What the Self Is (and Is Not)

[xabir2005]

Edited August 18, 2009 by xabir2005

[Sunya]

All this brouhaha about Buddhism and Vedanta being different is simply a need for the child (Buddhism) to individuate and establish itself apart from it's parent (Hinduism/Vedanta).

 

I think you forget the Buddhism was formulated way before Vedanta and much of Vedanta is Buddhist re-interpretation of the Vedas. so it's more like the other way around

 

Buddhism doesn't need to individuate. There are way more Buddhists than Hindus in this world.

 

what Buddhism tries to do is to give clarity to those holding on to fantastical beliefs. Since there is no God or Source or Prime Mover, there can be no One Destination for All, the destination is dependent upon the road taken, and the ultimate destination for Buddhists is the wisdom of seeing all destinations as empty (no ultimate destination)

Edited August 18, 2009 by mikaelz

[dwai]

I think you forget the Buddhism was formulated way before Vedanta and much of Vedanta is Buddhist re-interpretation of the Vedas. so it's more like the other way around

 

Buddhism doesn't need to individuate. There are way more Buddhists than Hindus in this world.

 

what Buddhism tries to do is to give clarity to those holding on to fantastical beliefs. Since there is no God or Source or Prime Mover, there can be no One Destination for All, the destination is dependent upon the road taken, and the ultimate destination for Buddhists is the wisdom of seeing all destinations as empty (no ultimate destination)

 

This is the only time I'll respond to you. You have no idea about Vedanta and you are only starting off learning about Buddhism. Why don't you save your "expert commentary" on Vedanta for after you have learnt something of value?

 

If you pick any elementary history book you will realize that the major Upanishads were composed before Buddha was an itch in his daddy's pant. A few of Upanishads might have been composed after Buddha's birth. But the 11 principle Upanishads predate Buddha significantly.

 

"Principal" Upanishads

 

The following list includes the eleven "principal" (mukhya) Upanishads commented upon[3] by Shankara, and accepted as shruti by most Hindus. Each is associated with one of the four Vedas (Rigveda (ṚV), Samaveda (SV), White Yajurveda (ŚYV), Black Yajurveda (KYV), Atharvaveda (AV));

 

1. Aitareya (ṚV)

2. Bṛhadāraṇyaka (ŚYV)

3. Taittirīya (KYV)

4. Chāndogya (SV)

5. Kena (SV)

6. Īṣa (ŚYV)

7. Śvetāśvatara(KYV)

8. Kaṭha (KYV)

9. Muṇḍaka (AV)

10. Māṇḍūkya (AV)

11. Praśna (AV)

 

The Kauśītāki and Maitrāyaṇi Upanishads are sometimes added. All these date from before the Common Era. From linguistic evidence, the oldest among them are the Bṛhadāraṇyaka and Chāndogya Upanishads. The Jaiminīya Upaniṣadbrāhmaṇa, belonging to the late Vedic Sanskrit period, may also be included. Of nearly the same age are the Aitareya, Kauṣītaki and Taittirīya Upaniṣads, while the remnant date from the time of transition from Vedic to Classical Sanskrit.

 

The dates being used is a result of severe doctoring by 19th Century European "scholars" such as Max Muller. Even with those dates, the upanishads listed above predate the Buddha. They range from around 1500 - 600 BCE. The actual dates are more likely to be betwen 2500 BCE and 1900 BCE, per internal records of the texts.

 

Gautama Buddha dependently originated in 563 BCE and then just like a phenomenon ceased to exist in 483 BCE

 

So how is it that the Upanishads were written "after" Buddha?

 

Since you guys have basically eliminated every strand of Buddhism besides those that you think are "correct" from the reckoning, I guess all the Buddhist traditions that don't agree with what you say are "Faux Buddhism".

 

Okay...I can live with that...but that says that Buddhists themselves don't agree about what Buddhism is. Or perhaps just like Vedanta and Taoism, the various schools within Buddhism too point to the same Absolute Reality.

 

I hope you guys don't read the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, Lankavatara Sutra, Brahmajala Sutra, etc. Because they all talk about an Eternal Self.

Edited August 19, 2009 by dwai

[Sunya]

This is the only time I'll respond to you.

 

Oh thank you for responding to me. i feel so special

 

 

You have no idea about Vedanta and you are only starting off learning about Buddhism. Why don't you save your "expert commentary" on Vedanta for after you have learnt something of value?

