There is no self

[dwai]

They were not Vedic/Upanishadic gurus

 

What were they then?

[Sunya]

I have no interest in debates about history, time-lines, and philosophical conceptualities that abandon common-sense in favor of ancient 'Sages' misunderstansings of their own imaginings.. seriously, making-up stories to quell your fears of your 'self' passing into non-existence, is 'nuts' on a personal scale, but.. teaching it as 'Liberation from Suffering', to a gullible audience suffering by their own choices is a crime against Humanity..

 

As stated many times before, you clearly don't understand Buddhism. Now it is clear you have a deeply seated resentment toward the Buddha and the whole tradition of Buddhism. That's your choice, but projecting it onto others and creating an air of hostility isn't very Taoist of you. You're completely tarnishing your self-created pretension of a wise sage. Perhaps you should stick to threads that don't affect you so much emotionally.

 

Life is about Living well, with unconditional sincerity and gusto in an interactive relationship with that very same Life.. the only 'paths' are behind you, because as J Krishnamurthy so Clearly observed, 'Truth' is a pathless land..

 

Krishnamurti taught that the self was an illusion, a mere thought. He had clear realization of anatta; he also mentioned having memories of being a disciple of the Buddha in a past life. Jiddu Krishnamurti was a wonderful teacher; maybe if you read him more carefully you'll understand that Buddhism isn't a nihilistic religion at all. The teachings of no-self are not a denial of life but rather an affirmation. Life is everything, not simply limited to what is experienced here by the limited self. There is no separation between this and that. How is that denial? How is that nihilistic? It leads to openness and embracing of what is; this clarity you speak of so often is the goal. So why such hostility to a tradition which you clearly don't understand?

[nac]

What were they then?

The Buddha's original teachers were Shramana (Jain) munis who taught him extreme ascetic practices and told him that all things, from stars to rocks to winds, are endowed with self-nature and reason. Many Hindu ideas were borrowed from the old Shramana tradition.

 

All this is detailed in the Pali Canon, BTW. (Isn't it? Wait, I'm not sure.)

Edited April 16, 2010 by nac

[C T]

Greetings..

 

This place is infested with some sort of Buddhist Bacteria.. is there a vaccine or cure? I mean REALLY, aren't there Buddhist Forums where you guys/gals can pretend you don't exist? because your existence here is very noticable.. and, if you care to notice, Taoists really aren't interested in your petty squabbles or self-inflicted paranoias..

 

Be well..

Why are you being such a brat Tzu? You are behaving, for all your gusto and clarity, like a spoilt child in a public playground vainly attempting to shove out all the other kids??

 

With all your declarations and proclamations of clarity, simplicity and unpretentiousness, there are still parts of your psyche that you need to scrutinize, and after some thoughtful self-analysis, which hopefully will throw up some rather dark aspects of your personality that is so obvious to everyone else but yourself, you might actually begin to recognize a pattern in your own fallible little self. Reminds one of the story where Jesus rebuked some guy for pointing out the tiny splinter in another's eye... or something to this effect.

 

I believe even bacteria has a place and a role in the evolution of Tao... or is your brand of Tao some kind of exclusive country resort where Buddhists are vetted out of membership?!!

 

A bit of humility would go a long way towards concreting your clarity and simplicity.

 

Am i being straightforward enough here?

[dwai]

[Z3N]

[xabir2005]

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2008/01/ajahn-amaro-on-non-duality-and.html

 

 

(The following is written by Ajahn Amaro on the teachings of Non-Duality, Anatta and Emptiness by Buddha, as well as being a great description of Stages 5 & 6 of Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment)

Ancient Teachings on Nonabiding

This principle of nonabiding is also contained within the ancient

Theravada teachings. It wasn’t just Ajahn Chah’s personal insight

or the legacy of some stray Nyingmapa lama who wandered

over the mountains and fetched up in northeast Thailand 100

years ago. Right in the Pali Canon, the Buddha points directly

to this. In the Udana (the collection of “Inspired Utterances”

of the Buddha), he says:

 

There is that sphere of being where there is no earth,

no water, no fire, nor wind; no experience of infinity

of space, of infinity of consciousness, of no-thingness,

or even of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; here

there is neither this world nor another world, neither

moon nor sun; this sphere of being I call neither a coming

nor a going nor a staying still, neither a dying nor

a reappearance; it has no basis, no evolution, and no

support: it is the end of dukkha. (ud. 8.1)

 

Rigpa, nondual awareness, is the direct knowing of this. It’s

the quality of mind that knows, while abiding nowhere.

