Advaita and Buddhism are the Same After All

[alchemicalwizard]

Can any of the Buddhists or more specifically Tibetan Buddhists here explain about the mantras and deity practices which are key to Vajrayana? Every modern scholar accepts that most of the current Tibetan Buddhist deities are derived from Vedic or Brahminical gods, local tribal gods, Persian influences and Bon remnants. The oldest tantra deity Heruka is the Buddhist elevation of a local Indian Tribal ghoul said to guard cemeteries. He later became Vajrapani. Similar tribal origins of Manjushri, Vajrasattva etc. are well documented. But Tibetan Buddhists chose to comfortably ignore such study and stick to metaphysical explanations for these practical aspects of current Vajrayana. There are also Taoist and Confucian elements absorbed into Buddhist tantra. And there is also the innovation and imagination of Buddhists. So, you design a bunch of practices based on mantras and deities picked from various local tribes and cultures, coat it with the philosophy of Mahayanic Sutras and claim that to be a higher teaching. How is that that people but the so-called atiyoga and anuttara yoga teachings of mandala, mantra and rituals when the path of evolution of vajrayana has been so clearly traced by scholars?

 

So do the Tibetan Buddhists still literally believe that these are actual divinities or deities, that their concorted mantras have magical effects etc.? Or their multi-cultural origin is understood and studied?

Edited May 10, 2010 by alchemicalwizard

[RongzomFan]

LOL

 

Even if this is true, you do realize that hinduism borrows from Mahayana/Vajrayana?

 

That is even more "derived"

[alchemicalwizard]

LOL

 

Even if this is true, you do realize that hinduism borrows from Mahayana/Vajrayana?

 

That is even more "derived"

 

And Mahayana/Vajrayana came from emptiness out of nowhere without deriving from anything? Lol, are you in high school? You seem to have a personal bias against Hinduism leading to repetitive arguments marked with a stark lack of skillful means. I have meant to reply to some of your lack lustre postings before but remained silent on account of a missing common ground - objective study.

 

I don't even know what you mean by Hinduism. Hinduism today is more of a culture and not a religion. Though majorly derived from Vedic Brahminism, it has elements of Pancharatra, Shaiva, Shakta, Vaishnava-Bhagavata, Jaina, Buddhist, Persian-Islamic, various local tribal influences which fit into none of the other mainstream thoughts etc. Buddhism is one of the many influences on Hinduism as we see today and possibly the least influential amongst others. On the contrary, Buddhism derives much from older Indic philosophies no matter how much the Buddhists like to claim Buddhism to be totally unique. Most Buddhist scholars in the Mahayanic Sanskrit era i.e. post Pali Sutta period were Brahmins by birth and upbringing and consciously or not, they implanted their ideas all across Mahayana and Vajrayana. So you need to be more specific when you say "Hinduism" was derived from Mahayana. Which exact element was derived from Buddhism? What is your proof for that statement. And whatever you claimed was derived from Buddhism, was it originally Buddhist to begin with or where did Buddhism derive it from - Shaivism, Brahminism, Bon, Tribal cultures?

 

So change your track for once, stop harping on Buddhism being the original form of everything on earth including Obama's butt and talk with some level of maturity.

Edited May 10, 2010 by alchemicalwizard

[C T]

Can any of the Buddhists or more specifically Tibetan Buddhists here explain about the mantras and deity practices which are key to Vajrayana? Every modern scholar accepts that most of the current Tibetan Buddhist deities are derived from Vedic or Brahminical gods, local tribal gods, Persian influences and Bon remnants. The oldest tantra deity Heruka is the Buddhist elevation of a local Indian Tribal ghoul said to guard cemeteries. He later became Vajrapani. Similar tribal origins of Manjushri, Vajrasattva etc. are well documented. But Tibetan Buddhists chose to comfortably ignore such study and stick to metaphysical explanations for these practical aspects of current Vajrayana. There are also Taoist and Confucian elements absorbed into Buddhist tantra. And there is also the innovation and imagination of Buddhists. So, you design a bunch of practices based on mantras and deities picked from various local tribes and cultures, coat it with the philosophy of Mahayanic Sutras and claim that to be a higher teaching. How is that that people but the so-called atiyoga and anuttara yoga teachings of mandala, mantra and rituals when the path of evolution of vajrayana has been so clearly traced by scholars?