I know more than you think.

 

 

If you pick any elementary history book you will realize that the major Upanishads were composed before Buddha was an itch in his daddy's pant. A few of Upanishads might have been composed after Buddha's birth. But the 11 principle Upanishads predate Buddha significantly.

The dates being used is a result of severe doctoring by 19th Century European "scholars" such as Max Muller. Even with those dates, the upanishads listed above predate the Buddha. They range from around 1500 - 600 BCE. The actual dates are more likely to be betwen 2500 BCE and 1900 BCE, per internal records of the texts.

 

Gautama Buddha dependently originated in 563 BCE and then just like a phenomenon ceased to exist in 483 BCE

 

So how is it that the Upanishads were written "after" Buddha?

 

 

Doesn't matter if the Upanishads existed, some of which did. but most didn't or else the Buddha would have used them as teaching tools or would have refuted them, but instead he refuted the common Hindu teachings of Brahma as Creator. Also, Vedanta is different than the Upanishads. Vedanta is much more non-dualistic and uses teachings found in Buddhism alone, not in the Upanishads. Though Vedanta is still monism.

 

I hope you guys don't read the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, Lankavatara Sutra, Brahmajala Sutra, etc. Because they all talk about an Eternal Self.

 

let me rephrase that for you:

 

I hope you guys don't read the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, Lankavatara Sutra, Brahmajala Sutra, etc with a Vedanta viewing lens and ignore the rest of the Buddhist teachings and take the quotes out of context. Because then they will seem to be talking about an Eternal Self.

 

Since you guys have basically eliminated every strand of Buddhism besides those that you think are "correct" from the reckoning, I guess all the Buddhist traditions that don't agree with what you say are "Faux Buddhism".

 

Okay...I can live with that...but that says that Buddhists themselves don't agree about what Buddhism is. Or perhaps just like Vedanta and Taoism, the various schools within Buddhism too point to the same Absolute Reality.

 

what are you on about? what schools of Buddhism are we eliminating? all schools of Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana have the same core.

 

But anyway my point was that Buddhism is an independent tradition with a completely different core than Hinduism. saying that its the son of Hinduism and needs to prove itself is completely silly. This is just an idealistic way of grasping to your tradition and reaffirming your identity with it. The only way for you to truly understand the core of Buddhism, if you ever truly want to, is to let go of your previous conceptions, let go of seeing Buddha as the 11th incarnation of Vishnu or whatever, and see Buddhism as standing alone. Let the teachings speak for themselves.

Edited August 19, 2009 by mikaelz

[dwai]

[Sunya]

http://aryan-buddhism.blogspot.com/2009/01...-heresy-as.html

 

 

yes thats all written by someone who doesn't understand Buddhism. he makes up his own translations and posts on every forum and eventually gets banned because he calls people "demons" and "ignorant fools", lol

 

look at the top of the blog

 

"Earliest Aryan Buddhism explained with scriptural evidences by the most learned Buddhologist alive; a self-proclaimed Metaphysician and Neoplatonist, Aryasatvan"

 

this guy sort of does what you do Dwai, he looks at Buddhism through the lens of Neo Platonism and the Vedas.

 

whatever he says can be easily refuted by studying the translations of acknowledged translators like Rahula. and also understanding the context of some of the Buddhas teachings. he taught differently to people of different capacities.. .. the earliest Nikayas were teachings that were sometimes taught to people of very eternalistic tendencies, most people very very deluded, and the Buddha had to alter his approach much of the time. just like Jesus who taught to illiterate fishermen. who knows what he really wanted to teach? we do know though by studying the suttas where Buddha taught to his closest disciples what he truly wanted to teach, and the teachings that were passed on as the 4 noble truths and 8 fold path are considered the essential teachings. the Buddha never taught anything about a permanent eternal Self that is independent. he never taught that all beings were one with this Self.

 

it is just too easy to have the view that there exists an Ultimate Self and then when you have a grand experience of a subtle state of mind, you grasp onto that and identify with it, calling it Self. so of course anatta is similar to neti neti except that neti neti concludes in the experience of a Self while anatta doesn't, since there is nothing, nostate, nowhere that can be identified with and called a Self. why? like I said before, look up Self in the dictionary and see what it means. it's grasping for identity. if you take the Vedanta view to its limits, it concludes at non-duality but then the totality is grasped to as an ultimate subject. an ultimate It that is the Self! this is not the same as the realization of emptiness which also takes into account the parts, which lack self-nature, still exist relatively. there is no grasping at the Whole and giving it some name, the Whole isn't really even talked about. whats talked about is the condition (emptiness) of the parts. the parts of what? well, the parts of more parts, and these parts make up more parts. to infinity and beyond! the All isn't ever talked about as an It and identified with.

