Advaita and Buddhism are the Same After All

[ralis]

Ralis, is it sectarian to view modern physics as more complete compared to pre-Einstein physics? Why not?

 

You have this believe that all religions are the same, a flatland view. What is the basis for this belief? Why should we look at all methods as the same? Is it really that outlandish to view a particular method as more complete and aiming for a different goal than other methods? If so, why is it so negative to view that method as better?

 

If we look at the valuation systems, "better" and "worse", in terms of how pragmatic a method is in awakening wisdom and compassion within an individual... then aren't Buddhism, Taoism, and Advaita "better" than traditional Islam, Christianity, and Judaism which, though emphasizing compassion to a degree, do nothing in terms of actual wisdom? Of course there are exceptions but you can't argue that generally speaking Eastern paths are "better" than traditional Western traditions for gaining wisdom. Is it sectarian to say that? Or is just realistic given the facts?

 

 

 

You are pointing out a belief that you have. The belief is that language is the essence of thought so one must transcend language and thus thought which then leads to some non-conceptual wisdom. Unfortunately that is not realistic. Language is not the essence of thought. There are much deeper levels to mind than language. There are deeper states of mind where thoughts exist which are more symbolic, more abstract. It's hard to explain, but freedom does not come from transcending language. Language and all forms of thought must be in-sync with non-dual realization for true freedom to arise. You cannot ignore thoughts, you cannot ignore language.

 

 

I appreciate your well thought out post. I am rather busy today and when I have the time, I will respond.

 

Thanks

 

ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

In Vajrayana, in Tantra - do you have a continual process of refining and expansion of tulpas/thoughtforms?

 

Is that about right?

 

Yes! That's what the practices of generation and completion do, they work with one's subconscious imagery and color. The deity practices and mudras, contemplations with images and meaning, emotional engagement through devotion, etc. all works with the subconscious thought-forms and habit patterns of limited reference to liberate.

 

Here's some better descriptions... Generation Stage

 

Completion Stage

 

There are lots of practices that do such things as you are inquiring about within Tantra as it works directly with the energy of mind and body so also with subconscious imagery and color and imagination which becomes our reality.

[dwai]

There is a clarity that is self-discerning. It is distinguished from the conceptual mind. However this clarity does not really have an intrinsic existence.

 

It is also different than being "present", if you are present at the level of the conceptual mind.

 

Tell me something I haven't heard before...and something that you "really understand"...

What does it even mean...this "Clarity that is self-discerning but doesn't have an intrinsic existence"? It a bunch of mumbo-jumbo if you ask me. If something does-not-exist (for is that not what the part about lacking intrinsic existence means?) as a self-discerning awareness the very statement that "There IS a clarity that is self-discerning" is a paradox. I know what you are trying to convey, but I think you haven't grasped the implication of what you are saying...

[dwai]

Ralis, is it sectarian to view modern physics as more complete compared to pre-Einstein physics? Why not?

 

You have this believe that all religions are the same, a flatland view. What is the basis for this belief? Why should we look at all methods as the same? Is it really that outlandish to view a particular method as more complete and aiming for a different goal than other methods? If so, why is it so negative to view that method as better?

 

Those who seriously pursue the Non-dual or spiritual experience don't have a necessity to pass value-judgments on the qualitative properties of one method vs another. It is only those who are deeply and inextricably imprisoned by the concept of "Their Method" who tend to pass value judgments. I might say that Advaita Vedanta works best for me, given my socio-cultural framework, as a methodology, but that efficacy is relative to me as an Individual. I have absolutely no authority to pass a value judgment on the general efficacy of lack of it thereof as pertains to another system (such as Buddhism or Taoism). Similarly, you have all authority to say that Buddhism works best for YOU, but none to say that IT is the BEST for everyone.

 

 

If we look at the valuation systems, "better" and "worse", in terms of how pragmatic a method is in awakening wisdom and compassion within an individual... then aren't Buddhism, Taoism, and Advaita "better" than traditional Islam, Christianity, and Judaism which, though emphasizing compassion to a degree, do nothing in terms of actual wisdom? Of course there are exceptions but you can't argue that generally speaking Eastern paths are "better" than traditional Western traditions for gaining wisdom. Is it sectarian to say that? Or is just realistic given the facts?

