Nagarjuna and Samkara

[dwai]

[RongzomFan]

Here are some exerpts from the book The Essential Vedanta by Eliot Deutsch & Rohit Dalvi 2004.

 

"....much of Sankara's metaphysics, especialy his analysis of the world as maya, was taken from Buddhist sources. In any event a close relationship between the Mahayana schools and Vedanta did exist with the latter borrowing some dialectical techniques, if not specific doctrines, of the former." pg. 126

 

"Gaudapada rather clearly draws from Buddhist philosophical sources for many of his arguments and distinctions and even for the forms and imagery in which these arguments were cast." pg. 157

 

Gaudapada was the guru of Sankara's guru.

[dwai]

Here are some exerpts from the book The Essential Vedanta by Eliot Deutsch & Rohit Dalvi 2004.

 

"....much of Sankara's metaphysics, especialy his analysis of the world as maya, was taken from Buddhist sources. In any event a close relationship between the Mahayana schools and Vedanta did exist with the latter borrowing some dialectical techniques, if not specific doctrines, of the former." pg. 126

 

"Gaudapada rather clearly draws from Buddhist philosophical sources for many of his arguments and distinctions and even for the forms and imagery in which these arguments were cast." pg. 157

 

Gaudapada was the guru of Sankara's guru.

 

 

I assume there is a point here...just not sure what it is. Please elaborate....

 

 

[RongzomFan]

I assume there is a point here...just not sure what it is. Please elaborate....

 

 

Advaita Vedanta is known to be developed from a combination of the Upanishads and buddhism, including Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka.

 

And even some of the Upanishads show direct buddhist influence.

Edited February 3, 2011 by alwayson

[dwai]

[RongzomFan]

Advaita Vedanta is simply the most accurate interpretation of the Upanishads.

 

 

Well its not just "simply" that. Advaita Vedanta has some buddhist influence, as my quotes above showed.

[dwai]

Well its not just "simply" that. Advaita Vedanta has some buddhist influence, as my quotes above showed.

 

That's the opinion of two authors...

[Sunya]

I don't want to turn this into another flamewar... but in that article he writes "Atman is Emptiness, devoid of any percepts and concepts" -- and earlier -- "...the appearance of Brahman, the ultimate reality, non-different from Atman, pure, objectless consciousness"

 

The latter quote contradicts the first quote, because "pure" and "objectless" are concepts. They signify two distinctions. First that ultimate reality is separate from everyday reality and second that Atman is a state of pure consciousness beyond appearances or objects. The famous from the Heart Sutra "form is emptiness and emptiness is form" and also "nirvana is samsara" bridges the gap between this subtle duality that exists in the Vedic tradition. Emptiness is not a state of pure objectless consciousness like Atman, nor is emptiness an altered state at all.

 

From Greg Goode:

 

Emptiness is not a substance

Emptiness is not a substratum or background

Emptiness is not light

Emptiness is not consciousness or awareness

Emptiness is not the Absolute

Emptiness does not exist on its own

Objects do not consist of emptiness

Objects do not arise from emptiness

Emptiness of the "I" does not negate the "I"

Emptiness is not the feeling that results when no objects are appearing to the mind

Meditating on emptiness does not consist of quieting the mind

 

(I have italicized what I perceive to be the differences between Emptiness and Atman/Brahman.

Edited February 4, 2011 by Sunya

[Vajrahridaya]

[xabir2005]

From The Sunya quote, Greg Goode:

For those who encounter emptiness teachings after they've become familiar with awareness teachings, it's very tempting to misread the emptiness teachings by substituting terms. That is, it's very easy to misread the emptiness teachings by seeing "emptiness" on the page and thinking to yourself, "awareness, consciousness, I know what they're talking about."

 

Early in my own study I began with this substitution in mind. With this misreading, I found a lot in the emptiness teachings to be quite INcomprehensible! So I started again, laying aside the notion that "emptiness" and "awareness" were equivalent. I tried to let the emptiness teachings speak for themselves. I came to find that they have a subtle beauty and power, a flavor quite different from the awareness teachings. Emptiness teachings do not speak of emptiness as a true nature that underlies or supports things. Rather, it speaks of selves and things as essenceless and free.

[Vajrahridaya]

From The Sunya quote, Greg Goode:

Emptiness teachings do not speak of emptiness as a true nature that underlies or supports things. Rather, it speaks of selves and things as essenceless and free.

 

Nor do they speak of emptiness as a source of all things. The emptiness teachings go deeper than the consciousness or awareness teachings. This is why Nagarjuna said: "Only the path shown by Shakyamuni is complete while other paths only lead to the edge of Samsara."

 

Nagarjuna knew very well what the Upanishads and Vedanta taught. So, all the Vedanta is Buddhism sympathizers are really not understanding what Nagarjuna taught from the perspective of Nagarjuna and are projecting their pre-conditionings.