 

Another teaching from the same collection recounts the story

of a wanderer named Bahiya. He stopped the Buddha on the

street in Savatthi and said, “Venerable Sir, you are the Samana

Gotama. Your Dharma is famous throughout the land. Please

teach me that I may understand the truth.”

 

The Buddha replied, “We’re on our almsround, Bahiya. This is

not the right time.”

 

“Life is uncertain, Venerable Sir. We never know when we are

going to die; please teach me the Dharma.”

 

This dialogue repeats itself three times. Three times over, the

Buddha says the same thing, and Bahiya responds in the same

way. Finally, the Buddha says, “When a Tathagata is pressed

three times, he has to answer. Listen carefully, Bahiya, and

attend to what I say:

In the seen, there is only the seen,

in the heard, there is only the heard,

in the sensed, there is only the sensed,

in the cognized, there is only the cognized.

Thus you should see that

indeed there is no thing here;

this, Bahiya, is how you should train yourself.

Since, Bahiya, there is for you

in the seen, only the seen,

in the heard, only the heard,

in the sensed, only the sensed,

in the cognized, only the cognized,

and you see that there is no thing here,

you will therefore see that

indeed there is no thing there.

As you see that there is no thing there,

you will see that

you are therefore located neither in the world of this,

nor in the world of that,

nor in any place

betwixt the two.

This alone is the end of suffering.” (ud. 1.10)

Upon hearing these words, Bahiya was immediately enlightened.

Moments later he was killed by a runaway cow. So he was

right: life is uncertain. Later Bahiya was awarded the title of

“The Disciple Who Understood the Teaching Most Quickly.”

“Where” Does Not Apply

What does it mean to say, “There is no thing there”? It is talking

about the realm of the object; it implies that we recognize that

“the seen is merely the seen.” That’s it. There are forms, shapes,

colors, and so forth, but there is no thing there. There is no real

substance, no solidity, and no self-existent reality. All there is,

is the quality of experience itself. No more, no less. There is just

seeing, hearing, feeling, sensing, cognizing. And the mind naming

it all is also just another experience: “the space of the

Dharma hall,” “Ajahn Amaro’s voice,” “here is the thought,

‘Am I understanding this?’ Now another thought, ‘Am I not

understanding this?’”

 

There is what is seen, heard, tasted, and so on, but there is no

thing-ness, no solid, independent entity that this experience

refers to.

 

As this insight matures, not only do we realize that there is

no thing “out there,” but we also realize there is no solid thing

“in here,” no independent and fixed entity that is the experiencer.

This is talking about the realm of the subject.

 

The practice of nonabiding is a process of emptying out the

objective and subjective domains, truly seeing that both the

object and subject are intrinsically empty. If we can see that both

the subjective and objective are empty, if there’s no real “in

here” or “out there,” where could the feeling of I-ness and meness

and my-ness locate itself? As the Buddha said to Bahiya,

“You will not be able to find your self either in the world of this

[subject] or in the world of that [object] or anywhere between

the two.”

 

There is a similar and much lengthier exchange between the

Buddha and Ânanda in the Shurangama Sutra, which is a text

much referred to in the Ch’an school of the Chinese tradition.

For pages and pages the Buddha asks Ânanda, in multifarious

ways, if he can define exactly where his mind is. No matter how

hard he tries, Ânanda cannot establish it precisely. Eventually

he is forced to the conclusion that “I cannot find my mind anywhere.”

 

But the Buddha says, “Your mind does exist, though,

doesn’t it?”

 

Ânanda is finally drawn to the conclusion that “where” does

not apply.

 

Aha!

 

This is the point that these teachings on nonabiding are trying

to draw us to. The whole concept and construct of where-ness,

the act of conceiving ourselves as this individual entity living

at this spot in space and time, is a presumption. And it’s only by

frustrating our habitual judgments in this way that we’re forced

into loosening our grip.

 

This view of things pulls the plug, takes the props away, and,

above all, shakes up our standard frames of reference. This is

exactly what Ajahn Chah did with people when he asked, “If you

can’t go forward and you can’t go back and you can’t stand still,

where can you go?” He was pointing to the place of nonabiding:

the timeless, selfless quality that is independent of location.

