The Eternal Self of the Buddha

[Enishi]

I have to admit, I'm still baffled by the idea that I could have existed forever, yet didn't enlightenment at some point during all of those infinite chances. Perhaps I'm thinking in too linear of a fashion here. Do many mindstreams exist as pure potentiality, and are only reborn as humans/animals/gods etc at a certain point?

[Vajrahridaya]

I have to admit, I'm still baffled by the idea that I could have existed forever, yet didn't enlightenment at some point during all of those infinite chances. Perhaps I'm thinking in too linear of a fashion here. Do many mindstreams exist as pure potentiality, and are only reborn as humans/animals/gods etc at a certain point?

 

Yes, its a hard one to wrap the mind around for many.

 

Because you release to it, and you don't wrap around it.

 

Yes, there are plenty and plenty of yogi's who are swimming in formless bliss states of dimensions just made of their own consciousness lit up and they aren't experiencing any body and hearing anything and there is no perception of time for them. This merit will burn up eventually and they will fall out of that state, hopefully with the karmas to be human again, or something to that level of consciousness.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

No Dwai, it's your creation because your missing the other Buddhist texts.

 

It should read "...it's your creation because you're missing..". You're is a contraction of 'you' and 'are'.

Sorry, this mistake is consistent in many of your posts. I thought you'd appreciate the point-out. It'll make you look even smarter!!!! Woah!!!

 

 

[Vajrahridaya]

It should read "...it's your creation because you're missing..". You're is a contraction of 'you' and 'are'.

Sorry, this mistake is consistent in many of your posts. I thought you'd appreciate the point-out. It'll make you look even smarter!!!! Woah!!!

Yes, I do have a problem with grammar sometimes. If it wasn't for spell check too, oh my lord!

 

Faget'a'bout'et.

 

Thanks... that's absolutely right...

 

Dwai... it's your creation because you're missing the point of the other Buddhist texts.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

 

Faget'a'bout'et.

 

 

 

Um, don't you mean 'Fuggeddaboutit!!'?

 

 

[Vajrahridaya]

Ya know? With Dwai, I've tried the hard approach, the soft approach.

 

But... I think this debate was a manifestation of my unconscious merits in order to get myself to get re-acquainted with scriptures I haven't read in a while and learn some new things in the entire process. I love debating because it refines my understanding of the Dharma. The universe is a mirror of my own level of perception anyway and if I'm on the path, it becomes the place where every event drives me deeper on the path.

 

 

Um, don't you mean 'Fuggeddaboutit!!'?

 

Nah, nah... it's... no I guess your right on the money there too.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

 

 

We've quoted the Buddha and Nagarjuna as well as many other Buddhas over and over again. So, you see, you have cognitive dissidence.

 

Plus, many of us here are not just book knowledge people.

 

 

 

 

I think you mean cognitive dissonance?

 

[Vajrahridaya]

I think you mean cognitive dissonance?

 

 

Your absolutely right. I did spell check on that one and I didn't check the spell checker. I do that sometimes. I had the worst problem with the word "it" as a 1st grader, because it forced my mind to not be spaced out. Spacing out was my favorite activity as a kid.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Your absolutely right. I did spell check on that one and I didn't check the spell checker. I do that sometimes. I had the worst problem with the word "it" as a 1st grader, because it forced my mind to not be spaced out. Spacing out was my favorite activity as a kid.

 

 

 

Aaaah. Of course.

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[dwai]

I have to admit, I'm still baffled by the idea that I could have existed forever, yet didn't enlightenment at some point during all of those infinite chances. Perhaps I'm thinking in too linear of a fashion here. Do many mindstreams exist as pure potentiality, and are only reborn as humans/animals/gods etc at a certain point?

 

The Absolute Self, Buddha-dhatu or Atman or Brahman is already enlightened, perfect, self-luminous and self-aware.

The problem is when the limiting adjunct differentiates into many and this and that.

 

Think of it this way -- The Absolute Self is like the ocean and the limiting adjuncts it's waves. The Atman is pure consciousness and the waves are too. But the waves are somehow differentiated from the Ocean superficially.

 

Are they separate from the Ocean?

If so how are they separate from the ocean?