 

They are not understanding what Shakyamuni nor what Nagarjuna taught and are making the same mistake that Greg and I for that matter did when we first started reading the Buddhist teachings coming from a "consciousness is all" school of thought, view and practice. Especially if you have some deep experience with the "consciousness is all" school, it can be very hard to de-condition and come to the Buddhas first noble truth or "right view" which is the foundation of all the Buddhist schools as it's very hard to let go of ones conditioning and school of thought, especially if you are from a long family tradition associated with a good and deep, but still erroneous view.

 

Both the Buddha and Nagarjuna were fundamentalists, but not at all in the "christian" sense of the term.

[xabir2005]

Nor do they speak of emptiness as a source of all things. The emptiness teachings go deeper than the consciousness or awareness teachings. This is why Nagarjuna said: "Only the path shown by Shakyamuni is complete while other paths only lead to the edge of Samsara."

 

Nagarjuna knew very well what the Upanishads and Vedanta taught. So, all the Vedanta is Buddhism sympathizers are really not understanding what Nagarjuna taught from the perspective of Nagarjuna and are projecting their pre-conditionings.

 

They are not understanding what Shakyamuni nor what Nagarjuna taught and are making the same mistake that Greg and I for that matter did when we first started reading the Buddhist teachings coming from a "consciousness is all" school of thought, view and practice. Especially if you have some deep experience with the "consciousness is all" school, it can be very hard to de-condition and come to the Buddhas first noble truth or "right view" which is the foundation of all the Buddhist schools as it's very hard to let go of ones conditioning and school of thought, especially if you are from a long family tradition associated with a good and deep, but still erroneous view.

 

Both the Buddha and Nagarjuna were fundamentalists, but not at all in the "christian" sense of the term.

Yes, indeed, Buddha and Nagarjuna's insight is subtle, profound and deep, not easily understood, often misunderstood...

[Vajrahridaya]

Yes, indeed, Buddha and Nagarjuna's insight is subtle, profound and deep, not easily understood, often misunderstood...

 

Because those schools that ultimate consciousness sit at the edge of Samsara due to the fact that "you" are the edge of samsara and only the emptiness teachings subvert any sense of you, both individual and universal leaving you free from yourself.

 

HAHA!! Sounds so paradoxical in words, but it's really not.

 

It's clarity while experiencing... or rather, clear experiencing.

[dwai]

Yes, indeed, Buddha and Nagarjuna's insight is subtle, profound and deep, not easily understood, often misunderstood...

 

I think these are over-hyped and over-understood by many. The beauty of their insight lies in the simplicity.

Human beings (especially modern humans) are too used to thinking in convoluted patterns to understand the simplicity, imho.

[dwai]

From The Sunya quote, Greg Goode:

For those who encounter emptiness teachings after they've become familiar with awareness teachings, it's very tempting to misread the emptiness teachings by substituting terms. That is, it's very easy to misread the emptiness teachings by seeing "emptiness" on the page and thinking to yourself, "awareness, consciousness, I know what they're talking about."

 

Early in my own study I began with this substitution in mind. With this misreading, I found a lot in the emptiness teachings to be quite INcomprehensible! So I started again, laying aside the notion that "emptiness" and "awareness" were equivalent. I tried to let the emptiness teachings speak for themselves. I came to find that they have a subtle beauty and power, a flavor quite different from the awareness teachings. Emptiness teachings do not speak of emptiness as a true nature that underlies or supports things. Rather, it speaks of selves and things as essenceless and free.

 

I think Greg Goode is getting stuck in semantics instead of experience. That's the problem with most folks...to much theory, not so much experience.

[RongzomFan]

I don't know who this Greg guy is, but he doesn't understand emptiness in the Mādhyamaka way.

 

Emptiness in Mādhyamaka is merely a nonimplicative negation. In other words emptiness is just a denial of another philosophy's claim of self. Emptiness itself does not make a claim, therefore has none to defend. Emptiness also relates to the idea that there is discrepancy between every thoughtform and reality.

 

On the other hand emptiness in Dzogchen simply means kadag (primordial purity), one of the three wisdoms of rigpa.

Edited February 4, 2011 by alwayson

[Vajrahridaya]

I don't know who this Greg guy is, but he doesn't understand emptiness in the Mādhyamaka way.

 

He does very well.

 

Emptiness in Mādhyamaka is merely a nonimplicative negation. In other words emptiness is just a denial of another philosophy's claim of self. Emptiness itself does not make a claim, therefore has none to defend. Emptiness also relates to the idea that there is discrepancy between every thoughtform and reality.

 

Emptiness does not say that there is discrepancy, in fact there is fluidity if you have experience, thought and reality are not at odds.