 

Interestingly enough, some current scientific research has

also reached a comparable conclusion about the fundamental

nature of matter. In the world of quantum physics, scientists

now use such terms as “the well of being” or “the sea of potential”

to refer to the primordial level of physical reality from

which all particles and energies crystallize and into which they

subsequently dissolve. The principle of non-locality in this realm

means that the “place where something happens” cannot truly

be defined, and that a single event can have exactly simultaneous

effects in (apparently) widely separated places. Particles can

accurately be described as being smeared out over the entirety of

time and space.

 

Terms like “single place” and “separate places” are seen to

apply only as convenient fictions at certain levels of scale; at the

level of the ultimate field, the sea of quantum foam, “place” has

no real meaning. When you get down into the fine, subatomic

realm, where-ness simply does not apply. There is no there there.

Whether this principle is called nonabiding or non-locality, it’s

both interesting and noteworthy that the same principle applies

in both the physical and mental realms. For the intellectuals and

rationalists among us, this parallel is probably very comforting.

 

I first started to investigate this type of contemplation when I

was on a long retreat in our monastery and doing a lot of solitary

practice. It suddenly occurred to me that even though I might

have let go of the feeling of self—the feeling of this and that

and so on—whatever the experience of reality was, it was still

“here.” There was still here-ness. For several weeks I contemplated

the question, “Where is here?” Not using the question to

get a verbal answer, more just to illuminate and aid the abandonment

of the clinging that was present.

 

Recognizing this kind of conditioning is half the job—

recognizing that, as soon as there is a here-ness, there is a subtle

presence of a there-ness. Similarly, establishing a “this,” brings

up a “that.” As soon as we define “inside,” up pops “outside.”

It’s crucial to acknowledge such subtle feelings of grasping; it

happens so fast and at so many different layers and levels.

 

This simple act of apprehending the experience is shining the

light of wisdom onto what the heart is grasping. Once the defilements

are in the spotlight, they get a little nervous and uncomfortable.

clinging is the focus of our awareness, it can’t function properly.

In short, clinging can’t cling if there is too much wisdom around.

Clinging operates best when we are not looking. When

clinging is the focus of our awareness, it can’t function properly.

In short, clinging can’t cling if there is too much wisdom around.

Edited April 16, 2010 by xabir2005

[Marblehead]

You guys are really great!

 

There are not many people who can continuously say the same thing over and over again in so many different ways. Hehehe.

 

Actually, I just wanted to express that fact that "I" still exist. Hehehe.

 

Peace & Love!

[ralis]

You guys are really great!

 

There are not many people who can continuously say the same thing over and over again in so many different ways. Hehehe.

 

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

That is why it is called propaganda.

 

 

ralis

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

That's your choice, but projecting it onto others and creating an air of hostility isn't very Taoist of you. You're completely tarnishing your self-created pretension of a wise sage. Perhaps you should stick to threads that don't affect you so much emotionally.

LOL.. well, i hope the 'Satire' is having some effect.. The recent shift in character is not my 'true face', it is a mask of 'mirrors'.. i have deep respect for my Buddhist brothers and sisters, those i commune with daily and those i interact with in forums such as this.. it takes great strength and courage to discard one's 'self', as a means of actually realizing that same self.. but, i have no understanding of that 'path' as a 'necessary' component of realization.. As a gesture of my sincerity i wish to express a heart-felt apology for what was an intentional antagonizing of others.. my intention was to 'reflect' an exaggerated measure of the disrespect so casually being accepted as 'okay' in this forum.. i've seen other forums collapse due to this plague.. and, being honest, there was indeed an element of accuracy in my presentation, absent the theater of seething rage and exaggerated claims.. the casual acceptance of disrespect diminishes this forum's authenticity, and.. by unprejudiced observation, the disrespect is weighted heavily among the Buddhist disagreements between themselves.. even threads with no intention to Buddhist inclinations seem to be hijacked and transmorphugenerized (an onscure Buddhist principle) into another platform for discussion about Buddhist policy or Buddhist Evangelism.. and i say this with true Lovingkindness..