Edited August 19, 2009 by mikaelz

[dwai]

yes thats all written by someone who doesn't understand Buddhism. he makes up his own translations and posts on every forum and eventually gets banned because he calls people "demons" and "ignorant fools", lol

 

look at the top of the blog

 

"Earliest Aryan Buddhism explained with scriptural evidences by the most learned Buddhologist alive; a self-proclaimed Metaphysician and Neoplatonist, Aryasatvan"

 

this guy sort of does what you do Dwai, he looks at Buddhism through the lens of Neo Platonism and the Vedas.

 

whatever he says can be easily refuted by studying the translations of acknowledged translators like Rahula. and also understanding the context of some of the Buddhas teachings. he taught differently to people of different capacities.. .. the earliest Nikayas were teachings that were sometimes taught to people of very eternalistic tendencies, most people very very deluded, and the Buddha had to alter his approach much of the time. just like Jesus who taught to illiterate fishermen. who knows what he really wanted to teach? we do know though by studying the suttas where Buddha taught to his closest disciples what he truly wanted to teach, and the teachings that were passed on as the 4 noble truths and 8 fold path are considered the essential teachings. the Buddha never taught anything about a permanent eternal Self that is independent. he never taught that all beings were one with this Self.

 

Aryasatvan

The author of the texts and most of the articles on this website is a Pali translator (oldest and original scriptures of Buddhism) and author of books and articles on Buddhism, he is a former Buddhist monk now dedicated to the research of earliest Buddhism before either Theravada (Sarvastivada) or Mahayana (Mahasanghika) existed. He is available for lectures on Buddhist philosophy and its original methodology (assimilation/samadhi) of finding the ontological Light of genuine Being which exists prior to the empirical self as taught by the historical Buddha in the nikayas. He is also a strong advocate of, and self-proclaimed Neoplatonic Platonist.

[Sunya]

^ I updated my post above

 

"Aryasatvan

The author of the texts and most of the articles on this website is a Pali translator (oldest and original scriptures of Buddhism) and author of books and articles on Buddhism, he is a former Buddhist monk now dedicated to the research of earliest Buddhism before either Theravada (Sarvastivada) or Mahayana (Mahasanghika) existed. He is available for lectures on Buddhist philosophy and its original methodology (assimilation/samadhi) of finding the ontological Light of genuine Being which exists prior to the empirical self as taught by the historical Buddha in the nikayas. He is also a strong advocate of, and self-proclaimed Neoplatonic Platonist."

 

he is full of shit. I argued with him on Amazon Buddhist forums.

he doesn't lecture anywhere and his books are all self published. he doesn't even use his real name...

 

he's affiliated with the Dark Zen school which misintrepret Buddhism, go on forums and yell at people. its a cult

 

here are some books of his http://www.amazon.com/Authentic-Dhammapada...a/dp/0971254109

 

http://www.amazon.com/Buddhisms-Highest-Re...6080&sr=1-2

 

look at the lovely reviews, they are quite funny lol.

he wrote all the positive reviews

Edited August 19, 2009 by mikaelz

[dwai]

[Vajrahridaya]

http://aryan-buddhism.blogspot.com/2009/01...-heresy-as.html

 

Hindu propaganda.

[Sunya]

http://dci.dk/index.php?option=com_content...2&Itemid=36

 

So the Dalai Lama says Buddhists don't believe in Atman, but there is a Self. The problem is as pointed out, in a strawman erected. Anatta is simply a Neti-neti tool used to help with realization of the Self.

 

maybe you should read that quote again... slower this time...and without jumping to conclusions.

 

the self he is referring to only exists on the relative level, which he says himself. the I cannot be denied. it just doesn't exist ultimately. of course you exist but when it comes to consciousness there is nothing there to call I or Self. it's all there man, do you read the quotes you post? lol

Edited August 19, 2009 by mikaelz

[Vajrahridaya]

http://dci.dk/index.php?option=com_content...2&Itemid=36

 

So the Dalai Lama says Buddhists don't believe in Atman, but there is a Self. The problem is as pointed out, in a strawman erected. Anatta is simply a Neti-neti tool used to help with realization of the Self.

