"there is such a self"

[3bob]

Hey there 3Bob! It is my understanding that "Buddha nature" refers to the seed of enlightenment that is inherent in all sentient beings, meaning that all beings in all the realms, have the potential to attain Buddhahood. This is a very cool concept, because as one's observations become more profound thru practice, we can actually discern how true this is in everyday life. Even animals display this nature, and they do so effortlessly. It is us humans who tend to over-analyze things and hence lose sight of it very often thru having missed the first truth of the Eightfold Path. For some reason, we call this "intelligence"!! In a sense you are right then - this intrinsic potential can not be altered by anything, nor is it bound somewhere - its always and freely accessible, no matter what part of the wheel one is in.

 

One of the purpose of the wheel is to show the principle of cause and effect. This law is applicable to everything that is inside the wheel, regardless. Perhaps this is the *limitation* you referred to above. Even enlightened beings within the wheel of life are subject to this law. While they are in this physical realm, they are still prone to old age and death, which is simply the law in operation. For example, Jesus, Son of God, while in the body, had to comply with this principle. So too, did Gotama, and countless other enlightened beings.

 

Moreover, those who are not of the physical realms are also subject to it - for without this wheel, those that are caught in the upper or lower realms will not have any opportunity whatsoever to attain Nirvana, which is the total extinction of the idea of being, or ultimate release from bondage to the cycle of birth, death and rebirth.

 

According to some teachings, the Noble Ones who realize ultimate cessation of this bondage have a choice whether to remain within or to leave this wheel of life. Those that leave for good are said to have entered parinirvana, like the historical Buddha, but those that choose to return, or remain inside the wheel are then called Boddhisattvas, selfless beings who can act skillfully for the benefit of all other sentient beings. This is their one and only altruistic intention for generating ultimate Boddhicitta.

 

I did not see anything you said to be out of line with my limited understanding of Buddhism.

 

All the best!

 

Well said CowTao, thanks for your thoughtful and generous reply

 

Like I've said before, I'm not a Buddhist - thus not really qualified to speak as if I belonged to a certain school of Buddhism, although I do very much appreciate many of the Buddhist sayings, and do see many correlations with other "rafts" of noble teachings.

 

Here is one that comes to mind in relation to our particular posts today:

 

"At the moment of awakening, the Buddha exclaimed: "Wonder of wonders! All living beings are truly enlightened and shine with wisdom and virtue. But because their minds have become deluded and turned inward to the self, they fail to understand this"

Kegon Sutra,

 

Copied from, "The Pocket Buddha Reader" page 13. The underline was added by me - seeing that such is not a just a potential (per-se) but indeed is a wonderful fact!

 

Om

[Lucky7Strikes]

Consciousness in Buddhism is treated as a separate element from the other insentient elements of earth, water, fire and wind. They are known as the five elements. Hence, the question of how sentience arise from insentience does not occur in Buddhism.

 

So awareness, consciousness, is not sound.

 

The body cannot produce consciousness, for birth take place, the body must accomodate with the rebirth-consciousness to take birth, before life can form. This rebirth consciousness is not a production of the body, otherwise rebirth cannot take place, out of body experiences cannot occur (and they do occur). So what's the link between body and consciousness? There is a link, it is a mutual dependence as long as the link is established between consciousness and body through the chakras but it is not the same as consciousness having its source from the body. Consciousness has no such origin, though it interdependently originates. Whatever experienced, that is consciousness, consciousness is non-dual, but also it doesn't mean consciousness is a universal substratum (like Advaita) but rather in Buddhist view is an individual transient mindstream of consciousness.

 

You've made thoroughly contradicting points here that do not lead to any consistency. If you say the link is the chakras, you are also saying that consciousness is within the body, beyond the body being linked to the body, or IS the body. Whatever experienced is consciousness? Consciousness is not the manifested phenomena. Or else you are saying consciousness IS sound, which you also deny here by saying it interdependently originates (which mean they are not one but originates from one another without a definable source). Sound is just sound waves, hearing is just the ear tissue and sound waves, the filtering condition is the brain, which are all insentient manifestations (unless you want to say consciousness is produced by the brain, which I don't think you are saying). Find me the individual transient mindstream of consciousness in phenomena. It is not in sound, it is not in the drum, it is not within, without, or between.

 

Awareness is simply all manifesting experience/phenomena itself, yet is non-arising. Sometimes I use the word 'arising' but I don't literally mean something arising in time, persisting, and subsiding, what I mean is just non-substantial dependently originated ungraspable vivid appearance. Beware of thinking that mindstream arise from some source, that it comes into being at certain time. That is an extreme. To arise is to establish that it has an existence, to say it cease is to establish it's non-existence. Both are extremes (the other two extremes are both existence and non-existence, and neither existence nor non-existence). These four extremes are the false views negated by the Buddhist teachings of Emptiness. But be careful of talking Awareness as Unborn, it is not the case that there is an Unborn essence underlying all phenomena popping in and out of this background unborn reality (Advaita).

 

What I am saying has absolutely nothing to do with Advaita's all encompassing universal consciousness. You are so paranoid of this view you mention it everywhere where it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I have not asserted any of these "beware" positions here, but asked you a simple question as to where this consciousness is in manifesting phenomena and you've answered with an absolutely contradicting and inconsistent answer. Find my your consciousness. If you say awareness is simply phenomena, one should be able to find it in phenomena, such as "the drumstick is conscious" or the "sound is conscious" or the "drumstick and sound put together is conscious."

 

To say that Awareness, or Manifestation (which is the same) has a source or origin, is to stray into extremes. It establishes it's birth and having 'come from somewhere'. As explained, there are conditions, but there are no source and origin. There is no birth. There is no coming and going. In D.O., there is no movement. There is also no something transforming to something. See Heart Sutra.

I never said anything about origin or birth of consciousness. Please be concise and argue about the point in hand.