 

Not necessarily. One might be inclined to say that since Eastern methods tend to focus on individualized concept of spirituality and emphasize on meditation and other ways transmute one's consciousness, they are better suited for direct experiential realization. There are traditions of pure devotion (Bhakti) in both the eastern as well as the Western context that can and do lead to similar realization. It boils down to the psychological temperament of the individual who is following any specific tradition.

 

You are pointing out a belief that you have. The belief is that language is the essence of thought so one must transcend language and thus thought which then leads to some non-conceptual wisdom. Unfortunately that is not realistic. Language is not the essence of thought. There are much deeper levels to mind than language. There are deeper states of mind where thoughts exist which are more symbolic, more abstract. It's hard to explain, but freedom does not come from transcending language. Language and all forms of thought must be in-sync with non-dual realization for true freedom to arise. You cannot ignore thoughts, you cannot ignore language.

 

Well said. But there is no way to communicate or present Non-dual realization with Language. Any effort leads to confusion and contradiction.

[voidisyinyang]

*Waits for this topic to once again explode into multiple debate threads which are dozens of pages long...*

 

yep.

[Vajrahridaya]

Tell me something I haven't heard before...and something that you "really understand"...

What does it even mean...this "Clarity that is self-discerning but doesn't have an intrinsic existence"? It a bunch of mumbo-jumbo if you ask me. If something does-not-exist (for is that not what the part about lacking intrinsic existence means?) as a self-discerning awareness the very statement that "There IS a clarity that is self-discerning" is a paradox. I know what you are trying to convey, but I think you haven't grasped the implication of what you are saying...

 

Actually intrinsic existence in this case means concrete existence, as in absolute existence, which the Hindus feel is Brahman. For Buddhist interpretation of the experience and further letting go and for final liberation, one realizes the experience within the context of dependent arising, thereby erasing any idea that the clarity is self existent. It is self discerning because it is awareness that arises with the wisdom of dependent arising.... so it discerns itself as relative to all else.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

There are traditions of pure devotion (Bhakti) in both the eastern as well as the Western context that can and do lead to similar realization.

 

 

Yes, but not the same realization.

 

 

Well said. But there is no way to communicate or present Non-dual realization with Language. Any effort leads to confusion and contradiction.

 

Not necessarily, much also depends upon the aptitude of the reader.

[Cueball]

Yes! That's what the practices of generation and completion do, they work with one's subconscious imagery and color. The deity practices and mudras, contemplations with images and meaning, emotional engagement through devotion, etc. all works with the subconscious thought-forms and habit patterns of limited reference to liberate.

 

Here's some better descriptions... Generation Stage

 

Completion Stage

 

There are lots of practices that do such things as you are inquiring about within Tantra as it works directly with the energy of mind and body so also with subconscious imagery and color and imagination which becomes our reality.

 

Thanks

[dwai]

Actually intrinsic existence in this case means concrete existence, as in absolute existence, which the Hindus feel is Brahman. For Buddhist interpretation of the experience and further letting go and for final liberation, one realizes the experience within the context of dependent arising, thereby erasing any idea that the clarity is self existent. It is self discerning because it is awareness that arises with the wisdom of dependent arising.... so it discerns itself as relative to all else.

 

you all sound alike...know what you have to say without really knowing what you are saying... Dependent Origination doesn't work at the level of Pure Consciousness because Pure Consciousness is Objectless...so it is Self-aware and "EXISTENT" (and not-dependent on anything else)

[Apech]

Actually intrinsic existence in this case means concrete existence, as in absolute existence, which the Hindus feel is Brahman. For Buddhist interpretation of the experience and further letting go and for final liberation, one realizes the experience within the context of dependent arising, thereby erasing any idea that the clarity is self existent. It is self discerning because it is awareness that arises with the wisdom of dependent arising.... so it discerns itself as relative to all else.

 

A clarity then, that is not self existent but is self-discerning (?) The clarity sees itself ... so the clarity is a thing or a state of mind? The image that comes to mind is like clear water, transparent ... limpid water ... but this may be just because you used the word clarity ... which suggests to me that it has to be clear to someone or something ... clear in what sense is I suppose my question.