Also, Why are they separate from the Ocean?

 

If the waves realize that they are part of the ocean, they will be enlightened too. Dropping the false differentiation is what all traditions teach.

 

Now the question of one or many...is the Ocean one or "infinite" streams of water? One could argue either way and would perhaps be partially right. Perhaps it is just that the "Ocean" is. The Waves are. That is the Way...

[Vajrahridaya]

The Absolute Self, Buddha-dhatu or Atman or Brahman is already enlightened, perfect, self-luminous and self-aware.

The problem is when the limiting adjunct differentiates into many and this and that.

 

Think of it this way -- The Absolute Self is like the ocean and the limiting adjuncts it's waves. The Atman is pure consciousness and the waves are too. But the waves are somehow differentiated from the Ocean superficially.

 

Are they separate from the Ocean?

If so how are they separate from the ocean?

Also, Why are they separate from the Ocean?

 

If the waves realize that they are part of the ocean, they will be enlightened too. Dropping the false differentiation is what all traditions teach.

 

Now the question of one or many...is the Ocean one or "infinite" streams of water? One could argue either way and would perhaps be partially right. Perhaps it is just that the "Ocean" is. The Waves are. That is the Way...

 

The ocean is made up of particles of infinite regress, to the point where there really is no ocean, as it arises due to causes and conditions based upon the particles that make it up which as well arise due to causes and conditions, so the ocean's reality is relative as well as are the particles that it's made up of. The above by Dwai is a Vedantin perspective and wouldn't hold up in the court of Buddha law.

 

The universe is made up of uncountable conscious beings, who all give rise to this universe over and over again. When one particle of conscious being realizes the Buddha nature (dependently arisen empty nature) of all things, the awareness expands omnisciently to know the essential nature of all things equally. This does not mean a person knows all things ever simultaneously, but through meditation one can go there.

 

This is why in Buddhism, awareness and consciousness are kind of given two different meanings.

 

Because in Buddhism there is no cosmic consciousness, there is just conscious awareness of how the cosmos works.

 

There's never one being that is omnipotent. Just omnipresent omniscience. Which is defined a particular way in Buddhism as well that is not akin to Western definition.

Edited August 4, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Sunya]

He's in the refined heaven realm of peerless siddhas. His Dharmakaya is penetrating everything right now with accessible compassion and wisdom made of the heaps of merit he realized by walking the path. Our own potentiality is realized by him and countless other Buddhas who's awareness is all pervasive and in the constant experience of the non-abiding nature of all phenomena and consciousness.

As the Parinibbana Sutta say's, he left out of the 4th Jhana, so he's in a peerless siddha and deva realm where they have high wisdom, but a refined form to teach those who have attained mastery of various levels to just finish their sadhana there. He has given some Mahayana Sutras from this realm to beings who have deep meditative abilities and can travel to higher realms of consciousness.

 

I meant what I said about Siddhartha not existing anymore because he truly is gone since there is no eternal self that is "Siddhartha". the karmas of the individual are forever gone because they have been transcended and are no longer repeated. the Siddhartha that we are talking about only exists as a continuation of wisdom and compassion. I think.

Edited August 4, 2009 by mikaelz

[Vajrahridaya]

I meant what I said about Siddhartha not existing anymore because he truly is gone since there is no eternal self that is "Siddhartha". the karmas of the individual are forever gone because they have been transcended and are no longer repeated. the Siddhartha that we are talking about only exists as a continuation of wisdom and compassion. I think.

 

In a sense you are right, the physical designation is now physical particles broken down into elemental intermingling.

 

But, he does remember his time on earth with vivid clarity, not in the same sense that one does through a brain though.

[Sunya]

The Absolute Self, Buddha-dhatu or Atman or Brahman is already enlightened, perfect, self-luminous and self-aware.

The problem is when the limiting adjunct differentiates into many and this and that.

 

Think of it this way -- The Absolute Self is like the ocean and the limiting adjuncts it's waves. The Atman is pure consciousness and the waves are too. But the waves are somehow differentiated from the Ocean superficially.

 

Are they separate from the Ocean?

If so how are they separate from the ocean?

Also, Why are they separate from the Ocean?