 

Please do not associate 'me' with 'sage', that would be unwise.. and i hope you can understand the subtle but important distinction between passion and emotion.. i walk no path, but observe many paths with sincere curiosity.. i find Taoist Philosophy, the basics, to most closely approximate my understandings of existence.. while i have a deep fondness for Taiji and QiGong, i experience them excellent methods of refining the Physical experience, which is the 'vehicle' through which Tao IS 'Tao'. It is through Meditation, that Tao is revealed 'to me', i cannot speak for others.. of course, there are great deifferencs in people's understandings of 'meditation', mine is simple.. stillness of the mind. Anything other than stillness of the mind is NOT stillness, so the mind is engaged and therefore separate, by some degree, from the actual experience.. as much as i find that 'goals' are like 'expectations', and great expectations lead to great disappointments.. i would describe my 'goal' as Clarity, from which i can engage the mind with a clear understanding of the experiences.. but, once the mind is engaged, it's 'game-on', the result of who we have evolved ourselves to 'be'..

 

So, as Taoism goes, i find myself intrigued with the incredible insights and profound clarity of the "pre-formal Taoism" resources, the I Ching, Lao Tzu, and Chuang Tzu.. incredible insights into Human Nature and its intimate relationship 'with itself' and with Life as Tao incarnate.. as Taoism progressed into formalized 'structure' it joined the ranks of so many other 'paths'.. and a 'path' is a limitation by excluding what is not that 'path', even in the 'path' that supposses itself to be all-inclusive..

 

Anyway.. my most sincere apologies, the 'Satire' will be put away.. and the 'mask' set aside.. it is neither fun nor comfortable to resort to such tools, but.. occasionally necessary..

 

Be well..

[RongzomFan]

dwai,

 

did you even read what you quoted and underlined?

Edited April 16, 2010 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

What were they then?

 

 

Shramana, as your lengthly quote says

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shramana

Edited April 16, 2010 by alwayson

[hajimesaito]

Dwai,

 

 

Alara Kalama and Udakka Ramaputta were not Brahmins or Rshis but they were Sramanas. There was always a clear distinction between Sramanas and Brahmins in ancient India. Brahmins are householder priests just like priests anywhere else on Earth. Sramanas were ascetics who left homely life to wander around and search for spiritual upliftment. Mahavira, Buddha etc were Sramanas. Also, Sramana tradition is distinct from Brahmin tradition as it had independent origin from the Indo-Aryan tradition originating from the Vedas.

 

Your claim that Alara Kalama and Udakka Ramaputta were followers of Upanishads is completely unfounded because the sutta that first mentions their names doesn't say that they followed Upanishads. In fact, no where in all the Pali Canon can be found the term "Upanishads". Buddhists were only aware of the Vedas perhaps (three of them). You can read the whole Sutta here and no where is the doctrine of these ascetics specifically associated with Brahmanism.

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.036.than.html

 

 

The only thing mentioned about them was that they belonged to Magadha country and one of them was adept in the technique of reaching the state of nothingness and the other one was adept in reaching the state of mind of neither perception nor non-perception. Considering that they were from Magadha, a place which is mentioned as a "Mlecchha" (barbaric/foreign) country in one of the Brahmanic puranas, it is very unlikely that they were either Brahmins or related to Brahmanism.

 

 

I know it is the tendency of the the priestly class of Hinduism to give credit to all the good things in this world to their own ancestors; but sometimes its too much! Why is it so difficult to believe that some non-Brahmin could have found something good when they happen to be 95% of the population?

[Sunya]

dwai,

 

did you even read what you quoted and underlined?

 

haahahahh I don't think he did

[RongzomFan]

LOL

 

The further funny thing, is I addressed this stuff on like page 11.

 

I remember talking about aesthetism and jainism.

 

And it looks like hajimesaito already addressed this in more detail early on as well

Edited April 16, 2010 by alwayson

[dwai]

Shramana, as your lengthly quote says

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shramana

 

You guys claim that The Buddha rejected the Vedic/Vedantic teachings. How exactly did he do that, if he had not learnt them? Surely "watching" someone do an esoteric practice doesn't qualify one to have genuine knowledge of that.

[RongzomFan]

You guys claim that The Buddha rejected the Vedic/Vedantic teachings. How exactly did he do that, if he had not learnt them? Surely "watching" someone do an esoteric practice doesn't qualify one to have genuine knowledge of that.

 

I never said the Buddha rejected Vedantic teaching. I have always been consistent that this is not possible, since Vedanta did not exist at the time.

 

And the quote YOU provided says the Upanishads came AFTER the Buddha.