 

So do the Tibetan Buddhists still literally believe that these are actual divinities or deities, that their concorted mantras have magical effects etc.? Or their multi-cultural origin is understood and studied?

Heruka - also known as Chakrasamvara, not Vajrapani. Vajrapani is another name for Vajrasattva.

 

Can you verify the source where it says Heruka is the oldest tantra deity? It would be helpful to obtain some clarity on this. Thanks.

As far as i know, Heruka is also a reference to a group of deities, and not restricted to a singular one. Of this group, the emanation as Chakrasamvara is most commonly adopted in tantric practices. Basically those whose sadhana include the practice of the union of bliss and emptiness could incorporate Heruka, significantly because 'He'(pronounced HEI) is the nature of emptiness of all phenomena or dharmas, present here and now, 'Ru', which means the wind that blows thru a channel, which is like the nature of emptiness of all beings, and 'Ka', the union of bliss and emptiness. Looking at it this way, Heruka is quite helpful to further one's specific practice, and not at all ghoulish.

 

Any practice that one adopts, be it that of mantras, visualizations, zazen, vipassana/shamatha meditations, chi gong, or even the practice of not practicing, has at its core the purpose of transformation, or transcendence, to change from one state to another. What is proliferated in Tibetan Buddhism is no different - a myriad of techniques employing all sorts of skillful means to elevate the practitioner out of misery, to whatever degree that may be. To get caught up in the probing of all the different means and forms is, i think, missing the whole point.

 

Any 'thing', viewed in the correct perspective, regardless of appearance, may be used as a source to transform one's mind, even so-called 'hideous' emanations that may present themselves to beginners, who then after years of training, will come to befriend these reflections of his/her own psyche, and eventually transform them into the more peaceful counterparts. Further to this, as the practice deepens, the practitioner eventually sees beyond both peaceful and wrathful, god and demon, high and low, in and out, all plays of opposites, leading to a state beyond fear, conflict and discrimination, one of calm-abiding, or absolute equanimity, which is buddhahood, or awakened-hood. This aim is not an exclusive Buddhist club membership thing - its attainable by anyone who is willing to see beyond their own 'small' selves, and overcome their puny prejudices and weak tendencies.

 

Much blessings.

[RongzomFan]

And whatever you claimed was derived from Buddhism, was it originally Buddhist to begin with or where did Buddhism derive it from - Shaivism, Brahminism, Bon, Tribal cultures?

 

 

You really think shaivism predates buddhism don't you?

 

Rudra in the vedas is not the same thing as the entire philosophy of shaivism, with its specific doctrines.

 

And you really think Bon existed in India to influence Vajrayana? How is that possible?

Edited May 11, 2010 by alwayson

[dwai]

And Mahayana/Vajrayana came from emptiness out of nowhere without deriving from anything? Lol, are you in high school? You seem to have a personal bias against Hinduism leading to repetitive arguments marked with a stark lack of skillful means. I have meant to reply to some of your lack lustre postings before but remained silent on account of a missing common ground - objective study.

 

I don't even know what you mean by Hinduism. Hinduism today is more of a culture and not a religion. Though majorly derived from Vedic Brahminism, it has elements of Pancharatra, Shaiva, Shakta, Vaishnava-Bhagavata, Jaina, Buddhist, Persian-Islamic, various local tribal influences which fit into none of the other mainstream thoughts etc. Buddhism is one of the many influences on Hinduism as we see today and possibly the least influential amongst others. On the contrary, Buddhism derives much from older Indic philosophies no matter how much the Buddhists like to claim Buddhism to be totally unique. Most Buddhist scholars in the Mahayanic Sanskrit era i.e. post Pali Sutta period were Brahmins by birth and upbringing and consciously or not, they implanted their ideas all across Mahayana and Vajrayana. So you need to be more specific when you say "Hinduism" was derived from Mahayana. Which exact element was derived from Buddhism? What is your proof for that statement. And whatever you claimed was derived from Buddhism, was it originally Buddhist to begin with or where did Buddhism derive it from - Shaivism, Brahminism, Bon, Tribal cultures?

 

So change your track for once, stop harping on Buddhism being the original form of everything on earth including Obama's butt and talk with some level of maturity.

 

 

always is always on... don't waste your breath...there is an old saying in hindi:

 

 

"adhjal gaghari chalkat jaaye" (the half-empty vessel makes a lot of splashing sounds)...he will come around when he grows up.

