The Chicken or the Egg?

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

What is it that makes an empty non-dual realization superior to a full one?

 

Thanks.

 

There is mention of fullness, luminosity. Rigpa is a word used in Dzogchen and Clear Light is used in Mahamudra. But, it's not an all subsuming source of all existence. It's a realization of the non-abiding nature of things and one's own consciousness, thus all people's consciousness' and all things as well. There's the conception of it in Dzogchen as a little Rigpa meeting the big Rigpa. First you realize your own Rigpa, then you recognize everyone elses Rigpa, and one experiences omnipresence, but never omnipotence.

 

To say that a formless non-conceptual consciousness is the home of all is just wishing for re-absorption into the pralaya, or the big crunch, which Buddhas do not experience.

 

The difference is really subtle and deep. But very important, because Buddhism does not posit a supreme causeless cause that all things are one with. It see's the flow or cycling of universe after universe as merely the infinite chain of causation and we are it. We are the co-creators of it all, there is not one creator, there are infinite creators since beginningless time.

 

Dwai,

 

What your not understanding is that the Buddha said that the stripping away of phenomena in meditation, leaving only consciousness, leads merely to formless jhana's or states, such as the Jhana of infinite consciousness. This the Buddha said is not liberation. I've cut and pasted the 31 planes for you many times. These are still Samsaric states, even if seemingly free from phenomena. Vedanta doesn't teach Buddhahood. There is no such thing as an Omnipotent being that shines on his own in Buddhism. There is no omnipotence outside of being in control of one's own personal universe and one's own arisings, and merely influencing others, but not being the soul of them.

 

They really are different Dwai, since the very beginning, since the Buddha first taught, he himself even said it's different. I don't know why Vedantin's always ignore this fact, he say's it in the Pali Suttas.

 

 

 

I AM because of the sentience of a cockroach!

 

Yes, I always feel a sense of sadness and compassion when I kill a cockroach. But, I try to offer my merit and wish that it may have a body in its next life that has the capacity to know the dharma.

[dwai]

YOU CAN'T STRIP AWAY ANYTHING WHEN ALL THAT IS IS THE SELF!!

 

You as the mind/ego/body cannot DO anything to realize this. Saying "I AM THE SELF" is a ridiculous statement like saying "I Am I." Consciousness is inseparable from phenomena that is reflected through the interdependency that is the very nature of its existence. There IS nothing else. Moreover, this reflected consciousness existence is empty and really non-existent because it IS only due to the light of other shining dependent-consciousness-universes.

 

Yes you can use all those techniques to "de-localize" the sense of identity you have. But even that act of ignorance itself is the Self so just realize that you ARE and the luminous presence will shine of itself as it has always done.

 

Or just do Kunlun. .

 

Exactly my point. There is no "I am the I". Is simply is "I am". But there are layers of "this and that" (objects) that are superimposed on this "I".

 

Think about it way, are you aware of yourself only in relation to objects and phenomena or are you aware of your SELF in spite of all externalities? The Self is eternal, self-aware and non-phenomenal.

 

To give an analogy....Can light shine on itself? Think of Consciousness as Light. Just as light makes objects visible, similarly consciousness makes objects visible. But if there were no objects to illuminate, would the light cease to exist? Ditto with Consciousness.

 

I do have a base in meditation and Tai Chi/Nei Gung. I also happen to believe that there is no "ONLY" answer or solution to spiritual quests...there are many paths based on the temperament of the seeker.

[Marblehead]

I also happen to believe that there is no "ONLY" answer or solution to spiritual quests...there are many paths based on the temperament of the seeker.

 

Well, Darn! What a wonderful statement. I was beginning to wonder about y'all.

 

Be well!

[Lucky7Strikes]

Exactly my point. There is no "I am the I". Is simply is "I am". But there are layers of "this and that" (objects) that are superimposed on this "I".

 

Think about it way, are you aware of yourself only in relation to objects and phenomena or are you aware of your SELF in spite of all externalities? The Self is eternal, self-aware and non-phenomenal.

 

To give an analogy....Can light shine on itself? Think of Consciousness as Light. Just as light makes objects visible, similarly consciousness makes objects visible. But if there were no objects to illuminate, would the light cease to exist? Ditto with Consciousness.

 

I do have a base in meditation and Tai Chi/Nei Gung. I also happen to believe that there is no "ONLY" answer or solution to spiritual quests...there are many paths based on the temperament of the seeker.