 

On the other hand emptiness in Dzogchen simply means kadag (primordial purity), one of the three wisdoms of rigpa.

 

Yes, including thought forms.

[Vajrahridaya]

I think Greg Goode is getting stuck in semantics instead of experience. That's the problem with most folks...to much theory, not so much experience.

 

Actually, the experience is different. Your experience is conditioned by "consciousness is all" theory and assumption. Also, a problem with "consciousness is all" schools is using experience as a platform for assumption, instead of investigating more deeply into the experience through intuition.

[RongzomFan]

Emptiness does not say that there is discrepancy

 

Of course it does. Thats the entire point LOL.

 

If you imagine President Obama, he only exists in your mind as a thoughform. Even if he was in front of you, your thoughtform of him would be relatively stable. But the actual reality is that the President's thoughts and emotions would be constantly fluctuating. Thus there is a discrepancy between appearances (thoughtforms) and reality.

 

If you see your ipod on a table and you think "this ipod is mine", there is a discrepancy between that thoughtform and reality. The reality is that there is simply an ipod on the table.

 

The same logic can be used for the thought "I"

 

This is my understanding from a lifetime of Mādhyamaka study including the Dalai Lama's "The Middle Way".

Edited February 5, 2011 by alwayson

[Sunya]

I don't know who this Greg guy is, but he doesn't understand emptiness in the Mādhyamaka way.

 

 

Greg understands emptiness quite well.

 

Of course it does. Thats the entire point LOL.

 

If you imagine President Obama, he only exists in your mind as a thoughform. Even if he was in front of you, your thoughtform of him would be relatively stable. But the actual reality is that the President's thoughts and emotions would be constantly fluctuating. Thus there is a discrepancy between appearances (thoughtforms) and reality.

 

That doesn't really make much sense because I don't see the distinction.

 

If you see your ipod on a table and you think "this ipod is mine", there is a discrepancy between that thoughtform and reality. The reality is that there is simply an ipod on the table.

 

There is no discrepancy because both thoughtform and reality are concepts. There is neither an actual world out there (reality) nor an in here subjective world (thoughtform) -- both are empty concepts.

 

The point of separating rigpa from sems is to have realization of rigpa, but then there is integration. An advanced insight is that rigpa is sems, nirvana is samsara, thoughtform is reality, etc.

 

 

This is my understanding from a lifetime of Mādhyamaka study including the Dalai Lama's "The Middle Way".

 

Aren't you like 20? I don't get why you act so cocky...

Edited February 5, 2011 by Sunya

[Vajrahridaya]

Of course it does. Thats the entire point LOL.

 

I think you need to get deeper into the experience. There is no solid discrepancy between anything, it's all empty and equally primordially pure, including thought forms.

 

If you imagine President Obama, he only exists in your mind as a thoughform. Even if he was in front of you, your thoughtform of him would be relatively stable. But the actual reality is that the President's thoughts and emotions would be constantly fluctuating. Thus there is a discrepancy between appearances (thoughtforms) and reality.

 

Only aparently on a certain level, but there are many dimensions. In the experience of emptiness as it is discussed in Dzogchen, there is no discrepancy... just the experience of kadag and rigpa.

 

If you see your ipod on a table and you think "this ipod is mine", there is a discrepancy between that thoughtform and reality. The reality is that there is simply an ipod on the table.

 

That's merely dialectical emptiness used in arguing the fact over the thought, yes, within the Madhyamaka two truths this is relative truth in order to understand ones habit patterns. This is not the only type of emptiness.

 

The same logic can be used for the thought "I"

 

This is my understanding from a lifetime of Mādhyamaka study including the Dalai Lama's "The Middle Way".

 

Yes, it's good and true only from a certain perspective, but not the whole thing.

 

The poem I've quoted below has many examples of both relative and ultimate emptiness as discussed in Madhyamaka. As well as the Kadag type of emptiness discussed in Dzogchen. See if you can make it out, but I highlighted a number of examples.

From Nagarjuna:

 

Nagarjuna's Mahamudra Vision

 

 

Homage to Manjusrikumarabhuta!

 

1. I bow down to the all-powerful Buddha

Whose mind is free of attachment,

Who in his compassion and wisdom

Has taught the inexpressible.

 

2. In truth there is no birth -

Then surely no cessation or liberation;

The Buddha is like the sky

And all beings have that nature.

 

3. Neither Samsara nor Nirvana exist,

But all is a complex continuum

With an intrinsic face of void,

The object of ultimate awareness.

 

4. The nature of all things

Appears like a reflection,

Pure and naturally quiescent,

With a non-dual identity of suchness.

 

5. The common mind imagines a self

Where there is nothing at all,

And it conceives of emotional states -

Happiness, suffering, and equanimity.