 

No, there is only the relative self. Your going to have to completely let go of your subjective viewing and see Buddhism from it's own side.

 

The subtle differences are the meat and potatoes of why Buddhism does not accept the Vedas and Vedanta as authoritative.

 

 

There's no way around it. Buddhism is different and doesn't lead to the same truth as Vedanta. You can say that we are wrong, but that's not the same as saying that you are right in your assumption that we are talking about the same ultimate reality that you are.

 

Our two truths does NOT mean the same thing as your two truths. There is relative truth that all things are interdependent, and then there is the ultimate truth that all things are inherently empty. That still does not reify an ultimate Self of all.

[xabir2005]

As I wrote, based on what Thusness said,

 

...The word 'source' by itself isn't a problem but how we understand it. Thusness told me that in Buddhism, though it sometimes talk about Source, it is refering to an individual source. Having a universal consciousness and having the same metaphysical essence is different. In buddhism, there is no such source, there is however individual stream of awareness.

 

Therefore one must still awake to the witness and later realize that it has nothing to do with a universal consciousness, nor seek to merge with it. Then one realizes anatta, non-dual, then one realizes the Dependent Origination. It is plain and simple and can be directly experience now, nothing mystical, just that when we read too much yet without the support of real time and direct experience, we conjure out all sort of nonsense. And as Thusness said, first experience the Witness, then realise that it's nondual Witnessing, then realise dependent origination. There is no denying of nondual witnessing, so one should keep the experience, don't deny that experience but also keep refining one's views, as Rob Burbea and Thusness have said.

 

There is no denial of one's individual stream of consciousness, and one has to have direct experience of it, and then one realizes it's non-dual nature. And one realizes when one is freed from the dichotomy of subject/object duality, it is anatta. Experience has always been so. And each moment of manifestation is luminous yet empty, there is nothing extraordinary. In hearing, only sound... if there is sound without efffort, how can it not be dependently originated? When we become bare and naked in awareness and not react to dogmas, it is plain, direct and simple...

So Buddhists are not world denying or self denying, but we do not reify any experience into a solid, permanent, independent entity.

 

This is in line with that HHDL said above:

 

Pandit: In its impersonal sense or in the individual sense?

Dalai Lama: Individual. An Atman. There is no self theory. According to certain theories, Atman is permanent. It is oneness, always living, unchangeable. From this life to the next life, permanent Atman is there. Buddhists criticize that theory of Atman. Self is always changing. Not permanent. Self is a combination of consciousness and body. There is no independent permanent entity of self.

Edited August 19, 2009 by xabir2005

[Fruitzilla]

As I wrote, based on what Thusness said,

So Buddhists are not world denying or self denying, but we do not reify any experience into a solid, permanent, independent entity.

 

This is in line with that HHDL said above:

 

Pandit: In its impersonal sense or in the individual sense?

Dalai Lama: Individual. An Atman. There is no self theory. According to certain theories, Atman is permanent. It is oneness, always living, unchangeable. From this life to the next life, permanent Atman is there. Buddhists criticize that theory of Atman. Self is always changing. Not permanent. Self is a combination of consciousness and body. There is no independent permanent entity of self.

 

I've read quite some Buddhist polemics, and especially the mind/consciousness-body split never made sense to me.

To prove the existence of a mind apart from a body, Buddhists say that a material cause (ia body or a brain) can't have an immaterial result (a thought or moment of consciousness).

If this is so, how does the mind interact with the body? I never got that, and never saw an explanation of it.

 

Saying self is a combination of consciousness and body is a gross oversimplification imho. Self is a combination of so many factors (biological, historical, social, to name few) it boggles the mind.

 

Cheers.

[Vajrahridaya]

I've read quite some Buddhist polemics, and especially the mind/consciousness-body split never made sense to me.

To prove the existence of a mind apart from a body, Buddhists say that a material cause (ia body or a brain) can't have an immaterial result (a thought or moment of consciousness).

If this is so, how does the mind interact with the body? I never got that, and never saw an explanation of it.

 

Saying self is a combination of consciousness and body is a gross oversimplification imho. Self is a combination of so many factors (biological, historical, social, to name few) it boggles the mind.

 

Cheers.

 

The brain is the result of mind, not the other way around.