 

That light shines to due its interdependence on other "lights"

 

There is no self inherent light. It is a light without a source. A mere reflection. Identification with that light will lead you to go into the creation cycle, where in all dissolves into that light and back out again as creation. One must go beyond this.

 

God is because of you and you are because of God.

[dwai]

That light shines to due its interdependence on other "lights"

 

There is no self inherent light. It is a light without a source. A mere reflection. Identification with that light will lead you to go into the creation cycle, where in all dissolves into that light and back out again as creation. One must go beyond this.

 

God is because of you and you are because of God.

 

just try going beyond the self. You cannot...no one can. Because if there is not "I am", there is nothing. Even when you are reasoning with yourself, or making statments like "there is no self", it is the self that is making the statement. Without consciousness nothing exists, because there is no "light to make objects visible". You formulate "No self" with the "self". So what is the underlying enabler of this kind of thinking? The Self!

[Vajrahridaya]

Well, Darn! What a wonderful statement. I was beginning to wonder about y'all.

 

Be well!

 

It's a nice New Age idea based on an old age Hindu idea which stems from the belief in a single soul that inhabits all being equally. It's from the Vedas, I am one but my path's are many. This idea is as old as the Vedas.

 

But,

 

Buddhism doesn't believe in that, so has never thought that all paths lead to the same goal. The Buddha in fact went to great lengths to explain where the Vedas are wrong. That is one of the places where the Vedas are wrong which the Buddha talks about that can be read in the Pali Suttas. If one carefully reads the Pali Suttas, not just a couple sentences here and there, one will see what I mean.

 

just try going beyond the self. You cannot...no one can. Because if there is not "I am", there is nothing. Even when you are reasoning with yourself, or making statments like "there is no self", it is the self that is making the statement. Without consciousness nothing exists, because there is no "light to make objects visible". You formulate "No self" with the "self". So what is the underlying enabler of this kind of thinking? The Self!

 

You only think this way because your used to a top down theory of reality, where all things stem from a single source. Therefore it's eternalism and an extreme according to Buddhadharma.

 

Buddhism is a sideways philosophy and is an entirely different way of thinking that has no single source, so is not top down metaphysics, it's sideways flow of infinite selves that are dependently originated, therefore empty of any essence, including the big Self. There's no beginning, no cause, no supreme essential nature, read the Heart Sutra.

Edited July 29, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[dwai]

It's a nice New Age idea based on an old age Hindu idea which stems from the belief in a single soul that inhabits all being equally. It's from the Vedas, I am one but my path's are many. This idea is as old as the Vedas.

 

New Age and Vedas?

 

 

But,

 

Buddhism doesn't believe in that, so has never thought that all paths lead to the same goal. The Buddha in fact went to great lengths to explain where the Vedas are wrong. That is one of the places where the Vedas are wrong which the Buddha talks about that can be read in the Pali Suttas. If one carefully reads the Pali Suttas, not just a couple sentences here and there, one will see what I mean.

You only think this way because your used to a top down theory of reality, where all things stem from a single source. Therefore it's eternalism and an extreme according to Buddhadharma.

 

Buddhism is a sideways philosophy and is an entirely different way of thinking that has no single source, so is not top down metaphysics, it's sideways flow of infinite selves that are dependently originated, therefore empty of any essence, including the big Self. There's no beginning, no cause, no supreme essential nature, read the Heart Sutra.

 

And Infinite selves is not an extreme? Infinite....can you even fathom that? One could call it "Infinitism"

Alaya Vijnana has been soundly refuted by Shankara and many after him.

Edited July 30, 2009 by dwai

[Vajrahridaya]

New Age and Vedas?

And Infinite selves is not an extreme? Infinite....can you even fathom that? One could call it "Infinitism"

 

You don't fathom it, you experience it's truth. It's not an extreme, because these selves have no abiding nature, thus there is no static eternal nature, just the endless flow. Also, there is no death, really, so Nihilism is also refuted by this view.

 

The middle way, neither Eternalism, nor Nihilism.

 

Alaya Vijnana has been soundly refuted by Shankara and many after him.

 

Sure he tried and plenty agreed with him, also, plenty did not.

 

Thus it means that Buddhism and Vedanta lead to different goals.

 

Finally your seeing that the Buddha indeed teaches something different from Vedanta. I really have no problem with the idea that you find Vedanta to be better and more clear than Buddhism. That's fair enough.

[dwai]

You don't fathom it, you experience it's truth. It's not an extreme, because these selves have no abiding nature, thus there is no static eternal nature, just the endless flow. Also, there is no death, really, so Nihilism is also refuted by this view.