[RongzomFan]

Facts don't change...except for the fact the Bhagavad Gita's age keeps getting revised up with better knowledge of history.

[RongzomFan]

Every modern scholar accepts that most of the current Tibetan Buddhist deities are derived from Vedic or Brahminical gods, local tribal gods, Persian influences and Bon remnants.

 

 

What do you even mean by Tibetan Buddhist deities?

 

This does not even make sense.

 

Don't you realize all these Vajrayana deities like Heruka etc. were practiced in India for hundreds of years, only later being transmitted to Tibet?

[alchemicalwizard]

Heruka - also known as Chakrasamvara, not Vajrapani. Vajrapani is another name for Vajrasattva.

 

Can you verify the source where it says Heruka is the oldest tantra deity? It would be helpful to obtain some clarity on this. Thanks.

As far as i know, Heruka is also a reference to a group of deities, and not restricted to a singular one. Of this group, the emanation as Chakrasamvara is most commonly adopted in tantric practices. Basically those whose sadhana include the practice of the union of bliss and emptiness could incorporate Heruka, significantly because 'He'(pronounced HEI) is the nature of emptiness of all phenomena or dharmas, present here and now, 'Ru', which means the wind that blows thru a channel, which is like the nature of emptiness of all beings, and 'Ka', the union of bliss and emptiness. Looking at it this way, Heruka is quite helpful to further one's specific practice, and not at all ghoulish.

 

Any practice that one adopts, be it that of mantras, visualizations, zazen, vipassana/shamatha meditations, chi gong, or even the practice of not practicing, has at its core the purpose of transformation, or transcendence, to change from one state to another. What is proliferated in Tibetan Buddhism is no different - a myriad of techniques employing all sorts of skillful means to elevate the practitioner out of misery, to whatever degree that may be. To get caught up in the probing of all the different means and forms is, i think, missing the whole point.

 

Any 'thing', viewed in the correct perspective, regardless of appearance, may be used as a source to transform one's mind, even so-called 'hideous' emanations that may present themselves to beginners, who then after years of training, will come to befriend these reflections of his/her own psyche, and eventually transform them into the more peaceful counterparts. Further to this, as the practice deepens, the practitioner eventually sees beyond both peaceful and wrathful, god and demon, high and low, in and out, all plays of opposites, leading to a state beyond fear, conflict and discrimination, one of calm-abiding, or absolute equanimity, which is buddhahood, or awakened-hood. This aim is not an exclusive Buddhist club membership thing - its attainable by anyone who is willing to see beyond their own 'small' selves, and overcome their puny prejudices and weak tendencies.

 

Much blessings.

 

 

You are missing my whole point here. The question is not about the usefulness or the lack of it with respect to what you term as "skillful" means. Anything can be skillful and for someone and nothing can be for someone else. I mention Tibetan Buddhism specially because it is composed mostly of various other cultures and religions with the coating of Buddhist philosophy. But the Buddhists claim everything including their means is original and fail to accept the influences from Brahminism, Shaivism or Bon. I already pointed out that the excuse form Buddhists to explain their borrowings in on the metaphysical lines, just like yours above. If you had read that, it would have saved you some time in repeating the same again. Ok, ok, right view, different view, copied/evolved techniques, different results. I get it. Now are you going to tell me you will ignore the historical evolution of the emergence of these myriad deities and attribute all these supposedly esoteric material to the original Buddha? The following is not my own writing but reproduced with permission from a friend who has studied Buddhist and Hindu tantras through and through. Quote -

 