 

If the waves realize that they are part of the ocean, they will be enlightened too. Dropping the false differentiation is what all traditions teach.

 

Now the question of one or many...is the Ocean one or "infinite" streams of water? One could argue either way and would perhaps be partially right. Perhaps it is just that the "Ocean" is. The Waves are. That is the Way...

 

Buddha nature is not an entity that is aware, its just the potentiality for enlightenment. for the TENTH TIME.

There is no Ocean as an Absolute reference to reality, only in a metaphorical sense to describe the 'wetness' of the web of interdependent phenomena. Buddhism does not say that waves don't exist, that only the ocean does, because there is no such water that is the essence of all reality. this is a Hindu view and is not compatible with Buddhism. the 'wetness' or 'One taste' spoken of describes the condition of emptiness that all phenomena share, but there is no essence, or water, that permeates all of reality. You can say theres an ocean, but there is no water, every wave is unique but interdependent, and what the waves have in common are the condition of wetness.

 

 

 

 

 

i'm done here, and Vajra you should quit too. he's just teasing us. he doesn't read our replies, and says the same things over and over again. He isn't genuinely interested in learning. why waste time with someone that isn't sincere?

Edited August 4, 2009 by mikaelz

[Vajrahridaya]

Buddha nature is not an entity that is aware, its just the potentiality for enlightenment. for the TENTH TIME.

i'm done here, and Vajra you should quit too. he's just teasing us. he doesn't read our replies, and says the same things over and over again. He isn't genuinely interested in learning. why waste time with someone that isn't sincere?

 

There are lots of other people reading too. They send me PM's often enough.

 

Sometimes they are anonymous users. I suppose I'm writing for them.

 

The universe is made up of uncountable conscious beings, who all give rise to this universe over and over again. When one particle of conscious being realizes the Buddha nature of all things, the awareness expands omnisciently to know the essential nature of all things equally. This does not mean a person knows all things ever simultaneously, but through meditation one can go there.

 

This is why in Buddhism, awareness and consciousness are kind of given two different meanings.

 

Because in Buddhism there is no cosmic consciousness, there is just conscious awareness of how the cosmos works.

 

There's never one being that is omnipotent. Just omnipresent omniscience. Which is defined a particular way in Buddhism as well that is not akin to Western definition.

Edited August 4, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Sunya]

oh ok... didn't realize others had interest in this discussion.

[dwai]

The ocean is made up of particles of infinite regress, to the point where there really is no ocean, as it arises due to causes and conditions based upon the particles that make it up which as well arise due to causes and conditions, so the ocean's reality is relative as well as are the particles that it's made up of. The above by Dwai is a Vedantin perspective and wouldn't hold up in the court of Buddha law.

 

The universe is made up of uncountable conscious beings, who all give rise to this universe over and over again. When one particle of conscious being realizes the Buddha nature (dependently arisen empty nature) of all things, the awareness expands omnisciently to know the essential nature of all things equally. This does not mean a person knows all things ever simultaneously, but through meditation one can go there.

 

This is why in Buddhism, awareness and consciousness are kind of given two different meanings.

 

Because in Buddhism there is no cosmic consciousness, there is just conscious awareness of how the cosmos works.

 

There's never one being that is omnipotent. Just omnipresent omniscience. Which is defined a particular way in Buddhism as well that is not akin to Western definition.

 

Yet somehow this coagulate of infinite particles and regress manages to maintain memory in a coherent, consistent manner. The fallacy of Alaya Vijnana is in the fact that it is logically inconsistent. Remember Shankara's objections with it? No...let me refresh your memory --

 

His critique was of the SarvAstivAdins and specifically of their claim of the momentariness of reality, and that being a flow of discrete momentary realities progressing forward via causality. He only criticizes the Sautantrika version of Nirvana.

 

His other critique is of the NairAtmyavAda as posited by Buddhism. His position is that Buddhism is unable to explain how the "self" is brought together by to be the self-conscious entity it is by chance (of atoms leading to the physical body + the four skandas). In other words, How can a basically non-conscious entity (material atom) lead to a conscious entity without a conscious entity putting these together in the first place?