 

The quotes of Padmasambhava can easily be reinterepred under my paradigm and make perfect sense.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[C T]

 

"At the moment of awakening, the Buddha exclaimed: "Wonder of wonders! All living beings are truly enlightened and shine with wisdom and virtue. But because their minds have become deluded and turned inward to the self, they fail to understand this"

Kegon Sutra,

 

Om

Indeed, sir.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Actually all things are already non-arising. They just manifest, appear, they do not truly arise. Because they do not truly arise, there is no coming from, and going to. It is just an appearance, a vividly clear yet empty presence, but there is no objectivity to it that can come and go as if we are an experiencer of things coming and going from our field of experience (dualistic). Whatever appears dependently originates and have no essence, just like the red-ness of flower though vividly appearing is no where to be found objectively or subjectively (for example, dogs don't perceive red), you cannot say that the red-ness has arisen or come from somewhere because it never truly existed to begin with, just an appearance. This dualistic and inherent framework of seeing things is false.

 

Redness is an experience of the physical property of wavelength and the eye's perception and the brain's interpretation of its frequency. All phenomena can likewise be investigated into properties, conditions, and function and nowhere is consciousness found in phenomena. (note: I'm not saying there is objective redness, just that the appearance of redness can be traced to a phenomenal property, remember that we are investigating what consciousness is so please don't go off for 5 pages on objective and subjective universe).

Edited January 11, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

So awareness, consciousness, is not sound.

No. I think the definitions got you confused. When I say sound, I mean the presence of sound as an experience, I am not talking about soundwaves which are simply a condition for the experience of sound. For example a similar kind of soundwave may give rise to different kind of experience in different persons and animals due to various types of biological and karmic conditioning, for example some high pitched sounds or low pitched sounds can or cannot be heard by others or might be perceived differently, more acutely, or otherwise, and thus soundwave is just a condition, the arising experience is Awareness, not the soundwave.

 

Sound is awareness, an appearance that is vividly present yet empty and dependently originates.

You've made thoroughly contradicting points here that do not lead to any consistency. If you say the link is the chakras, you are also saying that consciousness is within the body, beyond the body being linked to the body, or IS the body.

No. I do not mean consciousness resides in the body. I mean the chakras and the body are simply another condition for consciousness to manifest in a particular way, in this instance, to manifest as the human experience. Consciousness is fundamentally empty and has no locality but interdependently originates. Consciousness also influences and affects the body. Hence they are mutually dependent, yet not the same as dependence (consciousness created out of matter).

Whatever experienced is consciousness? Consciousness is not the manifested phenomena. Or else you are saying consciousness IS sound, which you also deny here by saying it interdependently originates (which mean they are not one but originates from one another without a definable source).

Again you are mistaken. It is not the case that consciousness is one with sound, which would imply that subject and object are actually inseparable. Or rather it would imply an essence that is one with all appearances. This is Advaita but not Buddhism. Rather, in Buddhism, it is that there ONLY is sound and that is the only consciousness there is. There is no other consciousness to speak of apart from those phenomena, no essence that transcends and includes phenomena. In actuality there is just phenomena-ing presenc-ing and awar-ing. Just sounds, sights, taste, thoughts, touch, etc, all sensations are simply present and aware as it is and there is no observer apart from that. And that very appearance, though vividly presence as pure awareness, is dependently originated and empty. Consciousness IS sound, sound IS consciousness, it is not that consciousness is 'one with' sound. That is the subtle difference between Thusness Stage 4 and Thusness Stage 5.

 

Since phenomena is all there is, it is phenomena that dependently originates. What dependently originates must be a phenomena, a self-luminous sensation arising and vanishing according to conditions. Every sensation is simply present and aware. No sensation can observe another sensation, there are just arising and vanishing sensations, every sensation is disjoint, a completely fresh and new reality.

Redness is an experience of the physical property of wavelength and the eye's perception and the brain's interpretation of its frequency. All phenomena can likewise be investigated into properties, conditions, and function and nowhere is consciousness found in phenomena. (note: I'm not saying there is objective redness, just that the appearance of redness can be traced to a phenomenal property, remember that we are investigating what consciousness is so please don't go off for 5 pages on objective and subjective universe).

All there is is appearance, phenomena, no other awareness to speak of. These phenomena may be conventionally labelled as 'red', etc for conventional purposes, and wouldn't be a problem as long as we don't mistake what we characterize as something inherent. Edited January 12, 2010 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

No. I think the definitions got you confused. When I say sound, I mean the presence of sound as an experience, I am not talking about soundwaves which are simply a condition for the experience of sound. For example a similar kind of soundwave may give rise to different kind of experience in different persons and animals due to various types of biological and karmic conditioning, for example some high pitched sounds or low pitched sounds can or cannot be heard by others or might be perceived differently, more acutely, or otherwise, and thus soundwave is just a condition, the arising experience is Awareness, not the soundwave.

Sound is awareness, an appearance that is vividly present yet empty and dependently originates.

By your view, the sound is different from the experience of sound, yet the conditions of phenomena that creates both are the same?

 

No. I do not mean consciousness resides in the body. I mean the chakras and the body are simply another condition for consciousness to manifest in a particular way, in this instance, to manifest as the human experience. Consciousness is fundamentally empty and has no locality but interdependently originates. Consciousness also influences and affects the body. Hence they are mutually dependent, yet not the same as dependence (consciousness created out of matter).

 

Good, I agree. Consciousness cannot be found in phenomenal manifestation. But then you say this:

 

Again you are mistaken. It is not the case that consciousness is one with sound, which would imply that subject and object are actually inseparable. Or rather it would imply an essence that is one with all appearances. This is Advaita but not Buddhism. Rather, in Buddhism, it is that there ONLY is sound and that is the only consciousness there is. There is no other consciousness to speak of apart from those phenomena, no essence that transcends and includes phenomena. In actuality there is just phenomena-ing presenc-ing and awar-ing. Just sounds, sights, taste, thoughts, touch, etc, all sensations are simply present and aware as it is and there is no observer apart from that. And that very appearance, though vividly presence as pure awareness, is dependently originated and empty. Consciousness IS sound, sound IS consciousness, it is not that consciousness is 'one with' sound. That is the subtle difference between Thusness Stage 4 and Thusness Stage 5.