I have no issues with Heruka, his being a ghoul or how his ghoulish is of great metaphysical significance. Again, my point is missed. Heruka, described as an emanation of Vajrapani and identified sometimes in Sadhanamala directly with Vajrapani was initially a single deity who was staged to counter the popular Hindu tribal god Bhairava. Shubhakarasimha who is dated older to Chakrasamvara writes of a ghoul named Heruka who protects a cemetery. In fact, in Assam there is still a cemetery for Heruka that is now maintained by local villagers mentioned in Guhyasamaja as well. Like the shaivas adopted a local tribal deity bhairava, Buddhists adopted Heruka, elevating the cemetery ghoul of the local tribals, associating him Vajrapani and sometimes even appropriating and then rituals, chants and other stuff began around him. The Chakrasamvara is all about Buddhist Heruka emanating from Vajrapani to destroy the Hindu Bhairava and subjugate the Hindu gods and godesses. You can again argue and tell me that it is all about symbols and about the subjugation of anatta over atmavada etc. but who will you be kidding? It was clearly a social battle for assertion and both groups kept churning deity after deity, mantra after mantra and loads of tantras as the medieval people needed just that! And they backed it up with explanation, metaphysics, how they can serve as skillful means etc. Bhariavas then multiplied into a class of deities and so did the corresponding Herukas. Sarvabuddhasamayoga dakinijala samvara, which is much older to Laghusamvara, clearly describes Heruka as a single deity and a ghoulish spirit whose only work was to guard the cemetery and this changed with time with Chakrasamvara escalating the status of this ghoul to an emanation of Vajrapani and finally to a category of deities. Chakrasamvara even talks of Heruka adopting Bhairava's costume to attract his followers to Buddha Dharma. The social and cultural overtones here are too many to ignore and stick to metaphysical explanations just because we want to!

 

Several scholars like Robert Davidson trace the name samvara to Shambara, again a local deity of the tribals modeled after the Rigvedic shambara, an enemy of the vedic fire god and Indra. Shiva, the Hindu god was long known as situated on Mount Kailash and as his competitor, Shambara or Samvara is interestingly placed on Mount Meru with a similar retinue or Mandala. In the era (7 - 8 century) described as the Tantric Age in India by academicians, both Hindus and Buddhists churned deity after deity, to compete with each other, to attract more following as the cultural pulse of the region was ritualistic filled with magic, sorcery and immense faith in supernatural means to attain desire. Though Buddhists in the Pali Sutta period somewhat ignored this pulse (there are still references to Buddha showing magic tricks), during the Vajrayanic period, Buddhism had to incorporate all those elements into its own fold. If one sees the Sadhanas in Sadhanamala or original Sanskrit text of Guhyasamaja, there is no metaphysics unless one would want to force it. The early class of Yogini Tantras (though eighteen, no one has even all the names) deal mainly with subjugation of women, kings, foes, curing diseases, unleashing wrath on the family, village, cattle of the enemy etc. This model did change slowly but much later after much debate with the Theras and the hardcore Sutta following Mahayanists. I would expect Buddhists of all the people to examine the source and evolution of what they hold as teaching and not doing that defeats the very spirit of the original Siddhartha Gautama.Unquote

 

As for alwaysone, I would rather take a fart than waste my time in indulging with him. He makes some of the Republicans seen sensible in comparison.

Edited May 11, 2010 by alchemicalwizard

[Vajrahridaya]

In line with, and as a more grounding understanding of Madhyamika, I came across this quote from Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj:

 

"Knowing I am nothing is absolute Wisdom and Knowing that I am everything is absolute Love, and my life moves between these two..."

 

Obviously, Nisargadatta-ji was well aware of the two perspectives to interpreting the Advaita experience.

 

The goal is different. Self is relative in Buddhism and absolute in Avaita which is how one can make statements like the above and identify with it in Vedanta but not in Buddhist realization.

 

The whole paradoxical statement thing that enveloped Vedantin or Shaivite poetry is reflective of the type of insight they have, which is different from Buddhist insight.

 

In Buddhism, we see that we are connected with everything, but we don't look for oneness with everything, we see this as a high level trap wrapped in rapturous states. It is merely expansion of the sense of "I" found in transcendent states of meditation, then integrated with multiplicity and then considered the true samadhi. But this is considered a mistaken cognition according to the Buddha, even since he delineated the different Jhana states and also the 31 realms that co-inside with the different states of jhanic bliss.

 

Vedanta and Buddhism have different goals. Which is fine. You have your goal and we have ours. We think ours is superior and you consider yours the same as ours, we think this is incorrect, and you think it's correct. Oh well! This is what makes a Buddhist view different from Vedantin view.

[RongzomFan]

The following is not my own writing but reproduced with permission from a friend who has studied Buddhist and Hindu tantras through and through.

 

 

obviously the guy you quoted read The Cakrasamvara Tantra The Discourse of Sri Heruka by David Gray, but since you did not read it personally you are just acting like an ass.

 

Why not read the book for yourself and answer your own retarded questions?

 

Of course you won't do that, because like dwai, you just prefer to spew nonsense and bitch even when told to read a specific academic book.