 

To counter this, Buddhists introduce Alaya vijnAna, to postulate the concept of "Stream of Consciousness". This was posited to be the "glue" that threads the momentariness together. But Shankara's criticism of this is as follows:

 

Alaya can neither be identified with nor distinguished from the particular cognition. Besides, if it is momentary, it cannot be considered a unifying center. If not, it is just the self under another name.

 

His critique of Dependent Origination being posited as sufficient cause for existence (without the action of a conscious agent) is based on the fact that it presupposes "a stream of consciousness" being responsible for the operation of the various conditions (including avidya) that DO claims as being the explanation.

 

And Alaya Vijnana get's even more interesting when there are "infinite" mindstreams introduced. Now there is not just one inexplicably consistent series of discrete entities, but rather an infinite series.

 

I had ear-marked a response for Lucky7Strikes and will post it right here:

 

I don't have objections with different traditions taking different angles to tackle Spirituality. The fact of the matter is if there is "One truth" that is to be realized, then all of them have to be pointing to the same thing.

 

The Unity of all serious spiritual traditions is in the fact that they all more or less point to the same thing. It is especially true of Vedanta, Taoism and Buddhism. No matter how blue in the face you turn in vehement denial of this fact, but the fact remains nonetheless.

[Vajrahridaya]

Yet somehow this coagulate of infinite particles and regress manages to maintain memory in a coherent, consistent manner. The fallacy of Alaya Vijnana is in the fact that it is logically inconsistent. Remember Shankara's objections with it? No...let me refresh your memory --

And Alaya Vijnana get's even more interesting when there are "infinite" mindstreams introduced. Now there is not just one inexplicably consistent series of discrete entities, but rather an infinite series.

 

I had ear-marked a response for Lucky7Strikes and will post it right here:

 

I don't have objections with different traditions taking different angles to tackle Spirituality. The fact of the matter is if there is "One truth" that is to be realized, then all of them have to be pointing to the same thing.

 

The Unity of all serious spiritual traditions is in the fact that they all more or less point to the same thing. It is especially true of Vedanta, Taoism and Buddhism. No matter how blue in the face you turn in vehement denial of this fact, but the fact remains nonetheless.

 

The rejection is a misunderstanding. Just as a computer hard drive is made up of many components outside of itself, and has memory stored in it that when accessed through causes and conditions, the memories come out due to conditions and play in a larger unpacked display. That doesn't mean there is anything inherent there.

 

Shankara's critic is not valid to me, at all.

 

Particles come together from an infinite regress of causes and conditions interplaying in an infinitely complex way.

 

It's an intuitive realization and not at all something that you can actually wrap your mind around, it makes sense when one's mind has released to the experience at least to some degree. But there is a logic here.

 

 

The Unity of all serious spiritual traditions is in the fact that they all more or less point to the same thing. It is especially true of Vedanta, Taoism and Buddhism. No matter how blue in the face you turn in vehement denial of this fact, but the fact remains nonetheless.

 

You don't read well do ya? We've quoted how the Buddha in fact vehemently denied this claim of yours. As well as Nagarjuna.

 

What do you say about that? Are they lies? One scripture you'll believe because you can superimpose your own ideas onto it, but others you don't think are true, because you just can't throw your pre-conceived notions on it?

 

What's the deal Dwai? Where's the open mind that can see objectively from another perspective?

 

Your friend who you hang out with and know PM'd me and said that you are very stubbornly fixed in your view, and he is quite right.

Edited August 4, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[dwai]

The rejection is a misunderstanding. Just as a computer hard drive is made up of many components outside of itself, and has memory stored in it that when accessed through causes and conditions, the memories come out due to conditions and play in a larger unpacked display. That doesn't mean there is anything inherent there.

 

Shankara's critic is not valid to me, at all.

 

Particles come together from an infinite regress of causes and conditions interplaying in an infinitely complex way.

 

It's an intuitive realization and not at all something that you can actually wrap your mind around, it makes sense when one's mind has released to the experience at least to some degree. But there is a logic here.

 

But Consciousness is not the same as a computer's Operating System. Neither is the capability to carry forward memory across lifetimes the same as the computer's memory/storage system. Believe me, I know...I run hundreds of computers for a living. If a computer's hardware malfunctions and it's storage system is affected, unless you have backups, one cannot restore the system back to it's original state.

