A question for Vaj the Buddhist

[3bob]

The difference between Buddhist non-dual and Hindu non-dual is subtler than the intellect. What the Buddha is saying is that basically the bondage of Samsara or karmic seeds exist in a formless state beyond the intellect, or beyond concepts, while the Hindu school takes this state of the non-appearance of karmas as the source of all being. It's really just the source of an individuals samsaric experience even though it seems to be completely non-dual, it's really just either the repressed state of particulars through samadhi focus, or the unexpressed state of particulars due to the fact of no secondary conditions for the seeds of karmas to be expressed out of this formless storehouse. So, Buddhist non-duality through the insight of inter-dependent origination does go deeper than the Theist, or Monist experiential excuse for non-dualism.

 

Excuse me, imo that's one hell of a double-talk projection which does not fly when either a "Buddhist" a "Hindu" or anyone else for that matter attains non-dualism of the 8th Jhana. Further, If you want to mix in the Buddha pointing to the "beyond of the beyond" using Buddhist terminolgy then that is one of your "particulars" or conditions and is thus understandable from that frame of reference... even though you nor anyone else can really fit such into a even the biggest of boxes.

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

If one achieves the perception of non-duality, does it matter wht path they took to arrive at it?

 

Hindu, buddhist, taoist, christian, or non-religious. i've met people who have reached a non-dualistic point of view and you know what they say?

 

 

 

"It doesnt matter!"

 

 

Because once you've attained that point of view, you can see how one can arrive at that point from ANY path, as they are all one "place", "being", "thing", or "isness".

 

Does it matter if you're a particle on the left or right side of the heads or tails side of a coin?

[Sunya]

If one achieves the perception of non-duality, does it matter wht path they took to arrive at it?

 

Yes and no. If your goal is Oneness then it doesn't matter because all paths aim to dissolve the personal self in one way or another. If your aim is to go beyond Oneness and let go of the subtle conceptual attachment that leads to that state, then you have to contemplate the interdependent nature of phenomena and let go of the yearning to dissolve into a non-phenomenal void.

Edited June 29, 2010 by mikaelz

[Vajrahridaya]

Excuse me, imo that's one hell of a double-talk projection which does not fly when either a "Buddhist" a "Hindu" or anyone else for that matter attains non-dualism of the 8th Jhana.

 

The 8th Jhana was considered by the Buddha a formless receptacle for the deepest seeds of a persons samsaric experience and is not the non-dual state of vajra-samadhi which is the perfect state of Atiyoga or Dzogpa Chenpo and is not a meditation samadhi. The 8th Jhana is basically the experience of the Alaya Vijnana or receptacle consciousness. Brahma paths mistake this state, the deepest state of meditation for the unifying substratum of all and integrating all experience with this state is considered the realization of the non-dual. Thus, liberation in Buddhism is not a meditation samadhi, and the non-dual state of perfect liberation is not a state of absorption and integration of absorption. Buddhism is a cutting through non-dualism where one realizes the empty but luminous nature of mind and everything, and not a non-dualism where one identifies with everything equally in a homogenous way.

 

Like I said, these differences are to be experienced directly and not merely intellectualized about. Since I have experience in both, I do understand directly the difference and the ramifications of these differences.

[Vajrahridaya]

If one achieves the perception of non-duality, does it matter wht path they took to arrive at it?

 

Hindu, buddhist, taoist, christian, or non-religious. i've met people who have reached a non-dualistic point of view and you know what they say?

 

 

 

"It doesnt matter!"

 

 

Because once you've attained that point of view, you can see how one can arrive at that point from ANY path, as they are all one "place", "being", "thing", or "isness".

 

Does it matter if you're a particle on the left or right side of the heads or tails side of a coin?

 

In Buddhism, liberation is an insight. The non-dual experience is not an insight. If interdependent origination is not contemplated as Michaelz said, one merely has a high state of blissful consciousness, but knowledge obscurations and the seeds for re-becoming are not necessarily burnt in the insight of emptiness yet, thus full liberation is not realized.

Edited June 29, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[3bob]

The 8th Jhana was considered by the Buddha a formless receptacle for the deepest seeds of a persons samsaric experience and is not the non-dual state of vajra-samadhi which is the perfect state of Atiyoga or Dzogpa Chenpo and is not a meditation samadhi. The 8th Jhana is basically the experience of the Alaya Vijnana or receptacle consciousness. Brahma paths mistake this state, the deepest state of meditation for the unifying substratum of all and integrating all experience with this state is considered the realization of the non-dual. Thus, liberation in Buddhism is not a meditation samadhi, and the non-dual state of perfect liberation is not a state of absorption and integration of absorption. Buddhism is a cutting through non-dualism where one realizes the empty but luminous nature of mind and everything, and not a non-dualism where one identifies with everything equally in a homogenous way.