Edited April 16, 2010 by alwayson

[dwai]

Dwai,

 

 

Alara Kalama and Udakka Ramaputta were not Brahmins or Rshis but they were Sramanas. There was always a clear distinction between Sramanas and Brahmins in ancient India. Brahmins are householder priests just like priests anywhere else on Earth. Sramanas were ascetics who left homely life to wander around and search for spiritual upliftment. Mahavira, Buddha etc were Sramanas. Also, Sramana tradition is distinct from Brahmin tradition as it had independent origin from the Indo-Aryan tradition originating from the Vedas.

 

Your claim that Alara Kalama and Udakka Ramaputta were followers of Upanishads is completely unfounded because the sutta that first mentions their names doesn't say that they followed Upanishads. In fact, no where in all the Pali Canon can be found the term "Upanishads". Buddhists were only aware of the Vedas perhaps (three of them). You can read the whole Sutta here and no where is the doctrine of these ascetics specifically associated with Brahmanism.

 

http://www.accesstoi...n.036.than.html

 

 

The only thing mentioned about them was that they belonged to Magadha country and one of them was adept in the technique of reaching the state of nothingness and the other one was adept in reaching the state of mind of neither perception nor non-perception. Considering that they were from Magadha, a place which is mentioned as a "Mlecchha" (barbaric/foreign) country in one of the Brahmanic puranas, it is very unlikely that they were either Brahmins or related to Brahmanism.

 

 

I know it is the tendency of the the priestly class of Hinduism to give credit to all the good things in this world to their own ancestors; but sometimes its too much! Why is it so difficult to believe that some non-Brahmin could have found something good when they happen to be 95% of the population?

 

 

Magadha, Anga, Vanga, etc are all well documented "Arya" lands (meaning non-mleccha) per the Mahabharata (which predates the Buddha by at 2-3 millenia). I will refrain from responding to the "Brahminical conspiracy" theory...those who know enough about the Vedic rishis would know that many of them were non-Brahmins.

 

[RongzomFan]

seriously, what is up with these mythological Vedic rishis you keep citing?

 

Do you believe all Hindu myth?

 

All such things were invented in the middle ages

Edited April 16, 2010 by alwayson

[3bob]

I see some correlations between the Buddhist commentary below and the text that follows from the Isa Upanishad; how about you?

 

"...Nagarjuna's fourfold negation of nirvana and the Tathagata does not lead to nihilism, but rather to awakening.

 

Emptiness, as employed in The Stanzas, is neither a metaphysics nor a nihilism. Nagarjuna sees it as identical with dependent arising itself. "We state that whatever is dependent arising, that is emptiness. That is dependent upon convention. That itself is the middle path." This verse of The Stanzas also links emptiness with the Buddha's middle path. In this respect, emptiness is Nagarjuna's restatement of the Buddha's practical religious wisdom regarding metaphysics and nihilism. In the Buddhist tradition, wisdom (prajna) has to do with the reorientation of subjectivity which leads to a release from attachments. Wisdom releases the person from obsession. More positively stated, the aim of wisdom is to liberate one for relating to the world in freedom. Herein lies the scholarly consensus regarding emptiness in The Stanzas. Emptiness should not be understood metaphysically. Neither should it be mistaken as a form of nihilism. Emptiness, in The Stanzas, is equivalent to the Buddhist wisdom of nonattachment..."

 

What follows is in part from the Isa Upanishad:

 

9. "Into blind darkness enter those who follow ignorance;

into even greater darkness go those who follow knowledge.

It is distinct, they say, from knowledge.

It is distinct, they say, from ignorance.

So have we heard from the wise who explained it to us.

Knowledge and ignorance, whoever knows the two together

with ignorance passes over death,

with knowledge attains immortality.

 

Into blind darkness enter those who follow non-becoming;

into greater darkness enter those who follow becoming.

It is distinct, they say, from becoming.

It is distinct, they say, from non-becoming.

So have we heard from the wise who explained it to us.

Becoming and destruction, whoever knows the two together

with destruction passes over death,

with becoming attains immortality."

 

This also sounds like a wise, and non-obsessive middle type way to me.

 

Om

Edited April 16, 2010 by 3bob

[RongzomFan]

That is above my head 3bob. You would have to examine both in their orginial languages.

 

But my personal opinion is of course some upanishads could have borrowed from buddhism.

 

dwai cited that ALL upanishads came after the buddha. Even if you do not accept that, most came after the Buddha, as is common knowledge. Some probably came after Nagarjuna.

 

You have to keep in mind, hinduism is mostly painted over Mahayana.