 

Now you aren't suggestion that Alaya VijnAna is a cosmic backup system are you?

 

 

Your focus is on the complexity whereas mine is in simplicity. The simpler the system, the more efficient it is. Unitary is simpler than infinite. So A Non-dual self is simpler than infinite mind-streams...therefore it is more plausible and infact more efficient as even a theory.

[Vajrahridaya]

But Consciousness is not the same as a computer's Operating System. Neither is the capability to carry forward memory across lifetimes the same as the computer's memory/storage system. Believe me, I know...I run hundreds of computers for a living. If a computer's hardware malfunctions and it's storage system is affected, unless you have backups, one cannot restore the system back to it's original state.

 

Now you aren't suggestion that Alaya VijnAna is a cosmic backup system are you?

 

 

Your focus is on the complexity whereas mine is in simplicity. The simpler the system, the more efficient it is. Unitary is simpler than infinite. So A Non-dual self is simpler than infinite mind-streams...therefore it is more plausible and infact more efficient as even a theory.

 

Simple and Complex are simultaneous and unitary. If you go deeply into the simple, you will see the complex simultaneously, yin and yang Dwai, yin and yang. It won't be so complex anymore because it won't be a conceptual level knowledge, though if relayed through words one can be very complex, but the inner workings of the mind can envision many dimensions of knowledge simultaneously.

 

Yes, Alaya Vijnana is not a cosmic back up system, it's a personal back up system. Also consciousness is the coagulation of these atomic particles into a form that can come together in a way to breed consciousness through this dimension from other dimensions. It's possible eventually to actually have conscious computers, which can either be scary or not. Maybe even mind streams will be born into them. It raises many paradigms of consideration with these future possobilities of clones and self learning computers that eventually become self aware. We've even found that the brain naturally merges with a computer implant and that they become one. It's all quite Buddhist really and throws away the myth of a real soul. Of course the causes and conditions for consciousness go subtler than merely the physical. Buddhist cosmology gets into this, but you haven't really read much of it.

 

It may seem sci-fi, but we ourselves are sci-fi.

 

You don't see this because you see a primal cause to the cosmos. The Buddha does not, he saw infinite regress. He has always taught this, it's in the Pali Cannon, Abhidharma, Mahayana.

 

Buddhism never has lead to the same Truth as Vedanta. Which is why the Buddha denied the Vedas.

 

Do you not read Dwai? Buddhism and the Buddhas teachings don't lead to the same Truth Dwai. It's quoted by the Buddha himself. Is this a lie? Dwai? Is Nagarjuna lying when he said that the Hindu's only get to the edge of Samsara? Nagarjuna refuted Vedanta. Yet you want to say it teaches the same thing?

Edited August 4, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[dwai]

The rejection is a misunderstanding. Just as a computer hard drive is made up of many components outside of itself, and has memory stored in it that when accessed through causes and conditions, the memories come out due to conditions and play in a larger unpacked display. That doesn't mean there is anything inherent there.

 

Shankara's critic is not valid to me, at all.

 

Particles come together from an infinite regress of causes and conditions interplaying in an infinitely complex way.

 

It's an intuitive realization and not at all something that you can actually wrap your mind around, it makes sense when one's mind has released to the experience at least to some degree. But there is a logic here.

You don't read well do ya? We've quoted how the Buddha in fact vehemently denied this claim of yours. As well as Nagarjuna.

 

What do you say about that? Are they lies? One scripture you'll believe because you can superimpose your own ideas onto it, but others you don't think are true, because you just can't throw your pre-conceived notions on it?

 

What's the deal Dwai? Where's the open mind that can see objectively from another perspective?

 

Your friend who you hang out with and know PM'd me and said that you are very stubbornly fixed in your view, and he is quite right.

 

 

Oh my mind is open alright...I just see the commonalities more than the differences. Did I say that Advaita was 100% same as Buddhism? Superficial differences exist. The commonalities run much deeper, that's all.

 

I read your posts...I just don't agree with your inferences.