 

No, when I say consciousness is one with sound, I mean consciousness is sound. And if consciousness IS sound, it DOES mean subject object are inseparable. By your logic, there is no subject object in the experience of sound.

 

BUT

 

Sensation are not aware. Sensations are phenomena constructs: production of sound waves+soundwaves + ear+brain interpretation.

 

So how does awareness rise?

 

Since phenomena is all there is, it is phenomena that dependently originates. What dependently originates must be a phenomena, a self-luminous sensation arising and vanishing according to conditions. Every sensation is simply present and aware. No sensation can observe another sensation, there are just arising and vanishing sensations, every sensation is disjoint, a completely fresh and new reality.

All there is is appearance, phenomena, no other awareness to speak of. These phenomena may be conventionally labelled as 'red', etc for conventional purposes, and wouldn't be a problem as long as we don't mistake what we characterize as something inherent.

 

And what observes sensation? Sensation?

 

Phenomena is not awareness. Find me a phenomena, a manifestation, an object, a soundwave, an physical interaction, a chemical reaction, that is aware of itself.

Edited January 13, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[voidisyinyang]

O.K. you all are bringing up some fascinating points about soundwaves and sensory awareness.

 

Soundwaves are modeled through number but the numbering process -- the ratios -- are actually formless.

 

So this is a very abstract concept which is actually the process of logical inference.

 

When we talk and think we perceive sound although it's actually just electromagnetic fields in our brain -- and the same for all the other senses.

 

But all our senses are consciously acknowledged through language with the assumption of an individual self having those words in our head.

 

So if we ask where does the SOUND of the I-thought come from then we have to repeat in our head -- I-I-I-I.

 

Why I? Because the I-thought is the logical assumption of all our other thoughts -- the I-thought is the first thought upon waking up, etc. We may not think "I" but we assume it is there.

 

Similarly when we think about where sound comes from the vibrations are measured visually -- through visual perception -- but we make the measurement in TIME -- not vision.

 

So we can HEAR how the time flows just as we can hear our thoughts flow. When we repeat I-I-I then slowly the I-thought becomes concentrated into "one" thought.

 

Now we are listening to the source of sound in our heads.

 

During the study of sound there was perceived overtones and from this a law of proportions was deduced.

 

If the visual wavelength which produces the sound is twice as long then the sound is half as high in frequency -- or half as FAST in the time of vibration.

 

Then it could be heard that for the overtone that was 2:3 of the sound it could be inverted as 3:4 of the sound and both of these OVERTONES -- perceived through listening -- then RESOLVED back to their source as the original frequency as either 1 or the octave as 1:2.

 

So now it was realized that the ONE SOUND actually was made up of higher ratios -- the same sound SPLIT into overtones -- and this could be heard but could also be seen visually and measured as a ratio.

 

So then it was realized that this splitting process, logically, could be divided back into the original scale -- in other words the original splitting of sound would continue -- by NUMBERS -- to fill up the first overtone split of the octave.

 

This is called the "circle of fifths" in music theory -- but there's a problem -- when you add up the ratios as octaves -- and then you add up the ratios as fifths -- the two do not line up completely.

 

There is an overlap.

 

Now what happened in WESTERN LOGIC AND WESTERN SCIENCE is that this was considered a new discovery.

 

Instead of perceiving that the sound did not line up with the VISUAL MEASUREMENT OF THE NUMBER RATIOS the sound was CHANGED so that the VISUAL numbers DID LINE UP.

 

Think about this - when we hear an octave it sounds the same -- but there is a very slight "beat" which is not the same. When we hear the first and second overtones -- the 2:3 and the 3:4 -- the both "resolve" to the octave - and it sounds like full resolution. Again it is slightly not the same. Why is this so? What does it mean?

 

Instead of pursuing this discovery from pure logical inference of NUMBER instead science adopt the visual measurement of number as geometric distance.

 

In other words the sound harmonics were ignored and instead a VISUAL system of LOGIC was established.

 

So then we ask -- what is consciousness -- well what is time?

 

In other words if the ratios do not line up then where does sound end or begin? Does it end when we can no longer mathematically measure it? -- obviously not. But since we can not measure it should we then CHANGE THE SOUND SO THAT WE CAN MEASURE IT? That was what the WEST DID.

 

So when ever you hear Western music you are being BRAINWASHED about reality!! Western music is based on the "commutative property" of Western logic -- A x B = B x A -- even though this GOES AGAINST NATURAL RESONANCE because 2:3 is C to G while 3:4 is G to C.

 

In fact the sound keeps going -- and this is what the overtone ratios tell us -- which WE CAN HEAR.

 

There is emotion in these ratios as well and it turns out the 2:3 is YANG and the 3:4 is YIN.

 

So the FREQUENCY of SOUND changes into other types of energy -- it's no longer sound.

 

If it's ultrasound does that mean it can not be perceived as a human sensory awareness?

 

Humans CAN HEAR ultrasound -- but only INTERNALLY.

 

Well what about humans seeing light internally -- produced inside their brain? Not according to Western science.

 

But what if the sound ratios keep resonating up -- through logical inference -- into the light waves which make up consciousness.

 

But what now. Can we "measure" light -- Einstein said that spacetime as mass actually bends light. But quantum physics says the opposite -- due to the "time-frequency uncertainty principle" -- light can travel FASTER THAN TIME -- instantaneously -- it's called entanglement.

 

So in science we can not measure anything faster than light and near the speed of light mass shrinks and time slows down or vice versa.

 

But through logical inference YES we can LISTEN to consciousness directly -- as the process of complementary opposite resonance which, as abstract logic of spacetime itself, CREATES LIGHT.