 

Can you also give a source or link to this clarity idea?

 

Thanks

[dwai]

Yes, but not the same realization.

 

 

 

 

Not necessarily, much also depends upon the aptitude of the reader.

 

why don't you try and see if it doesn't. Can you describe "Emptiness" or "Nothingless" or "Shunyata"? When you employ language which is dualistic to express the Non-Dual, you will get contradiction and absurdity.

[Vajrahridaya]

why don't you try and see if it doesn't. Can you describe "Emptiness" or "Nothingless" or "Shunyata"? When you employ language which is dualistic to express the Non-Dual, you will get contradiction and absurdity.

 

Yes, I can describe emptiness, because emptiness in Buddhism is not a non-conceptual ground of being.

 

Emptiness means interdependent origination. It means non-abiding self nature. It means all things are connected and malleable. Realization of this expands the mind luminously. This is not the same experience as Brahman.

[voidisyinyang]

Yes, I can describe emptiness, because emptiness in Buddhism is not a non-conceptual ground of being.

 

Emptiness means interdependent origination. It means non-abiding self nature. It means all things are connected and malleable. Realization of this expands the mind luminously. This is not the same experience as Brahman.

 

Vaggie -- you're making the same claims about Brahman that you were making what -- last Fall?

 

haha.

 

Well I guess there are some new readers here now -- so they might want to review your past posts -- "debates", etc.

[dwai]

Yes, I can describe emptiness, because emptiness in Buddhism is not a non-conceptual ground of being.

 

Emptiness means interdependent origination. It means non-abiding self nature. It means all things are connected and malleable. Realization of this expands the mind luminously. This is not the same experience as Brahman.

 

Ooh! I just reached Non-dual realization after reading that!

 

You gotta do better than regurgitating some jargon. Express the "Non-Dual" experience....come on now, really! You have already reached Nirvana, surely you can do better for us mere mortals?

[Vajrahridaya]

Ooh! I just reached Non-dual realization after reading that!

 

You gotta do better than regurgitating some jargon. Express the "Non-Dual" experience....come on now, really! You have already reached Nirvana, surely you can do better for us mere mortals?

 

Who said I've reached Nirvana? Your sarcastic retorts at my arguments show what?

 

Yes, I've delved into practice and have experience. I've written many poems reflecting many of these experiences. Like I said... it all depends upon the aptitude of the reader really. Some peoples expressions you will have a karmic connection with and others will bounce off of your karmic wall.

 

The experience itself can only be alluded to through words. In the experience of course everything, and every word references the natural state though as well even if seemingly contradictory to it.

[Vajrahridaya]

A clarity then, that is not self existent but is self-discerning (?) The clarity sees itself ... so the clarity is a thing or a state of mind? The image that comes to mind is like clear water, transparent ... limpid water ... but this may be just because you used the word clarity ... which suggests to me that it has to be clear to someone or something ... clear in what sense is I suppose my question.

 

Can you also give a source or link to this clarity idea?

 

Thanks

 

Clear as in one sees through phenomena and oneself clearly. The light of ones mind shines unimpeded by knotted identities, even infinite identities like Brahman.

 

link... Luminous Mind

[Vajrahridaya]

Vaggie -- you're making the same claims about Brahman that you were making what -- last Fall?

 

haha.

 

Well I guess there are some new readers here now -- so they might want to review your past posts -- "debates", etc.

 

Yes, I know... The same arguments come up endlessly. Just our way of going about them changes as one evolves I suppose?

[dwai]

Who said I've reached Nirvana? Your sarcastic retorts at my arguments show what?

 

Yes, I've delved into practice and have experience. I've written many poems reflecting many of these experiences. Like I said... it all depends upon the aptitude of the reader really. Some peoples expressions you will have a karmic connection with and others will bounce off of your karmic wall.

 

The experience itself can only be alluded to through words. In the experience of course everything, and every word references the natural state though as well even if seemingly contradictory to it.

 

 

It has nothing to do with the "aptitude" and everything to do with "action". Non-Duality cannot be realized through words...only via Action (or as it may be, Doing, Not-Doing, Both Doing and Not-Doing and neither Doing, nor Not-doing).

