is the "I" yet exists only in relation to the various other planes of existences and consciousness creations. Hence I guess you could say that my own existence is empty...

 

What makes you aware of this?

 

But the scripture do talk about how one only IS because of God's every present grace.

I sleep. I think that's enough.

 

Don't you know the tale of the Yogi who went into Turiya desiring water, only to come out of that state calling for water while being immersed in a flood? .

 

If sleep is enough, then good for you. That doesn't change the facts...

[Lucky7Strikes]

What makes you aware of this?

If sleep is enough, then good for you. That doesn't change the facts...

 

Because if I was the only consciousness there was, it would go against the very idea of the existence of others.

 

You are attached to the states believing that they lead you closer to realizing the Awareness which you are of now. That is the Self. It cannot be attained, but only realized.

Edited July 29, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[Josh Young]

One reifies a cause. Say's we are all one mind stream, that we all merge with the divine essence at the end of the cosmic eon. One reifies non-conceptuality as the basis of all being. The other as in Buddhism, does none of this.

 

Taking things out of context as you do, I can see how you would think that this is what they are saying. It is easy to take a single passage and try to say it stands alone and then create a conceptual conflict.

However in the context of their entirety what you say is there, simply is not there.

 

The problem is in the concept of causation, in the Hindu works there is no real cause, just cause in relation to things. In this manner cause and effect and dependent upon each other and not actually separate. This is also the same as the action=reaction paradigm where action and reaction are inseparable.

 

My studies indicate the teachings of Buddha are a refined version of the truth of Veda, it is as if Buddha saw the truth and saw how people get caught up on symbols and so presented the veda in a manner less likely to result in idolatrous understandings.

 

I suggest reading the Brihadaranyaka upanishad.

There you can find what appears to the layperson as conflicting statements of paradox. In it you can find the same concepts as found in many teachings of Buddha, mixed with some teachings that are not in the teachings of Buddha. The structure and concepts are however very close to the Diamond Sutra and the Dhammapada.

 

Where we err the most is when we presume to speak for words that speak for themselves. Letting the teachings speak for themselves and offering comment is far more productive than claiming to know what the teachings are without using the actual teachings.

 

i'm tired of repeating myself and if you haven't yet understood how emptiness does not equal objectless consciousness or samadhi or Brahman or whatever, then you don't have the karma to understand it, so be it.

Lots of religions use this approach, it is the "if you don't understand that I am right then there is something wrong with you" approach,

it really reflects upon the level of understanding of those who utter it.

You see, when people do not have the truth, they look to peers to justify their beliefs. So because they have no test of truth, they justify their belief with consensus, if they can get others to agree then they must be right eh? Well, not really but this is still how it works with most religions. Since they do not know the spirit they seek justification in peer form and assume that those who do not share the view must be flawed. This is vanity in action, the concept being that those who share the same belief are better than those who do not, or are more accomplished or have better Karma. For those who see this as it is, it is one of the most disgusting facets of human behavior for it is mob mentality and little else.

 

Basically you are saying that you are right and if we don't say you are right then we have bad karma or must have some poor level of understanding. However that you would use such words and arguments clearly demonstrates a lack of spiritual understanding. You insult and berate those who do not agree with you and tell other people to lighten up. You however have underestimated the ability of people to see through this facade. I am sorry this is how you think people share belief with each other, it harms your cause more than anything.

 

If you truly had the understanding you claim then you would not write what you do. But you are not the only person to do this here in this thread. Lots of people want to claim that if someone does not agree then there is some flaw present or that the other person needs more study.

 

However for some people this type of behavior is transparent.

They see right through it.

 

There are those, who know the limitations of terms, and thus when a term is presented in context, they will not argue term verses term because they are aware of how distinctions break down. In this thread many argue terms verses terms, when Tao, Buddhism and Veda all teach that terms are merely limited symbols that cannot be absolute.

 

Since I am perhaps the most foolish person here I cannot say I know the truth. I have only my delusion. Still I can see that these arguments of " if you do not agree with me then you are flawed" are a lot like" if you cannot see the emperors new clothes then you are flawed".

Edited July 29, 2009 by Josh Young

[dwai]

Because if I was the only consciousness there was, it would go against the very idea of the existence of others.

 

You are attached to the states believing that they lead you closer to realizing the Awareness which you are of now. That is the Self. It cannot be attained, but only realized.

 

Actually no -- all that would do is show that there IS no Other in the absolute sense...it is only the Non-dual Self. It is akin to recognizing the fact that the "others" are also you.

 

Like I have said before, there is no "attainment" because the self is not separate from me, or you or anyone else. It has to be realized. How? By stripping away all layers of phenomena and objects from consciousness. But we are limited adjuncts of the unlimited...so we must rely on syntax and percepts and concepts to communicate ideas.

 

There are three levels of explaining Absolute Non-Duality.

 

1) Silence (Buddha's way was that...to not speak about it)

2) To use Negatives (Shunyata or Neti-Neti) -- Madhyamika, Advaita and Tantra do this

3) to use descriptives such as Tat Tvam Asi, Aham Brahmasmi and Sat-Chit-Ananda (also done by Advaita and Tantra).

 

These are all different techniques used to express (or not) Absolute Non-Duality, directed towards different types of seekers.

 

Buddhism does only categories 1 and 2. Vedanta and Tantra do all three...

Edited July 29, 2009 by dwai

[Vajrahridaya]

 

I sleep. I think that's enough.

 

 

It's only enough if you do it consciously through yoga nidra or dream yoga.

 

 

Because if I was the only consciousness there was, it would go against the very idea of the existence of others.