 

The middle way, neither Eternalism, nor Nihilism.

Sure he tried and plenty agreed with him, also, plenty did not.

 

Thus it means that Buddhism and Vedanta lead to different goals.

 

Finally your seeing that the Buddha indeed teaches something different from Vedanta. I really have no problem with the idea that you find Vedanta to be better and more clear than Buddhism. That's fair enough.

 

But Alaya Vijnana is not something that Buddha taught. It was created by his followers.

[Sunya]

But Alaya Vijnana is not something that Buddha taught. It was created by his followers.

 

Alaya Vijnana is mentioned in the Pali suttas, it just wasn't elucidated as it was later by Asanga.

 

Walpola Rahula who write the famous, and amazing, book What the Buddha Taught is an excellent Pali scholar, and he studied this and basically asserts that there aren't much differences between Theravada and Mahayana, just semantics and emphasization.

 

"According to Walpola Rahula, all the elements of the Yogacara storehouse-consciousness are already found in the Pali Canon.[3] He writes that the three layers of the mind (citta, manas, and vijnana) as presented by Asanga are also used in the Pali Canon: "Thus we can see that Vijnana represents the simple reaction or response of the sense organs when they come in contact with external objects. This is the uppermost or superficial aspect or layer of the Vijnanaskanda. Manas represents the aspect of its mental functioning, thinking, reasoning, conceiving ideas, etc. Citta which is here called Alayavijnana, represents the deepest, finest and subtlest aspect or layer of the Aggregate of consciousness. It contains all the traces or impressions of the past actions and all good and bad future possibilities."

 

an article about Alaya in the Pali cannon -

 

http://www.purifymind.com/StoreConsciousness.htm

 

It is this alaya Vijnana or citta that is considered by men as their "Soul', 'Self', 'Ego' or 'Atman'. It should be remembered as a concrete example, that Sati, one of the Buddha's disciples, took vinnan (vijnana) in this sense and that the Buddha reprimanded him for this wrong view.

 

 

Citta or Mind (Tibetan: Sems) is completely formless when experienced in deep meditation or lucid deep sleep, there is no sense of duality. and the spaciousness is incredible. very space-like. and it does truly feel like you're one with everything. But. according to Buddha, and the countless enlightened masters of the many lineages of the Dharma, that is the wrong interpretation. as the article above states, "The attainment of Nirvana is achieved by 'the revolution of alaya Vijnana' which is called asrayaparavrtti. The same idea is conveyed by the expression alayasamugghata - 'uprooting of alaya' - which is used in the Pali Canon as a synonym for Nirvana. Here it should be remembered, too, that analaya, 'no-alaya', is another synonym for Nirvana." this is related to Nirvana meaning cessation, blown out, like a candle. this is related. this does not mean simply clearing away all thoughts and resting in Citta, this means blowing out the candle of attachment to Citta. Claiming pure luminous awareness to be the True and Ultimate Self is grasping and attachment.

Edited July 30, 2009 by mikaelz

[dwai]

Alaya Vijnana is mentioned in the Pali suttas, it just wasn't elucidated as it was later by Asanga.

 

Walpola Rahula who write the famous, and amazing, book What the Buddha Taught is an excellent Pali scholar, and he studied this and basically asserts that there aren't much differences between Theravada and Mahayana, just semantics and emphasization.

 

"According to Walpola Rahula, all the elements of the Yogacara storehouse-consciousness are already found in the Pali Canon.[3] He writes that the three layers of the mind (citta, manas, and vijnana) as presented by Asanga are also used in the Pali Canon: "Thus we can see that Vijnana represents the simple reaction or response of the sense organs when they come in contact with external objects. This is the uppermost or superficial aspect or layer of the Vijnanaskanda. Manas represents the aspect of its mental functioning, thinking, reasoning, conceiving ideas, etc. Citta which is here called Alayavijnana, represents the deepest, finest and subtlest aspect or layer of the Aggregate of consciousness. It contains all the traces or impressions of the past actions and all good and bad future possibilities."

 

an article about Alaya in the Pali cannon -

 

http://www.purifymind.com/StoreConsciousness.htm

 

It is this alaya Vijnana or citta that is considered by men as their "Soul', 'Self', 'Ego' or 'Atman'. It should be remembered as a concrete example, that Sati, one of the Buddha's disciples, took vinnan (vijnana) in this sense and that the Buddha reprimanded him for this wrong view.