 

Words cannot take one to that Realization...no matter what one's aptitude might be. It is true though that a seeker must have to dissolve layers of clinging (be it for the existent, the non-existent, both the existent and the non-existent and neither the existent nor the non-existent) before he/she is ready for the experience. You see what I'm getting at...it is futile to try and make an absolute truth claim (even if it says that there is No Absolute Truth)...when the only thing that matter is the Experience. After the experience, a Buddhist might call it and describe it as Alaya vijnana and Shunyata and an Advaitin might call it Brahman and the Taoist Tao (one thing though does strike a chord...Advaitins don't try to describe Brahman, accepting that Brahman is beyond language and intellect; and neither does one find that with Lao Tzu or the Earlier Upanishadic Texts...to all three, Tao, Brahman, Atman is a "Mystery" that can only be realized through experience)

 

 

[Vajrahridaya]

It has nothing to do with the "aptitude" and everything to do with "action". Non-Duality cannot be realized through words...only via Action (or as it may be, Doing, Not-Doing, Both Doing and Not-Doing and neither Doing, nor Not-doing).

 

Words are actions, and I've experienced many glimpses of non-duality through reading. But of course it's never made a constant realization unless there is active integration.

 

Words cannot take one to that Realization...no matter what one's aptitude might be.

 

I don't agree.

 

It is true though that a seeker must have to dissolve layers of clinging (be it for the existent, the non-existent, both the existent and the non-existent and neither the existent nor the non-existent) before he/she is ready for the experience. You see what I'm getting at...it is futile to try and make an absolute truth claim (even if it says that there is No Absolute Truth)...when the only thing that matter is the Experience. After the experience, a Buddhist might call it and describe it as Alaya vijnana and Shunyata and an Advaitin might call it Brahman and the Taoist Tao (one thing though does strike a chord...Advaitins don't try to describe Brahman, accepting that Brahman is beyond language and intellect; and neither does one find that with Lao Tzu or the Earlier Upanishadic Texts...to all three, Tao, Brahman, Atman is a "Mystery" that can only be realized through experience)

 

No the treatment and inner interpretation of the experience differs, even beyond the concepts, which is why the actions after of Buddhahood is clarified in the teachings of Buddhism even beyond the life in the body. Your perspective is still distinctly conditioned by Hindu monism... or "one-ism". Which considers the dropping of all concepts as the revelation of the absolute self existent truth which subsumes all else.

 

It's still Eternalism. This is contrary to the Buddha interpretation of reality.

[dwai]

Words are actions, and I've experienced many glimpses of non-duality through reading. But of course it's never made a constant realization unless there is active integration.

 

 

 

I don't agree.

 

 

 

No the treatment and inner interpretation of the experience differs, even beyond the concepts, which is why the actions after of Buddhahood is clarified in the teachings of Buddhism even beyond the life in the body. Your perspective is still distinctly conditioned by Hindu monism... or "one-ism". Which considers the dropping of all concepts as the revelation of the absolute self existent truth which subsumes all else.

 

It's still Eternalism. This is contrary to the Buddha interpretation of reality.

 

How is a infinite endless streams of interconnected consciousness different from one infinite endless pool of consciousness. Surely if the streams are infinite then they are nothing but an infinite pool. And if the Pool is infinite then it is nothing but a collect of infinite streams...

[JustARandomPanda]

Actually intrinsic existence in this case means concrete existence, as in absolute existence, which the Hindus feel is Brahman. For Buddhist interpretation of the experience and further letting go and for final liberation, one realizes the experience within the context of dependent arising, thereby erasing any idea that the clarity is self existent. It is self discerning because it is awareness that arises with the wisdom of dependent arising.... so it discerns itself as relative to all else.

 

Vajrahridaya,

 

I have a question. I am wondering what exactly is it that realizing / experiencing / actualizing (take your pick) of Dependent Origination leads to liberation. I mean...why THAT? Why THAT and not something else? I guess I'm wondering where is it that seeing relative self/DO is THE tool / vision / experience or whatever that gets you to the goal. Could it not be just one of many rungs on the ladder? I guess I'm wondering if there's anything further beyond Thusness's Stage 5 or the Buddha's Enlightenment?