Edited April 16, 2010 by alwayson

[xabir2005]

You guys claim that The Buddha rejected the Vedic/Vedantic teachings. How exactly did he do that, if he had not learnt them? Surely "watching" someone do an esoteric practice doesn't qualify one to have genuine knowledge of that.

AlwaysOn is right. Buddha did not reject Vedanta since Vedanta did not exist at that time.

 

However he did reject the teachings of Sankhya (I will attach the sutta below), which existed at that time. He rejected all kinds of teachings of those days actually in multiple occasions, just so happens that Vedanta is not included becos it originated much later on. There are many sutras in which Buddha refuted each of the false views from the religions existing in his days individually, but as a general 'guideline' he explains why his teaching is unique from all the other religions and that only his tradition produces liberated beings: the basic fundamental reason is because all other teachings did not overcome the extreme views of being (Self-view, eternalism) and non-being (nihilism).

 

In particular the Buddha very clearly stated that what differentiates his doctrine from others is that only his doctrine utterly transcends all doctrines of a Self.

 

Buddha:

 

http://www.cambodianbuddhist.org/english/website/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn011.html#n8

 

....

 

2. "Bhikkhus, only here is there a recluse, only here a second recluse, only here a third recluse, only here a fourth recluse. The doctrines of others are devoid[*p.64] of recluses: that is how you should rightly roar your lion's roar.[1]

 

....

 

6. "Bhikkhus, there are these two views: the view of being and the view of non-being. Any recluses or brahmans who rely on the view of being, adopt the view of being, accept the view of being, are opposed to the view of non-being. Any recluses or brahmans who rely on the view of non-being, adopt the view of non-being, accept the view of non-being, are opposed to the view of being.[5]

 

....

 

12. "Though certain recluses and brahmans claim to propound the full understanding of all kinds of clinging... they describe the full understanding of clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, and clinging to rules and observances without describing the full understanding of clinging to a doctrine of self. They do not understand one instance... therefore they describe only the full understanding of clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, and clinging to rules and observances without describing the full understanding of clinging to a doctrine of self.[8]*

 

 

*8. This passage clearly indicates that the critical differentiating factor of the Buddha's Dhamma is its "full understanding of clinging to a doctrine of self." This means, in effect, that the Buddha alone is able to show how to overcome all views of self by developing penetration into the truth of non-self (anatta). [Go back]

If you find these words of Buddha very elitist... well unfortunately you're right, and though I agree that no religions should have monopoly over truth - it is Buddha's own personal observations and statement (and I am not putting words in his mouth, nor attempting to sow discord here as I have great appreciation for all spiritual traditions, but just simply stating the facts) that all the other teachings he witnessed in India were not leading to the same kind of insights and liberation he was teaching. The Buddha was in actual fact an elitist. As Vajrahridaya points out,

 

"Hindu's find it hard to accept that Buddhism is in fact different and has been different since the Buddha declared that it was different, and it seems that only Buddhists know this because only Buddhists understand intuitively what dependent origination actually means. Because if you actually did, you would become Buddhist. Buddhism has always been elitist. The Buddha was an elitist, arguing with all other forms of spirituality of the time and every Buddhist master from then on has been elitist."

 

 

Anyway back to topic: regarding the criticism of Sankhya by Buddha, I posted in my blog article Two Sutras (Discourses by Buddha) on the Mistaken Views of Consciousness

Second Sutra (Mulapariyaya Sutta: The Root Sequence)

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.001.than.html

 

..."He directly knows water as water... the All as the All...

 

"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because he has known that delight is the root of suffering & stress, that from coming-into-being there is birth, and that for what has come into being there is aging & death. Therefore, with the total ending, fading away, cessation, letting go, relinquishment of craving, the Tathagata has totally awakened to the unexcelled right self-awakening, I tell you."

 

That is what the Blessed One said. Displeased, the monks did not delight in the Blessed One's words.

 

Rob Burbea in Realizing the Nature of Mind:

 

One time the Buddha went to a group of monks and he basically told them not to see Awareness as The Source of all things. So this sense of there being a vast awareness and everything just appears out of that and disappears back into it, beautiful as that is, he told them that’s actually not a skillful way of viewing reality. And that is a very interesting sutta, because it’s one of the only suttas where at the end it doesn’t say the monks rejoiced in his words.