Citta or Mind (Tibetan: Sems) is completely formless when experienced in deep meditation or lucid deep sleep, there is no sense of duality. and the spaciousness is incredible. very space-like. and it does truly feel like you're one with everything. But. according to Buddha, and the countless enlightened masters of the many lineages of the Dharma, that is the wrong interpretation. as the article above states, "The attainment of Nirvana is achieved by 'the revolution of alaya Vijnana' which is called asrayaparavrtti. The same idea is conveyed by the expression alayasamugghata - 'uprooting of alaya' - which is used in the Pali Canon as a synonym for Nirvana. Here it should be remembered, too, that analaya, 'no-alaya', is another synonym for Nirvana." this is related to Nirvana meaning cessation, blown out, like a candle. this is related. this does not mean simply clearing away all thoughts and resting in Citta, this means blowing out the candle of attachment to Citta. Claiming pure luminous awareness to be the True and Ultimate Self is grasping and attachment.

 

Chitta is a part of the antahkarana complex...it is not Atman. It is phenomenal. It is not the same as objectless consciousness.

Edited July 30, 2009 by dwai

[Lucky7Strikes]

just try going beyond the self. You cannot...no one can. Because if there is not "I am", there is nothing. Even when you are reasoning with yourself, or making statments like "there is no self", it is the self that is making the statement. Without consciousness nothing exists, because there is no "light to make objects visible". You formulate "No self" with the "self". So what is the underlying enabler of this kind of thinking? The Self!

 

It's realizing that the Self is created interdependent to all the other consciousness luminous realities including that of God, a cockroach, or whatever.

 

They are all in you and you are in them in the form of a reflection that lacks an inherent existence on to itself.

 

There is a "I Am" only BECAUSE it is dependently originated.

 

You are absolutely right that without consciousness nothing exists. And that consciousness cannot be without being dependent on other luminous Selves.

 

Your understanding of the Vedas is also incorrect in continuously asserting that there is an "underlying" thing called the Self. It is not underlying, but it is the only existence that is, as even objectless consciousness is an existence. Ramana Maharshi often declared that meditation into various states was not the way to realize the Self. Only switching your perspective on what you truly are can make the Self "apparent" as it has always been as always is even your ignorance, sins, joys, etc. Only after that realization can meditation have fruit, for if you meditate from the perspective of an imagined ego, you'll just chase your tail around! .

Edited July 30, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vajrahridaya]

Chitta is a part of the antahkarana complex...it is not Atman. It is phenomenal. It is not the same as objectless consciousness.

 

Chit-Objectless consciousness would just be the Jhana/Samadhi of neither perception nor non-perception in Buddhism, or what is Nirvikalpa Samadhi in Shaiva Tantra. Which the Buddha also said is an impermanent state of being that leads yogis to very, very long lived formless bliss realms where they have no body to hear the dharma and when the focus loosens after many eons, the yogi comes out ignorant as all the merit was burnt up in that state of formless conceptless, objectless focus.

 

The entire premise behind Vedanta is Samsaric according to Buddha.

Edited July 30, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

Hi All,

 

There is a "I Am" only BECAUSE it is dependently originated.

 

I know that this is a popular thought but I suggest that there is an "I am." because there are also those things that are "Not-I am".

 

This is true only in the Manifest though; in the Mystery it is "We are."

 

Be well!

[Vajrahridaya]

Hi All,

 

There is a "I Am" only BECAUSE it is dependently originated.

 

I know that this is a popular thought but I suggest that there is an "I am." because there are also those things that are "Not-I am".

 

This is true only in the Manifest though; in the Mystery it is "We are."

 

Be well!

 

Yes, we is key, it's humbling. There's never this ego, this huge blissful and powerful ego that is, "I AM ALL THAT IS!!!" I remember having this experience much. There is interconnectivity and a deep sense of intimate knowing of people and how we all tick. But there is never this sense of I am the source of all being in Buddhist realization. This mistaken cognition happens in Hindu realizers a lot though. Just look at Adi Da especially. He really believes it too.

[Marblehead]

Yes, we is key, it's humbling. There's never this ego, this huge blissful and powerful ego that is, "I AM ALL THAT IS!!!" I remember having this experience much. There is interconnectivity and a deep sense of intimate knowing of people and how we all tick. But there is never this sense of I am the source of all being in Buddhist realization. This mistaken cognition happens in Hindu realizers a lot though. Just look at Adi Da especially. He really believes it too.