 

I know everyone keeps harping how logic doesn't get you to see or experience the Truth (whatever that is) but right now it's all I have to go on. I'm not one of these wonderfully accomplished meditators so logic or step-by-step methods are what I have to rely on. Is there any way it can be explained logically? Or is it all really just - throw you hands up and admit this is not something people with little to no meditation success will ever "get"?

[Sunya]

I might say that Advaita Vedanta works best for me, given my socio-cultural framework, as a methodology, but that efficacy is relative to me as an Individual. I have absolutely no authority to pass a value judgment on the general efficacy of lack of it thereof as pertains to another system (such as Buddhism or Taoism). Similarly, you have all authority to say that Buddhism works best for YOU, but none to say that IT is the BEST for everyone.

 

It boils down to the psychological temperament of the individual who is following any specific tradition.

 

So, if somebody has a certain illness you're saying there isn't one best way to treat them? I'm sure singing in the rain and juggling oranges will cure someone somewhere of depression but that doesn't mean that is equally as good of a method as say self-inquiry, which is generally a great method of seeing through the self. I'm generalizing here. I'm sure some depressed fellow out there just needs a good juggle to feel happy.

 

This is the problem with radical nondual teachings. You're so stuck on the absolute level that you can't see that the relative is extremely important. How can you really say that that general valuations are impossible to make? How can all religions possibly have the same valuation? I'm not doubting that each religion has had some highly realized beings but generally speaking Eastern traditions have produced SO MANY more realized beings.

 

It's like saying all universities are the same because they all focus on education... Well, yeah that's true but I'd much rather get an education from Princeton or Chicago than Bumblefuck Community College. I'm sure some lucky fellow that goes to the latter will come out quite education but statistically speaking good institutions produce smart people. It's simple cause and effect which is something radical nondual traditions deny because how can you have change and differentiation when everything is One?

 

 

Vajrahridaya,

 

I have a question. I am wondering what exactly is it that realizing / experiencing / actualizing (take your pick) of Dependent Origination leads to liberation. I mean...why THAT? Why THAT and not something else? I guess I'm wondering where is it that seeing relative self/DO is THE tool / vision / experience or whatever that gets you to the goal. Could it not be just one of many rungs on the ladder? I guess I'm wondering if there's anything further beyond Thusness's Stage 5 or the Buddha's Enlightenment?

 

I know everyone keeps harping how logic doesn't get you to see or experience the Truth (whatever that is) but right now it's all I have to go on. I'm not one of these wonderfully accomplished meditators so logic or step-by-step methods are what I have to rely on. Is there any way it can be explained logically? Or is it all really just - throw you hands up and admit this is not something people with little to no meditation success will ever "get"?

 

I think you mean Thusness's Stage 7 which is realizing that all phenomena, including self, are interdependently arising with no cause, no source. This is basically the most refined view that you can have without getting stuck in concepts. The goal of Buddhism is non-conceptual wisdom, to see reality as it is, while also having a sync between that non-conceptual wisdom and conceptual intellect. The way you do that is through understanding dependent origination. It is a deconceptualizing method that leads to a sync between the conceptual and the non-conceptual. The nonconceptual is beyond language, of course, but it can be pointed to through DO. The reason why DO is the best pointing is because it doesn't posit an ultimate source nor an ultimate One background, both of which are conceptual barriers. All that DO does is point to reality as it is before you but without any fantasies of "Everything is one." One is a concept that depends on the previous memory of two. Without two, there is no one. Without no 'one' there is just phenomena appearing as sound, sight, thought, feelings, all of various degree. These appearances are not inside nor outside, they simply are. Self is just an appearance too. So there are only appearances and they arise dependent on various conditions. There is nothing behind appearances. Appearances themselves are divine. There is no container of appearances, no ultimate source, no ultimate anything. There is simply this moment which is whatever is arising at that moment which arises due to conditions set in motion by previous appearances. The appearances of this moment only arise due to the conditions created by the appearances of the previous moment, and so on backwards to infinity. That is all that DO means. Now if you're inquisitive you can analyze your experience and see if it's any different. That's the point. Nobody is saying "believe this!" That's dumb. You gotta investigate your own phenomenological experience. In my experience Buddhism is the most accurate at describing how reality is without mental fantasies and beliefs. DO, the way I explained it, is the way my experience is. I'm not enlightened since I'm still caught in habitual delusions most of the time.. but if I have clarity then I see it cannot be any other way. I suck at meditating too btw. It's not hard to see this though. Just be honest and investigate your experience. Is there anything except appearances?