 

You can read, "Kunjed Gyalpo" (All Creating King, or... "The Supreme Source") where it talks about how mind descends into physicality to the degree that we experience it here on Earth.

[Fruitzilla]

The brain is the result of mind, not the other way around.

 

You can read, "Kunjed Gyalpo" (All Creating King, or... "The Supreme Source") where it talks about how mind descends into physicality to the degree that we experience it here on Earth.

 

I'm not looking for mythological descriptions, I'm looking for a philosophical explanation to what seems to me to be a flaw in Buddhist thought.

[Vajrahridaya]

I'm not looking for mythological descriptions, I'm looking for a philosophical explanation to what seems to me to be a flaw in Buddhist thought.

 

The brain is produced from the mind as it descends into density.

 

Mythological? It actually talks about it in a way that makes perfect sense within the scope of how consciousness densifies through a process of attachment and solidified identity. Yet, the body and the brain are short lived while being the result of the previous thoughts of previous bodies either solid in the sense that we feel solidity or other realms of conditioning that are not so dense.

 

To understand would take an ability to see beyond merely thinking from a , "I was born and I will die"... state of logic.

 

You will have to logically understand riencarnation and other realms of experience in order to see what the Buddhist and even Hindu logic talk about when it comes to the fact that mind is subtler than brain.

 

Otherwise you'll just be stuck in the circle of mind is born of body and dies with the body.

 

It doesn't make sense and seems to be a flaw because you don't accept the fact of other lives and other dimensions of conscious experience that may either be more dense than this realm, or less dense than this realm as in higher or lower realms of existence.

 

Much of what Buddhism points to, won't make sense at all to a Western logician who strictly identifies with conditioned view's on body functionality and 5 sense limitations there-in.

 

What do you want me to say... the immaterial births the material in order to channel itself into 3 dimensional experience to this middle land of Earth degree, not the other way around.

 

You'd also have to have an understanding of the chakras.

 

The body is created by electricity from a certain perspective, and it creates electricity, that can be channeled through another body that is created by electricity. They are interdependent, this immaterial experience and material experience. But, even if the wires that channel electricity wither and decay, the electricity still is electricity, maybe dwindles into the air, but mind is much subtler than merely this metaphor.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Fruitzilla]

The brain is produced from the mind as it descends into density.

 

Mythological? It actually talks about it in a way that makes perfect sense within the scope of how consciousness densifies through a process of attachment and solidified identity. Yet, the body and the brain are short lived while being the result of the previous thoughts of previous bodies either solid in the sense that we feel solidity or other realms of conditioning that are not so dense.

 

To understand would take an ability to see beyond merely thinking from a , "I was born and I will die"... state of logic.

 

You will have to logically understand riencarnation and other realms of experience in order to see what the Buddhist and even Hindu logic talk about when it comes to the fact that mind is subtler than brain.

 

Otherwise you'll just be stuck in the circle of mind is born of body and dies with the body.

 

It doesn't make sense and seems to be a flaw because you don't accept the fact of other lives and other dimensions of conscious experience that may either be more dense than this realm, or less dense than this realm as in higher or lower realms of existence.

 

Much of what Buddhism points to, won't make sense at all to a Western logician who strictly identifies with conditioned view's on body functionality and 5 sense limitations there-in.

 

What do you want me to say... the immaterial births the material in order to channel itself into 3 dimensional experience to this middle land of Earth degree, not the other way around.

 

You'd also have to have an understanding of the chakras.

 

The body is created by electricity from a certain perspective, and it creates electricity, that can be channeled through another body that is created by electricity. They are interdependent, this immaterial experience and material experience. But, even if the wires that channel electricity wither and decay, the electricity still is electricity, maybe dwindles into the air, but mind is much subtler than merely this metaphor.

 

You're expounding the creation story as found in the Nirvana Sutra, which isn't accepted by all Buddhists schools. So in that sense it's just that. One creation myth among many.

This is not to say it can't be true within a certain context. It's just not the context in which I framed my question.

 

One thing that is interesting though, is that it seems to imply that mind and matter aren't different things, just permutations of the same principle.

 

Let me restate:

 

1) Most buddhists I talk to/read ( especially on e-sangha ) advocate a mind-body dualism. Allan Wallace seems to be very popular among these folk.

2) They hold to the fact that neural activity and thought are only correlated.

3) Furthermore, they hold to the fact that immaterial causes cannot give rise to material results, so arguing that the mindstream can continue on after the death of the body.