 

The concept of "soundwaves" is OXYMORONIC -- it means to DEFINE SOUND AS A VISUAL SENSE.

 

 

 

By your view, the sound is different from the experience of sound, yet the conditions of phenomena that creates both are the same?

Good, I agree. Consciousness cannot be found in phenomenal manifestation. But then you say this:

No, when I say consciousness is one with sound, I mean consciousness is sound. And if consciousness IS sound, it DOES mean subject object are inseparable. By your logic, there is no subject object in the experience of sound.

 

BUT

 

Sensation are not aware. Sensations are phenomena constructs: production of sound waves+soundwaves + ear+brain interpretation.

 

So how does awareness rise?

And what observes sensation? Sensation?

 

Phenomena is not awareness. Find me a phenomena, a manifestation, an object, a soundwave, an physical interaction, a chemical reaction, that is aware of itself.

[dwai]

O.K. you all are bringing up some fascinating points about soundwaves and sensory awareness.

 

Soundwaves are modeled through number but the numbering process -- the ratios -- are actually formless.

 

So this is a very abstract concept which is actually the process of logical inference.

 

When we talk and think we perceive sound although it's actually just electromagnetic fields in our brain -- and the same for all the other senses.

 

But all our senses are consciously acknowledged through language with the assumption of an individual self having those words in our head.

 

So if we ask where does the SOUND of the I-thought come from then we have to repeat in our head -- I-I-I-I.

 

Why I? Because the I-thought is the logical assumption of all our other thoughts -- the I-thought is the first thought upon waking up, etc. We may not think "I" but we assume it is there.

 

Similarly when we think about where sound comes from the vibrations are measured visually -- through visual perception -- but we make the measurement in TIME -- not vision.

 

So we can HEAR how the time flows just as we can hear our thoughts flow. When we repeat I-I-I then slowly the I-thought becomes concentrated into "one" thought.

 

Now we are listening to the source of sound in our heads.

 

During the study of sound there was perceived overtones and from this a law of proportions was deduced.

 

If the visual wavelength which produces the sound is twice as long then the sound is half as high in frequency -- or half as FAST in the time of vibration.

 

Then it could be heard that for the overtone that was 2:3 of the sound it could be inverted as 3:4 of the sound and both of these OVERTONES -- perceived through listening -- then RESOLVED back to their source as the original frequency as either 1 or the octave as 1:2.

 

So now it was realized that the ONE SOUND actually was made up of higher ratios -- the same sound SPLIT into overtones -- and this could be heard but could also be seen visually and measured as a ratio.

 

So then it was realized that this splitting process, logically, could be divided back into the original scale -- in other words the original splitting of sound would continue -- by NUMBERS -- to fill up the first overtone split of the octave.

 

This is called the "circle of fifths" in music theory -- but there's a problem -- when you add up the ratios as octaves -- and then you add up the ratios as fifths -- the two do not line up completely.

 

There is an overlap.

 

Now what happened in WESTERN LOGIC AND WESTERN SCIENCE is that this was considered a new discovery.

 

Instead of perceiving that the sound did not line up with the VISUAL MEASUREMENT OF THE NUMBER RATIOS the sound was CHANGED so that the VISUAL numbers DID LINE UP.

 

Think about this - when we hear an octave it sounds the same -- but there is a very slight "beat" which is not the same. When we hear the first and second overtones -- the 2:3 and the 3:4 -- the both "resolve" to the octave - and it sounds like full resolution. Again it is slightly not the same. Why is this so? What does it mean?

 

Instead of pursuing this discovery from pure logical inference of NUMBER instead science adopt the visual measurement of number as geometric distance.

 

In other words the sound harmonics were ignored and instead a VISUAL system of LOGIC was established.

 

So then we ask -- what is consciousness -- well what is time?

 

In other words if the ratios do not line up then where does sound end or begin? Does it end when we can no longer mathematically measure it? -- obviously not. But since we can not measure it should we then CHANGE THE SOUND SO THAT WE CAN MEASURE IT? That was what the WEST DID.

 

So when ever you hear Western music you are being BRAINWASHED about reality!! Western music is based on the "commutative property" of Western logic -- A x B = B x A -- even though this GOES AGAINST NATURAL RESONANCE because 2:3 is C to G while 3:4 is G to C.

 

In fact the sound keeps going -- and this is what the overtone ratios tell us -- which WE CAN HEAR.

 

There is emotion in these ratios as well and it turns out the 2:3 is YANG and the 3:4 is YIN.

 

So the FREQUENCY of SOUND changes into other types of energy -- it's no longer sound.

 

If it's ultrasound does that mean it can not be perceived as a human sensory awareness?

 

Humans CAN HEAR ultrasound -- but only INTERNALLY.

 

Well what about humans seeing light internally -- produced inside their brain? Not according to Western science.

 

But what if the sound ratios keep resonating up -- through logical inference -- into the light waves which make up consciousness.

 

But what now. Can we "measure" light -- Einstein said that spacetime as mass actually bends light. But quantum physics says the opposite -- due to the "time-frequency uncertainty principle" -- light can travel FASTER THAN TIME -- instantaneously -- it's called entanglement.

 

So in science we can not measure anything faster than light and near the speed of light mass shrinks and time slows down or vice versa.

 

But through logical inference YES we can LISTEN to consciousness directly -- as the process of complementary opposite resonance which, as abstract logic of spacetime itself, CREATES LIGHT.

 

The concept of "soundwaves" is OXYMORONIC -- it means to DEFINE SOUND AS A VISUAL SENSE.

since you bring up sound and its role in awareness...here's a brilliant article on it:

 

http://www.medhajournal.com/indic-classics...case-study.html

[Lucky7Strikes]

But what if the sound ratios keep resonating up -- through logical inference -- into the light waves which make up consciousness.

 

But what now. Can we "measure" light -- Einstein said that spacetime as mass actually bends light. But quantum physics says the opposite -- due to the "time-frequency uncertainty principle" -- light can travel FASTER THAN TIME -- instantaneously -- it's called entanglement.