 

This group of monks didn’t want to hear that. They were quite happy with that level of insight, lovely as it was, and it said the monks did not rejoice in the Buddha’s words. (laughter) And similarly, one runs into this as a teacher, I have to say. This level is so attractive, it has so much of the flavor of something ultimate, that often times people are unbudgeable there.

 

Thanissaro Bhikkhu:

 

The Buddha taught that clinging to views is one of the four forms of clinging that tie the mind to the processes of suffering. He thus recommended that his followers relinquish their clinging, not only to views in their full-blown form as specific positions, but also in their rudimentary form as the categories & relationships that the mind reads into experience. This is a point he makes in the following discourse, which is apparently his response to a particular school of Brahmanical thought that was developing in his time — the Samkhya, or classification school.

 

This school had its beginnings in the thought of Uddalaka, a ninth-century B.C. philosopher who posited a "root": an abstract principle out of which all things emanated and which was immanent in all things. Philosophers who carried on this line of thinking offered a variety of theories, based on logic and meditative experience, about the nature of the ultimate root and about the hierarchy of the emanation. Many of their theories were recorded in the Upanishads and eventually developed into the classical Samkhya system around the time of the Buddha.

 

Although the present discourse says nothing about the background of the monks listening to it, the Commentary states that before their ordination they were brahmans, and that even after their ordination they continued to interpret the Buddha's teachings in light of their previous training, which may well have been proto-Samkhya. If this is so, then the Buddha's opening lines — "I will teach you the sequence of the root of all phenomena" — would have them prepared to hear his contribution to their line of thinking. And, in fact, the list of topics he covers reads like a Buddhist Samkhya. Paralleling the classical Samkhya, it contains 24 items, begins with the physical world (here, the four physical properties), and leads back through ever more refined & inclusive levels of being & experience, culminating with the ultimate Buddhist concept: Unbinding (nibbana). In the pattern of Samkhya thought, Unbinding would thus be the ultimate "root" or ground of being immanent in all things and out of which they all emanate.

 

However, instead of following this pattern of thinking, the Buddha attacks it at its very root: the notion of a principle in the abstract, the "in" (immanence) & "out of" (emanation) superimposed on experience. Only an uninstructed, run of the mill person, he says, would read experience in this way. In contrast, a person in training should look for a different kind of "root" — the root of suffering experienced in the present — and find it in the act of delight. Developing dispassion for that delight, the trainee can then comprehend the process of coming-into-being for what it is, drop all participation in it, and thus achieve true Awakening.

 

If the listeners present at this discourse were indeed interested in fitting Buddhist teachings into a Samkhyan mold, then it's small wonder that they were displeased — one of the few places where we read of a negative reaction to the Buddha's words. They had hoped to hear his contribution to their project, but instead they hear their whole pattern of thinking & theorizing attacked as ignorant & ill-informed. The Commentary tells us, though, they were later able to overcome their displeasure and eventually attain Awakening on listening to the discourse reported in AN 3.123.

 

Although at present we rarely think in the same terms as the Samkhya philosophers, there has long been — and still is — a common tendency to create a "Buddhist" metaphysics in which the experience of emptiness, the Unconditioned, the Dharma-body, Buddha-nature, rigpa, etc., is said to function as the ground of being from which the "All" — the entirety of our sensory & mental experience — is said to spring and to which we return when we meditate. Some people think that these theories are the inventions of scholars without any direct meditative experience, but actually they have most often originated among meditators, who label (or in the words of the discourse, "perceive") a particular meditative experience as the ultimate goal, identify with it in a subtle way (as when we are told that "we are the knowing"), and then view that level of experience as the ground of being out of which all other experience comes.

 

Any teaching that follows these lines would be subject to the same criticism that the Buddha directed against the monks who first heard this discourse.

 

p.s. With due respects to Thanissaro Bhikkhu who is a venerable from the Theravadin tradition of Buddhism, his comments on "the Dharma-body, Buddha-nature, rigpa" is not in accord with what is taught in the Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhist traditions, since in these traditions the Dharmakaya (dharma body)/Buddha Nature/Rigpa is explained as empty as well. It is however a common misunderstanding even among Buddhists.

 

Also see: Rigpa and Aggregates

 

As my friend who is an experienced Dzogchen practitioner, Vajrahridaya (who himself wrote a very good article on refuting Consciousness as 'Source' which I posted in ‘What makes Buddhism different’) said:

 

Ah, but this is not at all what Rigpa or Dharmakaya means. Rigpa is basically the consciousness of emptiness of dependent origination, so also originates dependently and is not some self supporting universal awareness. But since all aspects of the so called "universe" are inherently empty always, so Rigpa is always, only in as much as it is recognized.