Edited May 11, 2010 by alwayson

[alchemicalwizard]

obviously the guy you quoted read The Cakrasamvara Tantra The Discourse of Sri Heruka by David Gray, but since you did not read it personally you are just acting like an ass.

 

Why not read the book for yourself and answer your own retarded questions?

 

 

I have studied Sanskrit and Tibetan for 20+ years lol I don't have to depend on translations.

 

Like I stated earlier, I find it very difficult to communicate with someone with an IQ level as yours. Very very difficult.

 

Are you the same guy who wanted to perform Magick with Yoga?

 

http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6859

 

And your posts here are doing just that magic? Produce sense out of nonsense? I assume communication and language are not a part of your curriculum? I would have included common sense in that list but well...So what next? I know you have read some books on Khechari (which hindus copied from Buddha of course! lol) and have access to google. What else?

Edited May 11, 2010 by alchemicalwizard

[Vajrahridaya]

You really think shaivism predates buddhism don't you?

 

Rudra in the vedas is not the same thing as the entire philosophy of shaivism, with its specific doctrines.

 

And you really think Bon existed in India to influence Vajrayana? How is that possible?

 

Well, supposedly Bon was a left over from a previous Buddha which is why much of its cosmology was quite similar to Buddhist cosmology even before Vajrayana came to Tibet. Though Bon as well had many different styles of practice pre-dating Buddhist integration. But, I'm not a Bon scholar at all. My Rinpoche; Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche is though and he has written some works on this topic.

[RongzomFan]

I find it very difficult to communicate with someone with an IQ level as yours.

 

 

I apologize for having such a high IQ. It is a shame you can't raise yours.

Edited May 11, 2010 by alwayson

[Vajrahridaya]

I mention Tibetan Buddhism specially because it is composed mostly of various other cultures and religions with the coating of Buddhist philosophy.

 

Actually Buddhist Philosophy is still at it's core even if the dressings have various influences. Most teachers will tell you to understand Madhyamaka discussion of emptiness in reference to all the aspects that can be mistakenly understood as exemplifying a single supreme source to everything, like Samantabhadra for instance.

[RongzomFan]

I have studied Sanskrit and Tibetan for 20+ years lol I don't have to depend on translations.

 

 

Even if thats the case, don't you need the only SANSKRIT CRITICAL EDITION of the stuff we are talking about?

 

Dude....I am speechless.

 

Stunned really.

 

If you are such a scholar, why do you quote "a friend who has studied Buddhist and Hindu tantras through and through"?

Edited May 11, 2010 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

have access to google. What else?

 

 

You do not think I have read the book?

 

Since you read AYP forum, this link is specially for you

 

http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6032

 

The date of the thread is Jul 27 2009.

 

Conclusion: You should apologize for wasting everyone's time and for being untruthful regarding your language skills.

Edited May 11, 2010 by alwayson

[Vajrahridaya]

The goal is different. Self is relative in Buddhism and absolute in Avaita which is how one can make statements like the above and identify with it in Vedanta but not in Buddhist realization.

 

The whole paradoxical statement thing that enveloped Vedantin or Shaivite poetry is reflective of the type of insight they have, which is different from Buddhist insight.

 

In Buddhism, we see that we are connected with everything, but we don't look for oneness with everything, we see this as a high level trap wrapped in rapturous states. It is merely expansion of the sense of "I" found in transcendent states of meditation, then integrated with multiplicity and then considered the true samadhi. But this is considered a mistaken cognition according to the Buddha, even since he delineated the different Jhana states and also the 31 realms that co-inside with the different states of jhanic bliss.

 

Vedanta and Buddhism have different goals. Which is fine. You have your goal and we have ours. We think ours is superior and you consider yours the same as ours, we think this is incorrect, and you think it's correct. Oh well! This is what makes a Buddhist view different from Vedantin view.

 

Also,

 

In Buddhism, emptiness means non-static, mutability, or non-abiding nature of all things, experiences and phenomena, both conceptual and non-conceptual, both eminent and transcendent in meditation. Thus in Buddhism we say emptiness of emptiness in order to help people not identify emptiness as an Atman, or an abiding self existence. This shows that emptiness can never mean the same as Atman does in Vedanta, nor can it mean Purusha, or Brahman in experience.