 

Like I said, these differences are to be experienced directly and not merely intellectualized about. Since I have experience in both, I do understand directly the difference and the ramifications of these differences.

 

See, you are skipping ahead to the "beyond of the beyond"... (as the Buddha is witnessed and or quoted in sutta) while I was not trying to conceptualize there. Thus you deny 8th Jhana non-dualism from a "beyond of the beyond" reference or definition which does not apply to it. Mikalez seems to partly get it although he apparently adds a twist of his own? Some forms of Hinduism that I've studied are along the lines of you call, "meditation samadhi" but there again you are putting or limiting all of "Hinduism" to those particular boxes which is not the whole story. (so to speak)

 

Om

[Vajrahridaya]

See, you are skipping ahead to the "beyond of the beyond"... (as the Buddha is witnessed and or quoted in sutta) while I was not trying to conceptualize there. Thus you deny 8th Jhana non-dualism from a "beyond of the beyond" reference or definition which does not apply to it. Mikalez seems to partly get it although he apparently adds a twist of his own? Some forms of Hinduism that I've studied are along the lines of you call, "meditation samadhi" but there again you are putting or limiting all of "Hinduism" to those particular boxes which is not the whole story. (so to speak)

 

Om

 

Are you talking about "neither perception nor non-perception"? This is the 8th Jhana. There are different non-dual states. All the formless states are of oneness with no sense of duality. So there are four meditative absorptions that seem to be without duality while in them.

 

Infinite space, infinite consciousness, infinite nothingness, and neither perception nor non-perception.

 

I'm very familiar with all the forms of Hinduism, as there really isn't one. I practiced very intensely Advaita Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism reading all their texts. Vedanta and all forms of non-dual Hinduism identify the transcendent and formless samadhi's of one sort or another as the platform for all of existence. The Alpha and the Omega. If you read Vasisthas Yoga it summarizes all the major schools of Hinduism as well and does not teach the same teaching or cosmology of Buddhism as they are all schools that believe in a divine transcendent that is the one of all, that the all is one with.

[voidisyinyang]

Travel with Buddha to the edge of the Universe and beyond!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGi8xJkw138&feature=related

[voidisyinyang]

Into Tibet is the incredible story of a 1949-1950 American undercover expedition led by America's first atomic agent, Douglas S. Mackiernan–a covert attempt to arm the Tibetans and to recognize Tibet's independence months before China invaded.

 

Chinese spies in Lhasa followed his every move. Six weeks after he left Tibet, with the governments' official written request for covert military aid in hand, that document was encrypted and transmitted back to Washington where it landed on the desk of Dean Rusk, at the State Department. Weeks later the CIA began to air drop small amounts of military aid into Tibet. Weeks after that China invaded, claiming it did so to halt 'Imperialist Plots'. America publicly denied any covert US involvement as 'Communist Propaganda'. Tibet had to lie about these events, to protect America.

 

http://www.intotibet.info/aboutthebook.html

 

Oops China was stopping CIA imperialism when it invaded Tibet?!

 

Into Tibet, demonstrates that Mackiernan and the CIA were deeply involved in atomic intelligence in Inner Asia in the 1940's; that the US dropped weapons into Tibet just before the Chinese invasion; that three CIA agents worked in Lhasa in 1950, and that the CIA has hidden all of this ever since. Though Mackiernan's work was valuable to the US it was a kiss of death for the Tibetans, which is one reason the CIA has tried to hide this chapter of American history. It is important to note that the CIA and Mackiernan helped to precipitate— they did not cause—but they helped to precipitate the Chinese invasion of Tibet in 1950. Both CIA and Chinese Embassy officials in the US have taken a 'shoot-the-messenger' approach. toward Into Tibet: they have worked to smear it since its publication. One CIA officer planted reviews on Amazon.com. Chinese Embassy officials attempted to block national television broadcast of an interview with Laird saying that the book was “all lies”.

Edited June 30, 2010 by drewhempel

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

Yes and no. If your goal is Oneness then it doesn't matter because all paths aim to dissolve the personal self in one way or another. If your aim is to go beyond Oneness and let go of the subtle conceptual attachment that leads to that state, then you have to contemplate the interdependent nature of phenomena and let go of the yearning to dissolve into a non-phenomenal void.

 

 

What of both, dissolving into the whole, and not dissolving at all, but becoming one with the whole and self; both dualistic and non-dualistic, yet neither one nor the other?

 

 

To dissolve into oneness, while being a part of the interdependent nature of it all?

[3bob]

Are you talking about "neither perception nor non-perception"? This is the 8th Jhana. There are different non-dual states. All the formless states are of oneness with no sense of duality. So there are four meditative absorptions that seem to be without duality while in them.