 

Now you know I'm not going to try to talk Buddhism or Hindu with you. (Hehehe. My ignorance amazes me sometimes.)

 

However, Chuang Tzu expressed the importance of "I am" on many occasions. Yep, he also expressed the importance of "We are" just os often, if not more often.

 

Yes, I do occasionally get to experience the "We are" experience and it is truely beautiful. (Then I wake up and I am no longer a butterfly. Hehehe.)

 

Be well!

[xabir2005]

Edited July 30, 2009 by xabir2005

[dwai]

[Lucky7Strikes]

Buddhism's Shunyata is exactly that. As is Anatta. Buddhists jump through hoops to try and disprove the "Self".

 

Dwai I agree that they all point to the same moon. So why not contemplate what Shunyata truly means? I really didn't get it fully until Xabir showed me Indra's jewel (oh and VH's endless rants... ). It really comes down to the simple fact that we can observe in our daily lives. There are people around you and they all hold their subjective realities as you do yourself. And these subjective realities account for your own existence as you do for others. Even God exists in relation to your existence. Not one, and not two either.

 

IMHO, the interdependent nature of the existence of the "Self" is only very subtle in Vedanta in phrases like "God exists, but there is only the Self that is your pure consciousness as it is...that by God's grace that I am...I am God" or something like that.

[dwai]

Dwai I agree that they all point to the same moon. So why not contemplate what Shunyata truly means? I really didn't get it fully until Xabir showed me Indra's jewel (oh and VH's endless rants... ). It really comes down to the simple fact that we can observe in our daily lives. There are people around you and they all hold their subjective realities as you do yourself. And these subjective realities account for your own existence as you do for others. Even God exists in relation to your existence. Not one, and not two either.

 

IMHO, the interdependent nature of the existence of the "Self" is only very subtle in Vedanta in phrases like "God exists, but there is only the Self that is your pure consciousness as it is...that by God's grace that I am...I am God" or something like that.

 

Not really. Nirguna Brahman is the "I am", pure subject without predicate. It is not "God", because God is Saguna Brahman (with properties). Nirguna Brahman is without any properties, a void == Shunyata. What you have to understand is that there is a difference between Subject predicate and Pure subject.

[Vajrahridaya]

Dwai I agree that they all point to the same moon. So why not contemplate what Shunyata truly means? I really didn't get it fully until Xabir showed me Indra's jewel (oh and VH's endless rants... ). It really comes down to the simple fact that we can observe in our daily lives. There are people around you and they all hold their subjective realities as you do yourself. And these subjective realities account for your own existence as you do for others. Even God exists in relation to your existence. Not one, and not two either.

 

IMHO, the interdependent nature of the existence of the "Self" is only very subtle in Vedanta in phrases like "God exists, but there is only the Self that is your pure consciousness as it is...that by God's grace that I am...I am God" or something like that.

 

They do not point to the same moon.

 

I don't think your getting Shunyata yet if your still positing an absolute existence. Advaita's non-duality is substantialist and Buddhisms is non-substantial.

 

Vedanta still posits a real and absolute Self that is the same for everyone. That is a mistaken cognition to a Buddha and won't even lead to understanding the wisdom of the Bodhisattva path.

 

Ciao.

 

Not really. Nirguna Brahman is the "I am", pure subject without predicate. It is not "God", because God is Saguna Brahman (with properties). Nirguna Brahman is without any properties, a void == Shunyata. What you have to understand is that there is a difference between Subject predicate and Pure subject.

 

No it is not the Buddhist's emptiness. Because your still establishing an existing void, or an existing Shunyata that all things "are".

 

This is not understanding dependent origination, at all. It's still positing a top down metaphysics where all things are motifications of a single existing, absolute essence.

 

Not Buddhism, and not even the realization of the first Bumi of the Bodhisattva path where one see's emptiness directly, intuitively, without the need for absorption, because shunyata/emptiness is not positing a stage of absorption.

 

Back to the contemplation mirror guys.

[xabir2005]

Edited July 30, 2009 by xabir2005

[Vajrahridaya]

[dwai]

[Marblehead]

The "We are" comes from the "I am". Because there is no difference between "We" and "I".

 

Yes, both are the same, it is the perspective that causes them to appear different. In the Manifest it is "I" but in the Mystery it is "We".

 

And honestly, in the Manifest nearly all concentrate on the "I". After all, I have to take care of myself first so tha I might be able to assist others.

 

(In the Mystery I don't give a darn. Sorry, that just seemed to be needed to be said.)

 

Be well!