 

The experience of emptiness is the result of correct cognition of the nature of experience and not the result of an absorption. Though passing through absorptions with the "right view" does increase the possibility of correct cognition of inter-dependent origination which is the same in Buddhism as saying emptiness. In Buddhism, realization is not a transcendent, non-conceptual state that transcends the senses, because in Buddhism both the transcendent non-conceptual state and the senses are equally empty of inherent existence and are both relative. In Vedanta, one is considered real while the other is considered illusion. This is only one of the reasons why both Buddhism and Vedanta are not compatible and have different goals.

 

In Buddhism, we do not surrender to an all encompassing Self that subsumes all things in it's blissful embrace. We consider this merely a transcendent meditative or contemplative state mis-identified as the absolute nature of things which leads to a long lived realm of bliss. This does not offer eternal freedom from unconscious rebirth, thus does not offer true freedom from Samsara in the long run, only for many eons. Nice goal, but not the same as the Buddhist goal. Buddhism treats phenomena with a different understanding, thus the state of liberation and the work one does afterward as a guide for other beings comes from an entirely different way of understanding and a different experience of how things work.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[RongzomFan]

Well, supposedly Bon was a left over from a previous Buddha which is why much of its cosmology was quite similar to Buddhist cosmology even before Vajrayana came to Tibet. Though Bon as well had many different styles of practice pre-dating Buddhist integration. But, I'm not a Bon scholar at all. My Rinpoche; Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche is though and he has written some works on this topic.

 

 

Even if thats true, how does it influence development of Vajrayana in India?

 

All these Vajrayana deities like Heruka etc. were practiced in India for hundreds of years, only later being transmitted to Tibet. "Tibetan" buddhism is simply the only living continuation of Indian Vajrayana.

 

Where does Bon come in?

Edited May 11, 2010 by alwayson

[3bob]

Also,

 

In Buddhism, emptiness means non-static, mutability, or non-abiding nature of all things, experiences and phenomena, both conceptual and non-conceptual, both eminent and transcendent in meditation. Thus in Buddhism we say emptiness of emptiness in order to help people not identify emptiness as an Atman, or an abiding self existence. This shows that emptiness can never mean the same as Atman does in Vedanta, nor can it mean Purusha, or Brahman in experience.

 

The experience of emptiness is the result of correct cognition of the nature of experience and not the result of an absorption. Though passing through absorptions with the "right view" does increase the possibility of correct cognition of inter-dependent origination which is the same in Buddhism as saying emptiness. In Buddhism, realization is not a transcendent, non-conceptual state that transcends the senses, because in Buddhism both the transcendent non-conceptual state and the senses are equally empty of inherent existence and are both relative. In Vedanta, one is considered real while the other is considered illusion. This is only one of the reasons why both Buddhism and Vedanta are not compatible and have different goals.

 

In Buddhism, we do not surrender to an all encompassing Self that subsumes all things in it's blissful embrace. We consider this merely a transcendent meditative or contemplative state mis-identified as the absolute nature of things which leads to a long lived realm of bliss. This does not offer eternal freedom from unconscious rebirth, thus does not offer true freedom from Samsara in the long run, only for many eons. Nice goal, but not the same as the Buddhist goal. Buddhism treats phenomena with a different understanding, thus the state of liberation and the work one does afterward as a guide for other beings comes from an entirely different way of understanding and a different experience of how things work.

 

To many assumptions above, and to many putting into boxes.

 

Om

[RyanO]

Also...

 

So what is the end-goal of Buddhism? What does it look like? Is there anything there? Is there awareness?

Edited May 11, 2010 by RyanO

[xabir2005]

So what is the end-goal of Buddhism? What does it look like? Is there anything there? Is there awareness?

Thusness:

 

On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness, Maha and Ordinariness, and Spontaneous Perfection (highly recommend to read the whole article entirely)

 

The 2 stanzas below are pivotal in leading me to the direct experience of no-self. Although they appear to convey the same stuff about anatta, meditating on these 2 stanzas can yield 2 very different experiential insights -- one on the emptiness aspect and the other, the non-dual luminosity aspect. The insights that arise from these experiences are very illuminating as they contradict so much our ordinary understanding of what awareness is.

#

 

 

There is thinking, no thinker

There is hearing, no hearer

There is seeing, no seer

 

#

 

 

In thinking, just thoughts

In hearing, just sounds

In seeing, just forms, shapes and colors.