 

So in science we can not measure anything faster than light and near the speed of light mass shrinks and time slows down or vice versa.

 

But through logical inference YES we can LISTEN to consciousness directly -- as the process of complementary opposite resonance which, as abstract logic of spacetime itself, CREATES LIGHT.

 

The concept of "soundwaves" is OXYMORONIC -- it means to DEFINE SOUND AS A VISUAL SENSE.

 

This is what I think,

 

Sound can create light, or rather return to its source, because sound is created by light, the two arise together.

 

For light to exist without a source, it must create a reflection of itself, which is any manifesting phenomena.

[voidisyinyang]

Well the problem with that article is the author relies on Professor emeritus Ernest McClain for his music tuning sources.

 

I've corresponded with McClain and I've read his books. McClain has some fascinating research documenting the use of music ratios as the basis for the irrational number -- the Pythagorean Theorem.

 

So 9/8 the major second interval CUBED was the first approximation for the square root of two and it is ALSO the tritone interval aka "the Devil's Interval."

 

The problem with McClain is that he doesn't question the "divide and average" mathematics of the harmonic ratios.

 

In fact the irrational ratios were established by Archytas and Eudoxus -- and then Aristoxenus codified them.

 

But TRUE PYTHAGOREAN HARMONICS do not use "divide and average" math -- instead relying on what quantum physics calls the "time-frequency uncertainty principle."

 

The mistake made by the author analyzing the Gita is understood because the "divide and average" math goes back to the origins of the Solar Dynasties -- the Freemasonic plow-based city-states. China used "divide and average" math for their music and the Pythagorean Theorem was traced to ritual geometry in India around 3,000 BCE - used for chariot wheels but established by the Brahmin priests for altar construction.

 

It was the conversion of LUNAR circular altars to the Solar square altars. This switch from the Lunar energy of the circle has been traced back to the "symbolic revolution" of 9,000 BCE by Dr. Jacques Cauvin in his book from Cambridge University Press -- "Birth of the Gods and the Origin of Agriculture." (2000)

 

since you bring up sound and its role in awareness...here's a brilliant article on it:

 

http://www.medhajournal.com/indic-classics...case-study.html

[xabir2005]

Edited January 14, 2010 by xabir2005

[voidisyinyang]

Edited January 14, 2010 by drewhempel

[xabir2005]

The experience of sound is LISTENING -- but if you REALLY listen then you can hear lightwaves and all other forms of energy which then turn into matter. Also there is a FORM to this listening -- the form of complementary opposites.

 

So the microcosmic orbit is the 12 NOTES of the music scale as the cycle of fifths -- the Perfect 5th is yang and the Perfect 4th is yin.

 

The full-lotus is the tetrahedron made up of 8 triangles, each with the form of 2:3:4 -- 2:3 is yang and 3:4 is yin.

 

The yin and yang energy points of the hands and feet, etc. are from the resonance of sound as the "infinite cycle of fifths."

 

This is the PROCESS OF AWARENESS as LISTENING -- it's not an object -- it's not "sound" itself. It is consciousness as what Buddha called the "inner ear method."

Yes, there is just the process that seamlessly interdependently originates, there is no subject and no object.

 

Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh:

 

"When we say I know the wind is blowing, we don't think that there is something blowing something else. "Wind' goes with 'blowing'. If there is no blowing, there is no wind. It is the same with knowing. Mind is the knower; the knower is mind. We are talking about knowing in relation to the wind. 'To know' is to know something. Knowing is inseparable from the wind. Wind and knowing are one. We can say, 'Wind,' and that is enough. The presence of wind indicates the presence of knowing, and the presence of the action of blowing'."

 

"..The most universal verb is the verb 'to be'': I am, you are, the mountain is, a river is. The verb 'to be' does not express the dynamic living state of the universe. To express that we must say 'become.' These two verbs can also be used as nouns: 'being", "becoming". But being what? Becoming what? 'Becoming' means 'evolving ceaselessly', and is as universal as the verb "to be." It is not possible to express the "being" of a phenomenon and its "becoming" as if the two were independent. In the case of wind, blowing is the being and the becoming...."

 

"In any phenomena, whether psychological, physiological, or physical, there is dynamic movement, life. We can say that this movement, this life, is the universal manifestation, the most commonly recognized action of knowing. We must not regard 'knowing' as something from the outside which comes to breathe life into the universe. It is the life of the universe itself. The dance and the dancer are one."

 

 

 

Thusness:

"...as a verb, as action, there can be no concept, only experience. Non-dual anatta (no-self) is the experience of subject/Object as verb, as action. There is no mind, only mental activities... ...Source as the passing phenomena... and how non-dual appearance is understood from Dependent Origination perspective."

Edited January 14, 2010 by xabir2005

[Marblehead]

There is no sound if there is no listener. But the sound wave exist none-the-less.

 

Peace & Love!

[xabir2005]

There is no sound if there is no listener. But the sound wave exist none-the-less.

 

Peace & Love!

And the listener can't be located, the listener is not a 'thing' but rather is simply the process of listening, seeing, hearing, which is really just sounds, sights, thoughts, etc. There is just manifestations.

[Marblehead]

And the listener can't be located, the listener is not a 'thing' but rather is simply the process of listening, seeing, hearing, which is really just sounds, sights, thoughts, etc. There is just manifestations.

 

Hehehe. I figured one of my Buddhist friends would hit me on that one.

 

Peace & Love!

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

And the listener can't be located, the listener is not a 'thing' but rather is simply the process of listening, seeing, hearing, which is really just sounds, sights, thoughts, etc. There is just manifestations.

This is not factual, this is mind-play.. decent mind-play, and very entertaining, but.. Life is unfolding directly through our unique and identifiable perspective, it is the relationship of this perspective with that unfolding that is the source of our 'knowing'.. remove that 'identifiable perspective', and there are no concepts, no relationships, no Human Experience, no one to 'know'...

 

Be well..