 

6. The six states of being in Samsara,

The happiness of heaven,

The suffering of hell,

Are all false creations, figments of mind.

 

7. Likewise the ideas of bad action causing suffering,

Old age, disease and death,

And the idea that virtue leads to happiness,

Are mere ideas, unreal notions.

 

8. Like an artist frightened

By the devil he paints,

The sufferer in Samsara

Is terrified by his own imagination.

 

9. Like a man caught in quicksands

Thrashing and struggling about,

So beings drown

In the mess of their own thoughts.

 

10. Mistaking fantasy for reality

Causes an experience of suffering;

Mind is poisoned by interpretation

Of consciousness of form.

 

11. Dissolving figment and fantasy

With a mind of compassionate insight,

Remain in perfect awareness

In order to help all beings.

 

12. So acquiring conventional virtue

Freed from the web of interpretive thought,

Insurpassable understanding is gained

As Buddha, friend to the world.

 

13. Knowing the relativity of all,

The ultimate truth is always seen;

Dismissing the idea of beginning, middle and end

The flow is seen as Emptiness. = I'm talking about this.

 

14. So all samsara and nirvana is seen as it is -

Empty and insubstantial,

Naked and changeless,

Eternally quiescent and illumined. = and this.

 

15. As the figments of a dream

Dissolve upon waking,

So the confusion of Samsara

Fades away in enlightenment.

 

16. Idealising things of no substance

As eternal, substantial and satisfying,

Shrouding them in a fog of desire

The round of existence arises.

 

17. The nature of beings is unborn

Yet commonly beings are conceived to exist;

Both beings and their ideas

Are false beliefs. = you're talking more about this.

 

18. It is nothing but an artifice of mind

This birth into an illusory becoming,

Into a world of good and evil action

With good or bad rebirth to follow.

 

19. When the wheel of mind ceases to turn

All things come to an end.

So there is nothing inherently substantial

And all things are utterly pure. = I'm talking more about this.

 

20. This great ocean of samsara,

Full of delusive thought,

Can be crossed in the boat Universal Approach.

Who can reach the other side without it?

 

Colophon

The Twenty Mahayana Verses, (in Sanskrit,

Mahayanavimsaka; in Tibetan: Theg pa chen po nyi

shu pa) were composed by the master Nagarjuna.

They were translated into Tibetan by the Kashmiri

Pandit Ananda and the Bhikshu translator Drakjor

Sherab (Grags 'byor shes rab). They have been

translated into English by the Anagarika

Kunzang Tenzin on the last day of the year 1973

in the hope that the karma of the year may be mitigated.

 

May all beings be happy!

Edited February 5, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[xabir2005]

I think Greg Goode is getting stuck in semantics instead of experience. That's the problem with most folks...to much theory, not so much experience.

Greg Goode has realized non-dual experientially (since the late 90s) before studying Emptiness. Edited February 5, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

I think these are over-hyped and over-understood by many. The beauty of their insight lies in the simplicity.

Human beings (especially modern humans) are too used to thinking in convoluted patterns to understand the simplicity, imho.

So not true.

 

Ananda: "How amazing! Never before has it occurred to me, Lord. This principle of Dependent Origination, although so profound and hard to see, yet appears to me to be so simple!"

 

Buddha: "Say not so, Ananda, say not so. This principle of Dependent Origination is a profound teaching, hard to see. It is through not knowing, not understanding and not thoroughly realizing this teaching that beings are confused like a tangled thread, thrown together like bundles of threads, caught as in a net, and cannot escape hell, the nether worlds and the wheel of samsara." [s.II.92]

[RongzomFan]

Hi Vaj,

 

I rely on interpretations by learned people like Namdrol, who used to explain Mādhyamaka on the old esangha forum and the Dalai Lama.

 

In every teaching the Dalai Lama has given on Mādhyamaka, he always says discrepancy between appearances (thoughtforms) and reality. You can confirm this yourself. This is really the whole point of Mādhyamaka!

Citing english translations means absolutely nothing to me.

 

 

And Hi Sunya,

 

I listen to actual Dzogchen teachers, so you can't float your own nonsense that you pass of as Dzogchen.

 

Even the Dalai Lama says to distinguish rigpa and sems. And Jigme Lingpa is absolutely adamant on the issue, calling rigpa nirvanic pure and sems samsaric and impure.

 

You can ask Namdrol on his blog. Don't take my word for anything.

 

And of course in Mādhyamaka samsara=nirvana. I don't disagree with that at all.

 

But please don't combine Dzogchen and Mādhyamaka into some sort of mish mash.

 

They are not the same

Edited February 5, 2011 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

Aren't you like 20?

 

I am only 12

Edited February 5, 2011 by alwayson