 

You are attached to the states believing that they lead you closer to realizing the Awareness which you are of now. That is the Self. It cannot be attained, but only realized.

 

If that is clung to as a Self of all, there is a misunderstanding of the experience being had.

[Vajrahridaya]

Taking things out of context as you do, I can see how you would think that this is what they are saying. It is easy to take a single passage and try to say it stands alone and then create a conceptual conflict.

However in the context of their entirety what you say is there, simply is not there.

 

The problem is in the concept of causation, in the Hindu works there is no real cause, just cause in relation to things. In this manner cause and effect and dependent upon each other and not actually separate. This is also the same as the action=reaction paradigm where action and reaction are inseparable.

 

Hinduism says no such thing. I don't take anything out of context. Because I practiced and studied deeply the different texts under Advaita Vedantin Yogic Masters. I understand quite well experientially what they are saying and what it is leading to. You can say "yes, there is no cause, because the cause is one with the effect. Brahman is one with the universe and the universe is non-other than Brahman so, how can something be said to have been caused?" I know this approach, but there is no such idea as endless dependent origination in Vedanta.

 

This idea of Brahman being the only true existent is subverted by Buddha's dependent origination. Hinduism still see's a one. They say... "oh but even to say there's a one takes two. So in that state there is no notion of one or two." So, what I'm saying is the attachment to a Self of all arises in a non-conceptual manor in the mind-stream of a yogi under the influence of Monist interpretation, which is Vedanta. The subtle difference between Buddhism and other traditions is not so much in the words, but in the subtle intent, and the subtler meditative experiences, and how they are interpreted in the mind-stream.

 

The Buddha did not come to clear up the Vedas he came to deliver an entirely new teaching to the masses, and he said this.

 

My studies indicate the teachings of Buddha are a refined version of the truth of Veda, it is as if Buddha saw the truth and saw how people get caught up on symbols and so presented the veda in a manner less likely to result in idolatrous understandings.

 

I used to think that, then I studied more.

 

I suggest reading the Brihadaranyaka upanishad.

There you can find what appears to the layperson as conflicting statements of paradox. In it you can find the same concepts as found in many teachings of Buddha, mixed with some teachings that are not in the teachings of Buddha. The structure and concepts are however very close to the Diamond Sutra and the Dhammapada.

 

I've read that, plenty of times. Yes, beyond being and non-being, etc. There is still a subtle reification and a deification, there is a taking refuge in an essence of the cosmos. These are all things the Buddha warned about. He said that if there was an essence to the universe to take refuge in, I would teach that, but since there is not, I do not teach that, instead I teach to take refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha. So he taught to take refuge in the teacher of the dharma, the teachings themselves and the students of the teachings and teacher. Not to take refuge in some subtle essential nature of the cosmos that is beyond space and time yet all space and time.

 

This Upanishad still speaks of a beginning, where each arising aspect is based on a single cause which leads to a chain of causation leading from this single uncaused causer. The chain of Dependent Origination has no beginning.

 

The Upanishads are not teaching the same thing as the Buddha. As your meditation deepens and your awareness is refined, you will stop making leaps and putting bridges where non-exist. You will see how your mind assumes meanings. It would help to get a highly realized teacher as well, of whatever system or approach you would like to work through. That way you really can get the meaning of the words from someone who has taken them to deeper states of awareness than you presently hold.

 

This would take genuine humility.

 

 

 

p.s. A friend of mine how is a highly realized Hindu named Steven Renoir wrote all these texts down to give to people for free. It's on this sight here. http://members.upnaway.com/~bindu/anantayo.../nssitemap.html

 

He even copied an old refutation of Buddhist logic. But, the person didn't understand that Buddhists don't posit a self standing nothingness, so the refutation is refuting a mis-understanding of Buddhism because dependent origination is not even mentioned. Because generally, Vedantins don't understand what it's actually teaching.

Edited July 29, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

There are three levels of explaining Absolute Non-Duality.

 

1) Silence (Buddha's way was that...to not speak about it)

2) To use Negatives (Shunyata or Neti-Neti) -- Madhyamika, Advaita and Tantra do this

3) to use descriptives such as Tat Tvam Asi, Aham Brahmasmi and Sat-Chit-Ananda (also done by Advaita and Tantra).

 

These are all different techniques used to express (or not) Absolute Non-Duality, directed towards different types of seekers.

 

Buddhism does only categories 1 and 2. Vedanta and Tantra do all three...

 

Buddhism also is Vajrayana (Buddhist Tantra) and we speak of the luminosity of unobscured awareness, but this is caused by seeing dependent origination, not removing superimposition. Because we don't see one single consciousness as the holder and cause of all being which all things are just layered over. Because dependent origination's doctrine does not allow for such an assumption. Things are empty all the way through since beginningless time, and without static self, or Self essence. There is just a flow without a background, as even space is dependent upon what's in it.

 

Also the Buddha did talk about Non-duality in the Pali Suttas.

 

He said, consciousness, uncompounded, shines all around. Even his first statement after getting up from under the Bodhi Tree before Brahma asked him to teach he said, mind is uncompounded and pure since beginningless time. Yet, consciousness uncompounded shines all around is just saying what I've said before that once the meaning of dependent origination becomes an experience, the consciousness uncompounds and blooms in all directions and one experiences omnipresence. There is still no positing of a single consciousness that all beings consist of.

 

The Buddha from Hinayana to Mahayana never taught of a substantial essence shared by all beings. The Buddha never taught Vedanta, he subverted it. Every Buddhist scholar, Master, even Milarepa wrote refutations of the doctrine of the Self.

[Meson]

[Lucky7Strikes]