 

All of this (especially point 3) leaves the big question as to how the immaterial gives rise to the material. I've never seen it answered on there.

[Sunya]

good questons Fruit. I myself can't answer them. but I think that conceptual philosophy can be very limiting when talking about such things. because concepts are limited by our 3rd dimensional experiences and so its very hard to explain other dimensional happenings in that language.

 

I think that naturally there would have to appear a mind-body split but only through a materialistic viewpoint. material/immaterial are empty concepts that based on our current scientific understanding. so anything that can't be measured scientifically is thus immaterial. so of course mind has to be immaterial because it survives material decay and moves on. the proof of this is Tibetan masters having conscious rebirth and the many people who remember past lives in great detail. the scientific proof cannot be there until science can measure deeper happenings that are so called 'immaterial'. I do not think such a distinction exists, because both material and immaterial are empty concepts. the difference is in the density of energies, or how the New Agers say, vibrational frequency.

 

i'm not too clear on this subject though and look forward to others replying.

 

this might be relevant

 

http://buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebdha205.htm

Edited August 19, 2009 by mikaelz

[nac]

On second thoughts, I've come down with a cold today, so I'm taking a break. In the meantime, this Wikipedia article expresses it much better than I could: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tathagatagarb...tagarbha_in_Zen

 

Hence if you want to identify the Buddha Matrix with your "True Self," it's best not to call such a teaching Buddhist at all. The Tathagatagarbha isn't "one" or "many", but "just so". (this is what? the 3rd or 4th time I've said the same thing, sorry. BTW how is separating or reifying a fixed, eternal "true Self" from "all phenomena" different from Descartian dualism?) On this point at least, Chinese Buddhism seems to surpass Hindu philosophy. I don't mean that in the sense that Buddhism is somehow "better" than Hinduism. No way, merely that Buddhist philosophers seem to have reached the point of Hindu understanding, but have kept reinventing, clarifying and refining their doctrine beyond it. (or maybe they just haven't disseminated their ideas in the same way as Hindus, I dunno...) Of course, that doesn't necessarily make it more true, accurate or superior in any way, only maybe more detailed. What do you think?

 

This is the only time I'll respond to you. You have no idea about Vedanta and you are only starting off learning about Buddhism. Why don't you save your "expert commentary" on Vedanta for after you have learnt something of value?

Gee. If you want clarifications on minute details of Far Eastern Buddhist doctrine, there's nothing else for it, you have to visit E-Sangha and talk to people like Huifeng, Huseng, Astus, etc. in the East Asian Buddhism subforums. xabir2005 is the only doctrinal expert we've got here.

 

Let me restate:

 

1) Most buddhists I talk to/read ( especially on e-sangha ) advocate a mind-body dualism. Allan Wallace seems to be very popular among these folk.

2) They hold to the fact that neural activity and thought are only correlated.

3) Furthermore, they hold to the fact that immaterial causes cannot give rise to material results, so arguing that the mindstream can continue on after the death of the body.

 

All of this (especially point 3) leaves the big question as to how the immaterial gives rise to the material. I've never seen it answered on there.

Hmm, do you think mind-body dualism is essential to any Buddhist view?

Edited August 19, 2009 by nac

[Vajrahridaya]

 

All of this (especially point 3) leaves the big question as to how the immaterial gives rise to the material. I've never seen it answered on there.

 

I wasn't thinking of the Nirvana sutra at all, I was thinking direct insight.

 

The body manifests as a result of thoughts being completely reified through ignorance, and there is a kind of balance between illumination and veiling, thus the workable density of this realm. When the thinker of the effect that is the body dies from the higher realm as those karmas are exhausted, they manifest into this realm if that is the so destiny through the body that has been manifested through evolution based upon their thoughts projecting from another realm, either consciously as a Buddha taking birth to help people, or generally speaking, totally unconsciously as most all people and sentient beings on Earth.

 

If this is a creation myth to you... so be it.

 

That's what happens.

[Fruitzilla]

 

Hmm, do you think mind-body dualism is essential to any Buddhist view?

 

 

Not at all, it was just something I saw a lot of at e-sangha, and wondered about.