 

Infinite space, infinite consciousness, infinite nothingness, and neither perception nor non-perception.

 

I'm very familiar with all the forms of Hinduism, as there really isn't one. I practiced very intensely Advaita Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism reading all their texts. Vedanta and all forms of non-dual Hinduism identify the transcendent and formless samadhi's of one sort or another as the platform for all of existence. The Alpha and the Omega. If you read Vasisthas Yoga it summarizes all the major schools of Hinduism as well and does not teach the same teaching or cosmology of Buddhism as they are all schools that believe in a divine transcendent that is the one of all, that the all is one with.

 

Hello Vaj,

 

The 8th Jhana, thus before (the attainment of) the "Beyond of the beyond" as spoken of in Buddhist Sutras.

 

Also, if you are only or mainly referring to various beliefs in Hinduism, Buddhism or any other schools then we could pick and poke at such forever... The great bliss of an apparent two-ness attaining non-dual oneness/samadhi is not at the end of all "Hindu" teachings which you seem to constantly imply in your texts? Anyway, I'm no expert and I've done enough picking and poking for awhile. Good day.

 

Om

[Vajrahridaya]

Hello Vaj,

 

The 8th Jhana, thus before (the attainment of) the "Beyond of the beyond" as spoken of in Buddhist Sutras.

 

Also, if you are only or mainly referring to various beliefs in Hinduism, Buddhism or any other schools then we could pick and poke at such forever... The great bliss of an apparent two-ness attaining non-dual oneness/samadhi is not at the end of all "Hindu" teachings which you seem to constantly imply in your texts? Anyway, I'm no expert and I've done enough picking and poking for awhile. Good day.

 

Om

 

It's generally agreed upon in Hindu Tantra that Sahaja Samadhi is the culmination where there is nothing but Shiva from form to formless. Sahaja means spontaneous. So it basically means continuous samadhi where ones entire life is absorbed into the formless absolute. So all karmas become a reflection of this realization.

Edited June 30, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[gendao]

pratītya-samutpāda (Skt; Pāli, paṭicca-samuppāda). The doctrine of Dependent Origination, a fundamental Buddhist teaching on causation and the ontological status of phenomena. The doctrine teaches that all phenomena arise in dependence on causes and conditions and lack intrinsic being. The doctrine is expressed in its simplest form in the phrase ‘idaṃ sati ayaṃ bhavati’ (Skt., when this exists, that arises), which can be expressed in the logical form A → B (when condition A exists, effect B arises), or as its negation −A → −B (where condition A does not exist, effect B does not arise). The important corollary of this teaching is that there is nothing that comes into being through its own power or volition, and there are therefore no entities or metaphysical realities such as God or a soul, (ātman) that transcend the causal nexus. In this respect the doctrine dovetails with the teaching of no self (anātman). Early sources indicate that the Buddha became enlightened under the Bodhi Tree when he fully realized the profound truth of Dependent Origination, namely that all phenomena are conditioned (saṃskṛta) and arise and cease in a determinate series.

 

Yes, it's imponderable, because one cannot find a beginning. This is basically what he's saying. It's imponderable to even find a beginning because of the fact of infinite regress.

Isn't this sort of like the theory of evolution though? It shows how things change - but doesn't really address how they originally started?

 

If everything is dependent - and "stuff" exists now - then doesn't that mean some "stuff" must have always existed for that to be possible? Otherwise, if there was nothing ever to begin with, then there only be nothing now (−A → −B ).

 

I mean, if effect B only arises when condition A exists...then how did condition A arise? At some point using this logic, musn't there have been a "first arisal" with no precedent condition? Where does the buck stop, so to speak?

 

Or how can anyone know if the buck ever stopped, or not? Or are we just gonna pull the "infinite regression" card here? That existence is a linked chain of infinite length with no beginning or end?

Edited July 2, 2010 by vortex

[Sunya]

Isn't this sort of like the theory of evolution though? It shows how things change - but doesn't really address how they originally started?

 

If everything is dependent - and "stuff" exists now - then doesn't that mean some "stuff" must have always existed for that to be possible? Otherwise, if there was nothing ever to begin with, then there only be nothing now (−A → −B ).

 

I mean, if effect B only arises when condition A exists...then how did condition A arise? At some point using this logic, musn't there have been a "first arisal" with no precedent condition? Where does the buck stop, so to speak?

 

Or how can anyone know if the buck ever stopped, or not? Or are we just gonna pull the "infinite regression" card here? That existence is a linked chain of infinite length with no beginning or end?