 

p.s. Namdrol could clear this up, as he has access to untranslated Tibetan texts and could talk about what Rigpa means. He has said that it is not established as well. Rigpa is only inherent in the sense that all compounded things are inherently empty always. Just like the Buddhas first statement. "Mind and it's phenomena are luminous, uncompounded and free since beginningless time." Or something to that effect in maybe not that order. If someone has the quote?

 

And as Vajrahridaya pointed out:

 

One reason within it's philosophy descriptive of reality is...

 

We as Buddhists don't make real something eternal that stands on it's own, so we don't see the cosmos the same way as monism (one-ism) does. Which is why we don't consider a monist ideation of the liberated state as actually signifying "liberation." We see that a monist is still binding to a concept, a vast ego... an identity even if beyond concept or words, is still a limitation to the liberated experience of a Buddha. We see that even the liberated state is relative, though everlasting due to the everlasting realization of inter-dependent-co-emergence. We don't see any state of consciousness or realization as being one with a source of absolutely everything. We see the liberated consciousness as just the source of our own experience, even though we ourselves are also relative to everything else. The subtle difference is a difference to be considered, because it actually leads to an entirely different realization and thus cannot be equated with a monist (one-ist) view of the cosmos at all which we consider a bound view and not equal to the liberated view.

 

Also... there is the concept of the creative matrix in Buddhism and this matrix is without limit and is infinite. But it's not an eternal self standing infinite. It's an infinitude of mutually dependent finites... or "infinite finites" that persist eternally without beginning or end and without a source due to mutual, interpersonal causation you could say.

 

It's not that a Buddhist does not directly experience a unifying field of perception beyond being a perceiver that is perceiving... but, the Buddhist does not equate this even subconsciously, deep within the experiential platform of consciousness, with a source of all being. It's merely a non-substantial unity of interconnectivity, not a vast and infinite oneness that is the subject of all objects. That would not be considered liberation from the perspective of a Buddha. That would merely be a very subtle, but delusional identification with an experience that originates dependent upon seeing through phenomena, where the consciousness expands past perceived limitations. Even this consciousness that experiences this sense of connection with everything, beyond everything is also considered a phenomena and is empty of inherent, independent reality. Yet persists for as long as the realization persists, which for a Buddha is without beginning nor end.

 

This subtle difference is an important difference that makes Buddhism transcendent of monism, or "there is only" one-ism.

 

Because of this, it is a philosophy that see's through itself completely without remainder. Thus a Buddha is considered a "thus gone one" or a Tathagata.

 

Take care and have a wonderful night/day!!

Edited April 16, 2010 by xabir2005

[3bob]

That is above my head 3bob. You would have to examine both in their orginial languages.

 

But my personal opinion is of course some upanishads could have borrowed from buddhism.

 

dwai cited that ALL upanishads came after the buddha. Even if you do not accept that, most came after the Buddha, as is common knowledge. Some probably came after Nagarjuna.

 

You have to keep in mind, hinduism is mostly painted over Mahayana.

 

I dare to say (as in over-reaching?) that the "Buddha" many speak of is really described (as best as possible) in the following verse beyond just the limits of time, place and even the historic names given: (thus the particular times, places, names and forms are not really the main point of importance or as is sometimes heard in the Zen school: "miss the mark".

 

"There is monks, an unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated. If there were not that unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born - become - made - fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated, emancipation from the born - become - made - fabricated is discerned." (Nibbana Sutta, Ud 8.3)

 

Further, my interpretation of this verse is, (that) - this realizes this - and at that point and in doing so even the great raft of Buddhism has to be set down by the bank. (so to speak)

 

Om

Edited April 16, 2010 by 3bob

[RongzomFan]

Here is an interesting source of definitely NON-orientalist history

 

http://www.ambedkar.org/Tirupati/Tirupati.pdf

[dwai]

seriously, what is up with these mythological Vedic rishis you keep citing?

 

Do you believe all Hindu myth?

 

All such things were invented in the middle ages

 

Go troll somewhere else

It is one thing to argue for the sake of argument and another to try and bait someone just to elicit a negative response. If and when you decide to really get educated in Indic history, you will learn that what I have articulated here is all true. All of which I said is well accepted fact in India.