[dwai]

On second thoughts, I've come down with a cold today, so I'm taking a break. In the meantime, this Wikipedia article expresses it much better than I could: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tathagatagarb...tagarbha_in_Zen

 

Hence if you want to identify the Buddha Matrix with your "True Self," it's best not to call such a teaching Buddhist at all. The Tathagatagarbha isn't "one" or "many", but "just so". (this is what? the 3rd or 4th time I've said the same thing, sorry. BTW how is separating or reifying a fixed, eternal "true Self" from "all phenomena" different from Descartian dualism?) On this point at least, Chinese Buddhism seems to surpass Hindu philosophy. I don't mean that in the sense that Buddhism is somehow "better" than Hinduism. No way, merely that Buddhist philosophers seem to have reached the point of Hindu understanding, but have kept reinventing, clarifying and refining their doctrine beyond it. (or maybe they just haven't disseminated their ideas in the same way as Hindus, I dunno...) Of course, that doesn't necessarily make it more true, accurate or superior in any way, only maybe more detailed. What do you think?

Gee. If you want clarifications on minute details of Far Eastern Buddhist doctrine, there's nothing else for it, you have to visit E-Sangha and talk to people like Huifeng, Huseng, Astus, etc. in the East Asian Buddhism subforums. xabir2005 is the only doctrinal expert we've got here.

Hmm, do you think mind-body dualism is essential to any Buddhist view?

 

The point was well made by the article I posted by Aryasatvan. I don't know his background but he raises some good points.

 

How is Absolute Self Descartian Dualism? There is no subject-object in Pure Subject.

 

I have no problem with philosophy being refined and developed on. I don't think Chinese Buddhism however surpassed Indic Philosophy. I do find great parallels between Taoism and Vedantic/Tantric thought. And while I am open to considering a bi-directional cross-pollination between India and China (as has happened for thousands of years on various other aspects), I suspect that there was a common root for all these systems somewhere in the Himalayan region. There are records of Vedic rishis from all over that region.

 

I have ignored Mikaelz and VH because they don't have anything valuable to contribute (imho). I honestly don't have any experience with e-sangha and wouldn't have ventured into this debate if I hadn't felt certain members needed to alter their tone, their rhetoric and their hubris (which in all displays their immaturity, both intellectual as well as spiritual).

 

In one sense, dualism is inherent whenever we take on a phenomenological inquiry. Because there is a Subject and an Object. That's why the meditation traditions give so much emphasis on the subjective. Because the Absolute Reality (whatever that might be) can only be experienced. It cannot be inquired into rationally.

 

However, rational inquiry will only take us to the brink of the realization. I remember reading Carlos Castaneda several years ago and his (and his party's) jump into an endless precipice of the Nagual. That endless abyss is the discarding of the rational faculties and diving into a purely subjective experience. A state of meditative absorption. Carlos may/may not have been a faker, but his writings ring true vis-a-vis Taoism, Vedanta, Tantra (all the Wisdom Traditions of the World in fact).

 

Regarding Reification: It depends on where one is in personal experience. If someone thinks that despite dissolving all misconceptions about what the self is (ie understanding what anatta means), one can identify such an "I", I guess it is a limitation on their part. In Non-dual grounding, I don't think such a fallacy is possible. The Self is there...but the Self is everything else, everyone else. And also everyone else and everything else is the Self. When One is all and all is one,where is the reification of a "separate Self"?

 

I don't know about Xabir's doctrinal credentials, but he seems like a very nice young man...and genuine in his interactions (unlike some others).

 

Best,

 

Dwai

Edited August 19, 2009 by dwai

[Vajrahridaya]

One thing that Brahman based spirituality needs to understand if they wish to understand Buddhism at all, is that we seek to be free from the blissful oneness that recycles us over and over again, universe after universe, which we consider a universal habit energy of joint consensus of endless Samsaric beings.

 

So no, Buddhism is not part of the Hindu religions, because we don't seek ultimate oneness. This is not our version of the non-dual experience.

 

We seek complete freedom from the substance of universal Self.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Unconditioned]

One thing that Brahman based spirituality needs to understand if they wish to understand Buddhism at all, is that we seek to be free from the blissful oneness that recycles us over and over again, universe after universe, which we consider a universal habit energy of joint consensus of endless Samsaric beings.

 

So no, Buddhism is not part of the Hindu religions, because we don't seek ultimate oneness. This is not our version of the non-dual experience.

 

We seek complete freedom from the substance of universal Self.

 

Is it possible to be free from the unconditioned consciousness? Or are we talking about freedom from the concept of the substance of universal Self, unconditioned consciousness, etc.?