[Lucky7Strikes]

Greetings..

This is not factual, this is mind-play.. decent mind-play, and very entertaining, but.. Life is unfolding directly through our unique and identifiable perspective, it is the relationship of this perspective with that unfolding that is the source of our 'knowing'.. remove that 'identifiable perspective', and there are no concepts, no relationships, no Human Experience, no one to 'know'...

 

Be well..

 

Yes. I do not think phenomena itself is conscious either but needs a perspective.

[Marblehead]

Greetings..

This is not factual, this is mind-play.. decent mind-play, and very entertaining, but.. Life is unfolding directly through our unique and identifiable perspective, it is the relationship of this perspective with that unfolding that is the source of our 'knowing'.. remove that 'identifiable perspective', and there are no concepts, no relationships, no Human Experience, no one to 'know'...

 

Be well..

 

Hi TzuJanLi,

 

I agree, of course. I am trying to be a bit more peaceful now. I have expressed my understandings, had my arguements, disagreed where necessary.

 

I see no reason to dwell on this concept. People do exist. I am. Have been for quite some time and hope to be for a while longer. When I die there will no longer be sound for what I 'was'. 'I' am currently listening to some music that 'some one' (actually three guys) recorded some time ago.

 

The sound currently exists because there is a listener.

 

And life goes on.

 

Peace & Love!

[Lucky7Strikes]

No. What I mean is this, when I say sound, I don't mean a condition that are required for the manifestation of sound, such as air, drums, stick, ear, soundwaves, etc. Just because there are a similar frequency of soundwaves, an elephant and a human may have different experience of sound, because of a different combination of causes and conditions. An elephant may hear certain things we can't, and we may hear it differently. Hence, a soundwave cannot be equated with an experience of sound.

When I say sound, I mean precisely the experience of sound. That experience of sound is awareness, and other conditions such as air, drums, stick, person hitting the drum with stick, the ears, soundwaves, etc... are just conditions for that manifestation of awareness. Also when I say manifestation of awareness, I don't mean there is an underlying essence like Brahman which manifest forms. I mean that form/manifestation precisely is awareness.

Insentient causes and conditions cannot give rise to sentience, awareness. Simple as that. You can create all these conditions artificially, but the interaction will not BE awareness. No complex chemical reaction can give rise to life.

 

What I am saying is that Consciousness cannot be located in an object. Why? First of all, the notion that objects have inherent existence is false. What we call a body is really just points of sensations arising and vanishing according to conditions. It is not an objective entity. The whole notion of things having objective reality is just a concept, a notion, and once investigated cannot stand at all - just like the analogy of red flower having no red-ness as I explained earlier.

Good we agree here. BUt I'm gonna take this further and say that those causes and conditions are created by awareness interacting with phenomena, the mind.

 

If we negate our sensate reality as having any objectivity, you may then think that there is a pure subjective source of experience. However, what we call Awareness is simply these manifest sensate reality, and in Buddhism, unlike other religions do not posit a permanent subjective source.

What exactly have you read of all the things I wrote. Why, it seems you can' think beyond your own paradigm of "reification," "Thusness stage 5," "Brahman is sooo different from Buddhism." You've been absolutely scared away from pondering what exactly "subjectivity" is. I've said for the millionth time that subject and object dependently arise for any experience existence to come about. BOth positions of "All is subject" and "all is object" are extremes. Experience works through reflection. Moreover, the subject, the "I-ness" is not a source, not an all encompassing thing, not a locality (although it CAN be experienced as all these things) it changes in relation to the object of experience. There is just the NATURE, the relationship, the dependence of subject and object.

 

And all those sensations, all the sights, sounds, smells, thoughts, taste, they are all simply the sensations, the entire seamless sensate reality arising and vanishing moment to moment according to conditions, and are simply self-luminous and 'aware' where it is -- there is no other separate awareness apart from all these manifest sensate reality.

 

Now, an important insight is this: If awareness is simply those manifest sensate reality that arise and vanish according to conditions, this means that what we call Awareness is really not an entity, like a Self, or a Mind that witnesses/observes things, but rather is simply a point of luminous clarity. Like a sensation of objectless Being, Presence, the I AMness, is actually just a point of luminous clarity. Like the sound of bird chirping is a point of luminous clarity, It is really just a point of luminous clarity, that dependently originates and is empty. If Awareness has no self-existence and is empty, then notions of Awareness having essence, self-ness, existence, location (including 'here-ness'), is all false.

I've heard your broken record player many times and understand it. Now please listen to mine, because yours doesn't make sense. I've never said awareness has self-existence, or that it has a fixed location, or an essence. Why don't you at least try to understand what I'm saying because you clearly don't after all the these posts.

 

It is ungraspable not because the Ultimate Object cannot be the subject of observation; but rather there is really no such 'ultimate object' hiding behind anywhere. A 'someone' inside somewhere is from the very beginning a mistake. True authenticity comes when we realized that any form of 'centricity' is illusionary.

To experience the Pure Presence of Isness, 'I AMness' must completely dissolve. The Pure Presence you experienced is non-local and has no-center. It becomes an 'I AM' due to linear mode of analysis. If you have time do explore into insight meditation and the essence of 'Emptiness'

He should've just rolled a blunt. No experience is more delusional or more truer than the other. Sure, there can be happier ways to exist and sadder, but there is no such thing as illusional reality. Reality is whatever is experienced; Truth is not experience, it is the way existence works.

 

All those conditions are in themselves incapable for perceiving, the soundwaves cannot perceive just as a drum in itself cannot perceive, but are all conditions for a particular manifestation of awareness. There is no perceiver, only arising sense perceptions. That manifestation itself is awareness (that which I call 'sound'), the sound waves, ear, etc, are not, they are simply conditions. The sound is a new and different phenomena and does not 'come from' those other conditions, as Mahasi Sayadaw said:

Before a drum is beaten, its sound does not exist in the drum itself, the drumstick, or anywhere in between. Even though a sound occurs when the drum is beat, the sound does not originate from the drum or the drumstick. The physical phenomena of drum and drumstick are not transformed into a sound nor does the sound originate from anywhere in between drum and drumstick. In dependence on the drum, the drumstick, and the hitting of the drum, the sound is a completely new phenomenon each time the drum is hit. The drum and the stick are different from the sound.