 

Yep, infinite regress. That's the only way to stop the mental yearning for a first cause... which is really just attachment to the idea of linear time. Modern physics has models of different dimensions now.. and no good physicist will tell you that there needs to be a beginning. That's ancient thinking.. but all the Monotheistic religions are based on it.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Isn't this sort of like the theory of evolution though? It shows how things change - but doesn't really address how they originally started?

 

If everything is dependent - and "stuff" exists now - then doesn't that mean some "stuff" must have always existed for that to be possible? Otherwise, if there was nothing ever to begin with, then there only be nothing now (−A → −B ).

 

I mean, if effect B only arises when condition A exists...then how did condition A arise? At some point using this logic, musn't there have been a "first arisal" with no precedent condition? Where does the buck stop, so to speak?

 

Or how can anyone know if the buck ever stopped, or not? Or are we just gonna pull the "infinite regression" card here? That existence is a linked chain of infinite length with no beginning or end?

The relationship between the unmanifest condition and the manifest experience is not as clear cut or established at all. It is a mirage like nature of existence, which is reflective, as in I can only know myself through a contextual you. Think of Yang as the energy of manifest movement and Yin as the conditions of stillness that complement it. We usually see the conditions and the manifest experience--the presence, the luminosity--as separate and distinct and real.

 

The right view is that there is really no distinction between the contents of the manifest and the unmanifest, both are equally illusion like in that the manifest becomes unmanifest and the unmanifest manifest. They are interdependent and all is so impermanent.

 

The interplay of the two is ungraspable and unknowable, as in you cannot know the unmanifest nor can you know the manifest because experience itself is the manifest. There is nothing to know beyond this! The right view is no view. The right knowledge is no knowledge. These words here cancel themselves out.

Edited July 2, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[nac]

Would you count the deepest actual nature as an enlightened being?

[Lucky7Strikes]

Would you count the deepest actual nature as an enlightened being?

What's deepest actual nature?

[nac]

What's deepest actual nature?

The complete, unadulterated and unadorned truth.

 

PS. It may not be easy to discern, but it's available to all sentient beings just the same.

Edited July 3, 2010 by nac

[Vajrahridaya]

Yep, infinite regress. That's the only way to stop the mental yearning for a first cause... which is really just attachment to the idea of linear time. Modern physics has models of different dimensions now.. and no good physicist will tell you that there needs to be a beginning. That's ancient thinking.. but all the Monotheistic religions are based on it.

 

Yes, infinite regress. But, you also don't want attachment to transcendence of time. Some place where we all transcend time as an essence of all things which happens in deep states of formless meditation. There is no escape from time in any practical sense, there can only be brief or elongated rests from the experience of the passing of time. The formless realms can be experienced as a rest from time and can be elongated for eons for a particularly focused meditator. But... if they take this as a "self of all" then they are just repressing their subtle causes for re-emergence into a deep void from experienced movement only to re-emerge ignorantly when the conditions of focus fall away, which always happens... just sometimes not for a very long time. Sometimes the only way to get someone out of these formless states is for a Buddha to go into them and churn these beings out of their deeply blissful delusion in order that they may take on their hidden karmas and hear the Dharma.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

As the Buddha said, "Dependent Origination is the Dharma, if you see Dependent Origination, you see the Dharma."

 

See what it says is that, we don't start with an assumption that there is a self existing, void of explanation fullness that precedes anything. Dependent Origination takes no assumptive starting point and actually places no construct or non-construct as any ultimate Truth that shines from it's own side.

 

An explanation from the Tao Te Ching, no matter how beyond words that explanation is pointing to, is still placing an indefinable self existent non-conceptual as an ultimate Truth that outshines all explanation, and also shines from it's own side that is in fact the shining of all that is shown.

 

Dependent Origination subverts this experiential assumption and says even this high up formless level of perception and experience beyond words and seeming dualities originates dependently.

 

Dependent Origination subverts all assumptions. If understood correctly and is applied to all levels of experience intuitively.

[Vajrahridaya]

As the Buddha said, "Dependent Origination is the Dharma, if you see Dependent Origination, you see the Dharma."

 

See what it says is that, we don't start with an assumption that there is a self existing, void of explanation fullness that precedes anything. Dependent Origination takes no assumptive starting point and actually places no construct or non-construct as any ultimate Truth that shines from it's own side.

 

An explanation from the Tao Te Ching, no matter how beyond words that explanation is pointing to, is still placing an indefinable self existent non-conceptual as an ultimate Truth that outshines all explanation, and also shines from it's own side that is in fact the shining of all that is shown.

 

Dependent Origination subverts this experiential assumption and says even this high up formless level of perception and experience beyond words and seeming dualities originates dependently.

 

Dependent Origination subverts all assumptions. If understood correctly and is applied to all levels of experience intuitively.

 

Did I say this or is this your understanding of what I've said. The word constructs seem quite similar to my own. Very interesting. Quite right of course.