Edited May 17, 2010 by mikaelz

[xabir2005]

So, if somebody has a certain illness you're saying there isn't one best way to treat them? I'm sure singing in the rain and juggling oranges will cure someone somewhere of depression but that doesn't mean that is equally as good of a method as say self-inquiry, which is generally a great method of seeing through the self. I'm generalizing here. I'm sure some depressed fellow out there just needs a good juggle to feel happy.

 

This is the problem with radical nondual teachings. You're so stuck on the absolute level that you can't see that the relative is extremely important. How can you really say that that general valuations are impossible to make? How can all religions possibly have the same valuation? I'm not doubting that each religion has had some highly realized beings but generally speaking Eastern traditions have produced SO MANY more realized beings.

 

It's like saying all universities are the same because they all focus on education... Well, yeah that's true but I'd much rather get an education from Princeton or Chicago than Bumblefuck Community College. I'm sure some lucky fellow that goes to the latter will come out quite education but statistically speaking good institutions produce smart people. It's simple cause and effect which is something radical nondual traditions deny because how can you have change and differentiation when everything is One?

 

 

 

 

I think you mean Thusness's Stage 7 which is realizing that all phenomena, including self, are interdependently arising with no cause, no source. This is basically the most refined view that you can have without getting stuck in concepts. The goal of Buddhism is non-conceptual wisdom, to see reality as it is, while also having a sync between that non-conceptual wisdom and conceptual intellect. The way you do that is through understanding dependent origination. It is a deconceptualizing method that leads to a sync between the conceptual and the non-conceptual. The nonconceptual is beyond language, of course, but it can be pointed to through DO. The reason why DO is the best pointing is because it doesn't posit an ultimate source nor an ultimate One background, both of which are conceptual barriers. All that DO does is point to reality as it is before you but without any fantasies of "Everything is one." One is a concept that depends on the previous memory of two. Without two, there is no one. Without no 'one' there is just phenomena appearing as sound, sight, thought, feelings, all of various degree. These appearances are not inside nor outside, they simply are. Self is just an appearance too. So there are only appearances and they arise dependent on various conditions. There is nothing behind appearances. Appearances themselves are divine. There is no container of appearances, no ultimate source, no ultimate anything. There is simply this moment and whatever is arising at that moment. That is all that DO means. Now if you're inquisitive you can analyze your experience and see if it's any different. That's the point. Nobody is saying "believe this!" That's dumb. You gotta investigate your own phenomenological experience. In my experience Buddhism is the most accurate at describing how reality is without mental fantasies and beliefs. DO, the way I explained it, is the way my experience is. I'm not enlightened since I'm still caught in habitual delusions most of the time.. but if I have clarity then I see it cannot be any other way. I suck at meditating too btw. It's quite simply to see this though. Just be honest and investigate your experience. Is there anything except appearances?

D.O. is Stage 6

 

Stage 1~2: I AM/Eternal Witness

Stage 3: Entering Nothingness (like a samadhi of oblivion to dissolve self)

Stage 4: Non Dual, One Mind

Stage 5: Anatta & No Mind

Stage 6: Emptiness (Dependent Origination)

Stage 7: Spontaneous Perfection and Non-Meditation

 

 

Some people think they are at Stage 7 without going through the previous insights. They think they can 'skip stage', but actually they are really not there yet. Stage 7 requires deep insight of anatta and D.O. for true effortlessness and non-meditation to arise, otherwise tendencies to view 'inherently' and 'dualistically' will continue to arise, there will not be true effortlessness.

 

In Mahamudra, there are four yogas which are stages like the bodhisattva bhumis (One-Pointedness, Simplicity, One Taste and Non-Meditation), and furthermore there are three degrees of each of the yogas, e.g. there is lower, medium and higher Non-Meditation, the highest of which is equivalent to Buddhahood, also known as anuttarasamyaksambodhi, also known as "Unexcelled perfect enlightenment". But you can't just skip from 'one pointendess' to 'non-meditation' (unless you are some beings like Padmasambhava, idk).