 

...................

 

Mahasi Sayadaw teacher Daniel M. Ingram (Arhat):

 

http://www.interactivebuddha.com/arahats.shtml

 

# Arahatship designates an understanding that has the following characteristics:

 

1. The arahat has seen through the sense that there is a continuous, separate, or special controller, doer, observer, or centerpoint that is "who they are" in a very direct perceptual way that is not merely an intellectual or conceptual understanding.

2. They know the sensations that seemed to imply these to be just more sensations arising and vanishing according to conditions as they always have been.

3. This is not something they have to work to maintain, but instead is something that has stopped.

4. The arahat knows in real time and directly what is meant by such phrases and concepts as:

1. "in the thinking is only the thought, in the seeing is only the seen, etc."

2. intrinsic luminosity

3. the emptiness of phenomena

4. that Nibbana is found in Samsara

5. and a whole host of other poetic metaphors and attempts as description.

Edited May 11, 2010 by xabir2005

[RyanO]

Thusness:

 

On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness, Maha and Ordinariness, and Spontaneous Perfection (highly recommend to read the whole article entirely)

 

The 2 stanzas below are pivotal in leading me to the direct experience of no-self. Although they appear to convey the same stuff about anatta, meditating on these 2 stanzas can yield 2 very different experiential insights -- one on the emptiness aspect and the other, the non-dual luminosity aspect. The insights that arise from these experiences are very illuminating as they contradict so much our ordinary understanding of what awareness is.

#

 

 

There is thinking, no thinker

There is hearing, no hearer

There is seeing, no seer

 

#

 

 

In thinking, just thoughts

In hearing, just sounds

In seeing, just forms, shapes and colors.

 

...................

 

Mahasi Sayadaw teacher Daniel M. Ingram (Arhat):

 

http://www.interactivebuddha.com/arahats.shtml

 

# Arahatship designates an understanding that has the following characteristics:

 

1. The arahat has seen through the sense that there is a continuous, separate, or special controller, doer, observer, or centerpoint that is "who they are" in a very direct perceptual way that is not merely an intellectual or conceptual understanding.

2. They know the sensations that seemed to imply these to be just more sensations arising and vanishing according to conditions as they always have been.

3. This is not something they have to work to maintain, but instead is something that has stopped.

4. The arahat knows in real time and directly what is meant by such phrases and concepts as:

1. "in the thinking is only the thought, in the seeing is only the seen, etc."

2. intrinsic luminosity

3. the emptiness of phenomena

4. that Nibbana is found in Samsara

5. and a whole host of other poetic metaphors and attempts as description.

 

Interesting, but I was more wondering about what the final goal of reality is rather than a person's goal in this realm.

 

So when an arhat dies, is there experience? Does final nirvana have experience?

 

Some interpretations of Buddhism to me suggest annihilation, which is funny because this is an interpretation of Hell in some Christian perspectives. If there is some kind of experience, how can there be an emptiness to emptiness?

 

Obviously, I realize there is no one perspective within Buddhism (as is evident in this thread), but individual interpretations are welcome.

Edited May 11, 2010 by RyanO

[Lucky7Strikes]

Interesting, but I was more wondering about what the final goal of reality is rather than a person's goal in this realm.

 

So when an arhat dies, is there experience? Does final nirvana have experience?

 

Some interpretations of Buddhism to me suggest annihilation, which is funny because this is an interpretation of Hell in some Christian perspectives. If there is some kind of experience, how can there be an emptiness to emptiness?

 

Obviously, I realize there is no one perspective within Buddhism (as is evident in this thread), but individual interpretations are welcome.

The arhat doesn't die. He realizes that there is no one there to have died in the first place. Hence it isn't wrong to say he has "ceased to exist" or "annhilated," but not in the sense you would think. I don't fully know, this is just my interpretation.

 

The arhat's efforts most likely go to harmonizing any experience he encounters as is true to his realization, meaning, he acts according to conditions, and his condition is to be self-less, which translates into compassion (but again, not a purposeful compassion, but an effortless compassion, which are different). Think of the final stage of the ten ox hearding stages where the arhat forgets even his enlightenment and walks into the market place bare-footed because he is enlightenment itself.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Sunya]

alwayson, calm down dude. Why do you get so passionate? Too imbedded man, chill. Weren't you trying to ban yourself? Maybe you need a break..