It doesn't matter whether it's a new phenomena or not. First of all, dependent origination means that the cause goes both ways. To say sound dependently originates with the drum and drum stick means that the sound also causes the existence or the arising of drum and drumstick, which is stupid.

 

In the same way, before you see something or someone, seeing does not exist in the eye, in the visible form, or anywhere in between. The seeing that takes place neither originates in the eye nor in the visible form. The seeing consciousness neither originates in the eye nor in the visible forms, which are physical phenomena. It also does not originate from anywhere in between. Seeing is actually a new phenomenon that arises due to the combination of the eye, the visible form, light, and your attention. Thus, the eye and the visible form are different from the seeing. The same is true for the other senses.

YOUR ATTENTION! Where is this YOU?

 

When you say "combination of causes and conditions" you are saying that there is a set border, a boundary, a definition, to these causes and conditions. For example where does the eye end and begin, where does light end and begin, where is this attention? Causes and conditions are the quantifying of phenomena which is absolutely subjective to interpretation and experience.

 

All manifest sensate reality IS awareness. The conditions that gives rise to manifestation isn't.

 

HUH? AND AREN'T ALL MANIFESTATIONS JUST CONDITIONS UPON CONDITIONS? Where do you draw the line between condition and manifestation? There's so much inconsistency in your thinking.

 

 

Yes, there is just the process that seamlessly interdependently originates, there is no subject and no object.

There is no INHERENT, INHERENT subject and object. This is very different from saying there is NO subject and NO object.

 

LISTEN WILL YOU? Just let all those quotes and lingo go for a second. AND LISTEN. At lease try to understand.

 

 

And the listener can't be located, the listener is not a 'thing' but rather is simply the process of listening, seeing, hearing, which is really just sounds, sights, thoughts, etc. There is just manifestations.

 

OF COURSE THE LISTENER CAN"T BE LOCATED!!!!!!!!!!

 

Run around, LOOKING FOR YOUR OWN BODY!!!

Edited January 14, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Tao99]

Just like to say that this debate you all are having shows that TTB is not a "hostile environment" but a place where vigorous and invigorating debating can occur without descending into acrimony (personal insults just to hurt). So that is something very different then hostility, to be expected on a public forum, and I commend you all for it.

 

TTB is not a hostile environment - it's (for the most part) a vigorous and invigorating environment IMO.

[xabir2005]

Edited January 14, 2010 by xabir2005

[dwai]

And the listener can't be located, the listener is not a 'thing' but rather is simply the process of listening, seeing, hearing, which is really just sounds, sights, thoughts, etc. There is just manifestations.

 

That is incorrect. The sound is valid only because there is a listener. Without a Consciousness, what is the point of any of the objects?

 

Consciousness and Object/Awareness of it is not the same or not dependently originated. Consciousness exists as is, by itself.

Edited January 14, 2010 by dwai

[xabir2005]

That is incorrect. The sound is valid only because there is a listener. Without a Consciousness, what is the point of any of the objects?

 

Consciousness and Object/Awareness of it is not the same or not dependently originated. Consciousness exists as is, by itself.

What I am saying is not the same as Lucky7Strikes, I do not say 'Awareness (subject) dependently originates with objects'.

 

I do not use a subject and object paradigm at all.

 

Rather, there is just an appearance, that is vivid and empty, which means the appearance itself dependently originates. And the appearance itself is Awareness.

 

So I agree there cannot be sound without consciousness, however this statement is only partially correct since it already separate it into two conceptual categories that doesn't exist - one called sound, and one called awareness, but in reality, the sound itself IS consciousness.

 

Since you seem very inclined to Advaita, I might as well post something from an Advaita person which I and Thusness found to be profound and well written.

 

Randall Friend:

Sunday, January 10, 2010

 

There are no objects

 

Duality is imagination only. THAT there is a world of things in existence, with "you" only a small, insignificant and limited "part", is part and parcel of this dualistic equation.

 

The instant a label is applied, reality is seemingly split up. We talk about awareness, then the world arises in awareness. From that platform, awareness is apparently owned, possessed, contained, limited. It's an unresolvable paradox - why is this so? Because a "thing" cannot BE another "thing". A "thing" stands apart and IS only a thing BECAUSE it ISN'T another "thing". In asserting it's "thingness", it must stand alone in space and time.

 

So we have awareness and experience - subjective and objective - and in even calling them as such, their duality is forever solidified. Their separate reality is seemingly solid and true. Yet we're still spellbound by words, still caught in the labels, which project reality as separate. Yes?

 

What is experience? Sensation. Perception. What is awareness? Experienc-ING. Sens-ING. Perceiv-ING.

 

So here is a sensation - breathing. It's a familiar sensation. What is the relationship of the sensation called "breathing" and the awareness OF that sensation? Where is that sensation at? Where is that awareness at? Where does the sensation start and end? Where does awareness start and end? Where is the boundary or dividing line between sensation/experience and awareness?

 

Aren't "sensation" and "awareness" two words for the SAME REALITY? Two words for the same nondual reality? Two words for "what IS"? Two words which seemingly split up "what IS" into subject and object?

 

And from there, that "subject" is given a name, that "object" is given a name, and the story is woven. Separate reality is projected, imagined.

 

The word "object" is just a concept. There is no such thing. And without an object, can there be a "subject"?

 

No. There is only WHAT IS, and then that is broken up in concepts to create this imaginary story called "My Life". You're entire life is nothing but this false story, built on the shakiest of platforms.

 

You ARE this nondual reality. The "real" YOU - IS the totality.