 

When Anatta and Emptiness is seen everywhere, aka 'Spontaneous Perfection', one enters into effortlessness non-meditation. His phase 7 is the effortlessness due to the above reason, however it may be different from the Mahamudra 4 Yogas.

Edited May 17, 2010 by xabir2005

[Apech]

Clear as in one sees through phenomena and oneself clearly. The light of ones mind shines unimpeded by knotted identities, even infinite identities like Brahman.

 

link... Luminous Mind

 

You see I think there may be a problem here and that is just the need to talk about yourself in the third person as if this means that there is no person there.

 

I think (yes, I, me) that the word clarity implies that something is clear to somebody, otherwise what does clarity signify, why can't it be opacity or ... something.

 

One seeing through oneself is also an interesting idea, since I suppose it implies that one sees through the illusion of one's self - since this is Buddha-speak.

 

Just to make it clear I have no problem with Dzogchen or dependent origination ... but I do have a problem with the kind of contorted formulations it comes up with in order to express the inexpressible. Better in my view to start by saying that the 'it' that can be spoken about is not the real 'it' ... and then start to talk about the implications of the 'its' and the 'not-its' and how the dual arises from the non-dual ... oh hang on ... someone has already done that ... hey I'm a Taoist after all.

[xabir2005]

Vajrahridaya,

 

I have a question. I am wondering what exactly is it that realizing / experiencing / actualizing (take your pick) of Dependent Origination leads to liberation. I mean...why THAT? Why THAT and not something else? I guess I'm wondering where is it that seeing relative self/DO is THE tool / vision / experience or whatever that gets you to the goal. Could it not be just one of many rungs on the ladder? I guess I'm wondering if there's anything further beyond Thusness's Stage 5 or the Buddha's Enlightenment?

 

I know everyone keeps harping how logic doesn't get you to see or experience the Truth (whatever that is) but right now it's all I have to go on. I'm not one of these wonderfully accomplished meditators so logic or step-by-step methods are what I have to rely on. Is there any way it can be explained logically? Or is it all really just - throw you hands up and admit this is not something people with little to no meditation success will ever "get"?

Hi SereneBlue,

 

Just want to make some points.

 

It is not that things cannot be explained logically or step-by-step. It can, and that is what Buddha's teachings are all about. Even though Buddha's insights on the nature of reality and liberation is not derived through conceptual analysis, logic, etc.. all his teachings are skillful means to lead a practitioner to the right understanding and the path towards the direct experience of liberation.

 

Contemplating on Dependent Origination is the means to realise emptiness and see through the sense of self and solidity, which leads to/is the direct experience of what liberation is.

 

Just to see through the sense of self and individuality one begins to experience thoughts in a not so solid manner (rather than grasping onto the stories like they are 'me' or 'mine', they are experienced like wind passing, nothing solid), and just that alone one begins to feel more freedom and clarity and expansion. But liberation goes further than that.

 

There are many levels of liberation that is described. Some sees "I AM" as liberation. Some sees non-dual and oneness as liberation. But in Buddhism one must factor in emptiness as well and this leads to an even deeper level of freedom, so liberation is in the direct insight and experience of the union of luminosity and emptiness.

 

Through insight practices, we will experience what freedom is, not logically or conceptually.. but through cycles after cycles of deep contemplation, investigation and practice, one clearly sees 'liberation' as it is. In direct experience.. if you see through the clinging to a self, to something solid... you will feel the sensation, the expansion, the openness, the non-solidity, the non-self, the dancing sensations, the aliveness, the obviousness, of everything. It is not deriving anything logically... it is the direct experience of what liberation is.

 

In Buddhism, all practices are centered on luminosity and emptiness, be it Vipassana, or Dzogchen, or any systems of insight practices: it is the same in this regard. They all lead to the direct experience of liberation and direct realisation of the nature of reality. Even these teachings are practices are skillful means, but they are necessary. The Buddha clearly saw the cause of suffering and prescribed the right medicine.

Edited May 17, 2010 by xabir2005