 

The Buddha or Nagarjuna didn't lie. But you haven't taken what they say in the correct context, that's all.

 

I quoted that one "scripture" because it clearly refuted what you claimed to be absolute. Since you have the tendency to throw "tons" of quotes around, I thought I'd join you in your game.

 

I am not sitting here trying to learn from you or Mikaelz. I'll go to much more reliable sources for that...

 

My aim is to question your claims of exclusivity and your hubris.

[ralis]

Vajrahridaya,

 

These discussions are pointless! To quantify or even attempt to define any phenomenon, whether in the realm of science or religion is an exercise in futility. The end point is always "my religion is better and more subtle than yours". Your arguments beg the question and always proceed from insubstantial evidence. e.g. You site the Pali Canon, use arcane terms and other sources as absolute evidence of every word the Buddha uttered. Can you prove the Pali Canon has been passed down intact? Are you any different than a fundamentalist of any faith asserting their scriptures are absolute? I think not.

 

 

ralis

Edited August 4, 2009 by ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

The Buddha or Nagarjuna didn't lie. But you haven't taken what they say in the correct context, that's all.

 

 

Uh hu... a context that you are severely lacking study and experience in.

 

So be it!

 

I know it's a self satisfying and smug place to be. Everything is the Self, all this talk of this and that is nonsense. Buddhists feel that the truth can be explained and that non-conceptuality is not an ultimate truth. But, of course... Buddhism has always been more complex of an explanation of things than Vedanta, then at the same time, much simpler too. That's just objectively speaking.

 

Pratitsamutpada/Shunyata... so simple, though an infinite regress of explanation is possible from this very simple comprehension.

 

Ciao.

 

Vajrahridaya,

 

These discussions are pointless! To quantify or even attempt to define any phenomenon, whether in the realm of science or religion is an exercise in futility. The end point is always "my religion is better and more subtle than yours". Your arguments beg the question and always proceed from insubstantial evidence. e.g. You site the Pali Canon, use arcane terms and other sources as absolute evidence of every word the Buddha uttered. Can you prove the Pali Canon has been passed down intact? Are you any different than a fundamentalist of any faith asserting their scriptures are absolute? I think not.

ralis

 

Yes, and Yes... I am a fundimentalist, as in it's very good to understand the fundamentals of one's path and tradition.

 

Pointless to you is not everyone dear ralis. That's a good thing.

 

Oh.. Prove intactness? It's quite good to practice and see directly. You can decide for yourself. It's not so contradictory as such to think so through direct experiencing of the truths revealed in the texts.

 

Yes, I do absolutely feel that Buddhism is the clearest path to the true nature of things on the planet. I do. This knowledge doesn't come from not studying incessantly and practicing diligently for periods of intensity.

 

Prove it to you though? Why bother... You don't even follow the line of reasoning.

Edited August 4, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[JustARandomPanda]

Hmmm.....

 

If all is Dependently originated with no inherent Self Substance (and that's Buddhism's unique claim vis-a-vis Theistic religions I take it) - if all is connected like Indra's Net (or maybe David Bohm's holographic universe) - then, like Einstein's E=MC2 'self' should work in both directions.

 

I wonder about the same with future deeds...merit or demerits are interdependently operating. All interacting, all co-elescing to the single instant that we all live in - the Eternal Right Now. There is no instant but Now. Past is a mental construct. Future is a mental construct. That means all past and future deeds are interdependently causing and effecting the RIGHT NOW, right now.

 

 

Imagine someone making a mathematical 'karmic equation'. In fact...the more I read this thread the more convinced I become that using math to describe Dependent Origination with no Self Substance is not only possible but doable - even though it would be *soooo subtle* that only other mathematicians of comparable level would understand it.

 

Part of me wonders if this negates free will. Or did the Buddha say free will is an Ego illusion too?

 

 

Did Buddha speak directly on this? Are there Pali and Sanskrit Suttas that speak of this?

 

 

*ponders*

Edited August 4, 2009 by SereneBlue

[xabir2005]

Can someone tell me where (and what) Siddhartha Buddha is right this very minute?

 

*is curious*

The Buddha said, he who sees dependent origination sees the Dharma, and he who sees the Dharma sees the Buddha.