 

Posted by Randall Friend at 7:57 AM

 

There's a post I wrote previously that I think is worth bringing up again:

 

We can talk about this in two ways:

 

All there is is awareness, in other words, everything you experience is awareness.

 

Or -

 

There is just sensations and thoughts and no other thing called awareness, in other words, since there is just sensations and thoughts, those sensations and thoughts are the only 'awareness' there is, there is no separate perceiver or awareness.

 

 

Both are the same thing. There is a danger however, in reifying Case 1) into a Brahman, something ultimate, unchanging and independent. Though if it is not reified, that is fine.

 

Case 2 is what is more commonly explained in classical Nikaya, original Buddhist texts. Even though it never talks about Awareness as the essence of all experiences, it is implied already that awareness is non-dual because there cannot be a subject/object split in anatta, there cannot be a split when all there is is sensations and aggregates.

 

 

Reification would be imputing a particular set of sensation as 'Subject' or 'Awareness' while the other set as 'Objects', but in reality, all there is is self-aware sensations and thoughts, if all there is is self-aware manifestation, in other words only sensations and aggregates, and that sensations and aggregates auto-imply awareness, why talk about awareness at all? There is absolutely no reification here, only impermanent dependently originated sensations and thoughts whether they are gross (gross waking dream sensory experience) or subtle (such as dream, astral realms, or the subtler formless I AMness experience).

 

As Greg Goode said, "once experience doesn't seem divided and once it doesn't seem like there is anything other than consciousness, then the notion of consciousness itself will gently and peacefully dissolve."

 

 

P.S. As to Lucky noticing similarities between Advaita and Buddhism in terms of non-dual, I have to say that the non-dual experience in Advaita and Buddhism is exactly the same. The only difference lies in the view, whereby Advaita makes nondual awareness into Pure Subjectivity transcending and encompassing phenomena, but Buddhism sees only vivid and empty (dependently originated) manifestations and thus which leads to subtler realisation of the Anatta and Empty nature of luminosity in Buddhism. The difference thus lies not in non-dual but in Anatta and Emptiness.

 

There is no hearer, only sounds, hearing is just sounds. No seer, only scenery, the seeing is the scenery. What you call 'awareness' is only just dependently originated phenomena, sounds, sights, thoughts, etc. Absolutely no reification here. Reification would be stating - there is an independent awareness perceiving things, or an unchanging substance, like a mirror, behind all changes. Buddhism's 'awareness has always been so' does not mean a Brahman or an ultimate subject or an ultimate perceiver, rather it means all along there never has been a perceiver, only sensations, thoughts, sounds, sights, just that.

Edited January 14, 2010 by xabir2005

[dwai]

What I am suggesting (as have all Advaitins) that Awareness is not Consciousness. Awareness is a result of Consciousness, when presented with an object. Consciousness is happy to be just itself without any object.

 

If you have read the article by Dr Puligandla I'd posted in the other thread, you'll realize that he's also saying the same thing as Randall. The point be made is that it is futile to pursue an intellectual pursuit of consciousness...because consciousness is already there. Ultimately all props, all syntax, all language, Perceptions and conceptions need to be dropped to realize this.

 

Indeed, by introduction of a categorical framework is what results in subject/object split. That is why Advaitins say that everything is Brahman, through superimposition. Brahman is not a thing...nor is it nothing. It is a not-thing...it is beyond percepts and concepts, beyond duality. Any attempt to categorize it as this or that will fail for that reason.

 

 

What I am saying is not the same as Lucky7Strikes, I do not say 'Awareness (subject) dependently originates with objects'.

 

I do not use a subject and object paradigm at all.

 

Rather, there is just an appearance, that is vivid and empty, which means the appearance itself dependently originates. And the appearance itself is Awareness.

 

So I agree there cannot be sound without consciousness, however this statement is only partially correct since it already separate it into two conceptual categories that doesn't exist - one called sound, and one called awareness, but in reality, the sound itself IS consciousness.

 

Since you seem very inclined to Advaita, I might as well post something from an Advaita person which I and Thusness found to be profound and well written.

 

Randall Friend:

Sunday, January 10, 2010

 

There are no objects

 

Duality is imagination only. THAT there is a world of things in existence, with "you" only a small, insignificant and limited "part", is part and parcel of this dualistic equation.

 

The instant a label is applied, reality is seemingly split up. We talk about awareness, then the world arises in awareness. From that platform, awareness is apparently owned, possessed, contained, limited. It's an unresolvable paradox - why is this so? Because a "thing" cannot BE another "thing". A "thing" stands apart and IS only a thing BECAUSE it ISN'T another "thing". In asserting it's "thingness", it must stand alone in space and time.

 

So we have awareness and experience - subjective and objective - and in even calling them as such, their duality is forever solidified. Their separate reality is seemingly solid and true. Yet we're still spellbound by words, still caught in the labels, which project reality as separate. Yes?

 

What is experience? Sensation. Perception. What is awareness? Experienc-ING. Sens-ING. Perceiv-ING.

 

So here is a sensation - breathing. It's a familiar sensation. What is the relationship of the sensation called "breathing" and the awareness OF that sensation? Where is that sensation at? Where is that awareness at? Where does the sensation start and end? Where does awareness start and end? Where is the boundary or dividing line between sensation/experience and awareness?

 

Aren't "sensation" and "awareness" two words for the SAME REALITY? Two words for the same nondual reality? Two words for "what IS"? Two words which seemingly split up "what IS" into subject and object?

 

And from there, that "subject" is given a name, that "object" is given a name, and the story is woven. Separate reality is projected, imagined.

 

The word "object" is just a concept. There is no such thing. And without an object, can there be a "subject"?

 

No. There is only WHAT IS, and then that is broken up in concepts to create this imaginary story called "My Life". You're entire life is nothing but this false story, built on the shakiest of platforms.

 

You ARE this nondual reality. The "real" YOU - IS the totality.

 

Posted by Randall Friend at 7:57 AM

 

There's a post I wrote previously that I think is worth bringing up again: