Concepts relative to "God" in Buddhism

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Well, I'm just showing the similarities observable when one has an open minded approach to a notion of "God."

 

And, yes, Shakyamuni Buddha was a manifestation of nirmanikaya, but that occurance is a function of dharmakaya, thus also sambhogakaya.. I can see how that was not stated clearly.

 

 

"Ahh, see you're inadvertently subsuming "dharmakaya" as a ground of being once again. The way you're positing it is similar to "Brahman" of Advaita Vedanta. Dharmakaya is not a ground of being where things manifest from; it is talking about emptiness/D.O. Refer back to my previous posts in this thread."

 

But the way this teacher explains it, dharmakaya is essentially the beginning or "ground" whence the rest all happens. He actually says it rather directly. Maybe there is an ultimate where there isn't even dharmakaya, but that is not really of much concern, save for more nihilistic understandings, at least by my estimation.

[xabir2005]

The Guhyagarbha Tantra teaches:

"This mind-essence devoid of ground and root

Is the basis of all phenomena."

 

 

Very well said.

 

The ground of all things is groundlessness - empty.

 

The nature of all things is no-self-nature - emptiness.

 

No ground of being (as in a truly existent and established ground of all things) can be established.

 

All your quotations are talking about the lack of a truly established ground and lack of true existent.

 

This empty nature is the nature of all things.

Edited January 4, 2012 by xabir2005

[Harmonious Emptiness]

@ Xabir

 

See this though from the quotations:

 

"This all-ground, not a mere nihilistic and void nothingness, is self-luminous cognizance that occurs unceasingly."

 

"The nonarising essence of the mind itself is dharmakaya, its unobstruced expression is sambhogakaya, and its function manifesting in any way whatsoever is nirmanakaya. These three kayas are again spontaneously present as an indivisible identity."

 

 

I'm starting to abandon the possibility that Buddhism was talking about God in the sense of "The Great Spirit", though it does seem to match up more closely with the Sufi experience which I can't speak of from any first hand experience.

 

I feel that God is more personal than these Buddhist concepts, though these concepts might describe Him in so many ways, I don't think they can be him, though he can be them... not asking for agreement or opinions about that, just putting that out there.. Funny once I got about as close as I could get, I realized "no, that's not the one." Never was an impulse buyer.

 

Either way, I think one can still be Buddhist and, say, Jewish at the same time. If we exist, God exists. If you would rather say we don't exist, go ahead. You can only be half right though..

[Lucky7Strikes]

@ H.E.

 

Do you notice how neither Xabir nor Jack have not really replied to anything you have written? They just say what their own convictions are from selected replies (usually a sentence or two out of a whole page), and repeat their previously stated ideas and plaster their own quotes as evidence. No matter how much textual samples you bring here that will always be the case. Xabir is too invested (let's see, a blog running five years, a 450 page book, upbringing in his "Buddhism" for entire life, Thusness telling him a,b,c since he was 14) in his own beliefs to tweak even a little bit of the ideology he holds.

 

@ Xabir,

 

Please go reply to my post on the other thread when you have time. I would like some genuine answer after 3-4 pages of you slipping around.

Edited January 4, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[Harmonious Emptiness]

@L7S

 

That seems to be the case every time I debate concepts with some of the more evangelical types (like the Evangelical Atheists. Can I coin that term?..). I guess I probably come off as an evangelical type here too, though I'm more out for an inquiry and discussion. Maybe I'm getting too used to it dealing with so many people who do the same type of thing.. At least I have it all in writing HERE..hahaaa!!

[xabir2005]

@lucky: it is difficult for me to reply long posts on my handphone. I only have computer on weekends.

 

@harmonious emptiness: there is no such thing as a universal consciousness in Buddhism. So there is no universal source in Buddhism.

 

Mind is not an unchanging thing: there is no mind apart from mental activities and consciousness, all of which dependently originate without a self.

 

The essence of mind is luminous: having the quality of knowing, awareness, intelligence, aliveness. All our experience is self-luminous. There is no self - there is knowing, no knower, mind is mind-stream, no mind-agent.

 

But self-luminous mind is empty of an unchanging identity or entity, even if it is a universal one - there is no universal source.

 

The luminous essence, empty nature, and uninterrupted energy or manifestation are inseparable. There is no true existent anywhere.

 

For example, river is no river - the river's nature is empty of some independent and unchanging entity that is river, being empty, it is unceasingly flowing and stream-ing and unimpeded, manifesting as the everchanging stream of activities.

 

Similarly as the third Karmapa says,

 

"All phenomena are illusory displays of mind.

Mind is no mind--the mind's nature is empty of any entity that is mind

Being empty, it is unceasing and unimpeded,

manifesting as everything whatsoever."

 

Mind is not an entity but a mere convention for insubstantial, ephemeral self-luminous mental activities. There is no agent or source of those activities like there is no agent behind river, no river-ness standing behind the flowing activities. No thinker behind thinking or seer behind seeing.

 

Everything interdependently originates, there is no ultimate source or origin, no beginning to manifestation since everything arises through aggregation of causes and conditions

Edited January 5, 2012 by xabir2005

[Harmonious Emptiness]

@Xabir

 

Like Lucky said, you're still not really addressing the points, but just reiterating what you said earlier.

 

You haven't really explained why the following is true, if what you say is true:

 

"This all-ground, not a mere nihilistic and void nothingness, is self-luminous cognizance that occurs unceasingly."

 

"The nonarising essence of the mind itself is dharmakaya, its unobstruced expression is sambhogakaya, and its function manifesting in any way whatsoever is nirmanakaya. These three kayas are again spontaneously present as an indivisible identity."

 

It sounds like you're fully and completely hung up on a nihilistic position, and denying that "emptiness is also form." You can say it is all emptiness, but, as I said, you can only be half right if that's your stance.

 

How is what you say not the Nihilistic point of view that Shakyamuni refuted? I don't think you can't just say emptiness emptiness emptiness emptiness and claim that to be the same as what Buddha taught. Forms may be empty, but not recognizing the other side to that would nihilism. I'm not seeing a constant middle way in your counters...

[C T]

@Xabir

 

Like Lucky said, you're still not really addressing the points, but just reiterating what you said earlier.

 

You haven't really explained why the following is true, if what you say is true:

 

"This all-ground, not a mere nihilistic and void nothingness, is self-luminous cognizance that occurs unceasingly."

 

"The nonarising essence of the mind itself is dharmakaya, its unobstruced expression is sambhogakaya, and its function manifesting in any way whatsoever is nirmanakaya. These three kayas are again spontaneously present as an indivisible identity."

 

It sounds like you're fully and completely hung up on a nihilistic position, and denying that "emptiness is also form." You can say it is all emptiness, but, as I said, you can only be half right if that's your stance.

 

How is what you say not the Nihilistic point of view that Shakyamuni refuted? I don't think you can't just say emptiness emptiness emptiness emptiness and claim that to be the same as what Buddha taught. Forms may be empty, but not recognizing the other side to that would nihilism. I'm not seeing a constant middle way in your counters...

I agree with this.

 

In one of his teachings on Ground, Path and Fruition, HE Jamgon Kongtrul III remarks accordingly:

 

"The middle view means being free of any extreme views and teaches that relatively appearances validly exist and that ultimately these same appearances lack independent existence ie are empty of inherent existence. A Madhyamaka shravaka realizes that the 2 Truths - the validity of relative appearances and experiences of their ultimate, true nature - are indivisible. We can see clearly these 2 Truths, two values of being. Usually, one simply accepts the presence of appearances and define anything that exists in reliance on one's own restricted beliefs. If a practitioner investigates and reflects relative existents, as the Buddha suggested and taught, he or she will find that nothing by nature possesses an own identity ie all things are actually empty of self-existence. The relative view means seeing that things appear (my add - as in this case, investigating the concept of God is as valid as any other form of investigation, as long as one does not cling to the the outcome of the investigation, no matter how right the outcome sounds) and the ultimate view is realizing that all apprehended appearances are devoid of independent existence.

 

I think everyone understands the relative and ultimate truths and only spoke of them because one clings to an apprehending subject and apprehended objects as discordant and real. One's erroneous cognition distracts from engaging in practices to progress spiritually. One hears about the Buddhadharma, falsely shuns the apparent world as 'incomplete' or 'bad', and chases after what one calls 'the absolute', the 'good'. Clinging to appearances as true existents is an extreme; clinging to an ultimate reality is another extreme. One needs to be free of clinging to either the one or the other altogether.

 

Some students learn the Buddhadharma and then want nothing to do with the apparent world. It has even happened that they refuse to eat, defying anything they consider mundane. This isn't the meaning of the Buddha's words. Lord Buddha described apparent reality and never negated the concrete world we experience. He clarified the truth of reality and showed how it actually is. Many students think that fleeing from what appears within and without leads them to the truth, a fundamental mistake that i wish to warn you about.

 

The error that can arise is assuming once emptiness has been realized, nothing at all exists anymore. While abiding in meditative composure of stillness and calm, a knowledge arises which enables one to see that all things are free of coming and going, of being and non-being, of both being and non-being, and of neither being nor non-being. After having rested in meditative equipoise, the apparent world is still here, as it was and as it is, and does not disappear. A sincere practitioner understands and sees that existents are appearances and that what appears does not truly exist as it seemingly appears to do. One sincerely needs to see how the Two Truths are inseparable - there is no need to divide them. Ascertaining this truth is realizing the ultimate View.

 

While a yogi rests in meditative equipoise, he or she naturally realizes that all things are empty of inherent existence, are actually beyond such formulations as 'existent' and 'non-existent'. Post meditation, he or she apprehends phenomena with an understanding that all things are free of an own entity and therefore clearly appear. He or she experiences no contradiction or controversies, rather, the truth of reality. I hope to have clarified that the Two Truths or two realities of being are inseparably one.

 

Again, everything in and around us is there, which does not mean that what is there is not empty. Everything is empty, which does not mean that what is empty is not there. Things appear due to emptiness, a theme difficult to understand. I want everyone to know that emptiness is a central theme in Lord Buddha's instructions and distinguishes it from other religions. In contrast to other religions, belief is of no relevance in Buddhism, rather, Lord Buddha taught how to ascertain that all appearances are there since they are by nature empty of inherent existence."

 

I would encourage anyone interested to further investigate this principle of Ground, Path and Fruition so as to be better able to reach the easeful state free of having to assert or negate how others choose to approach Realization. Some may choose to work with Ground, some with Path, while those with impeccable merit are able to access Fruition in a more direct manner, without having to bypass the other two principles. However, those who truly have attained to Fruition will not deny the validity of Ground and Path because the ultimate result will the same. Ground, Path and Fruition are inseparable, quite similar in fact to the Christian principle of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, or the kayas of Dharma, Sambhoga and Nirmana.

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[xabir2005]

@Xabir

 

Like Lucky said, you're still not really addressing the points, but just reiterating what you said earlier.

 

You haven't really explained why the following is true, if what you say is true:

 

"This all-ground, not a mere nihilistic and void nothingness, is self-luminous cognizance that occurs unceasingly."

 

"The nonarising essence of the mind itself is dharmakaya, its unobstruced expression is sambhogakaya, and its function manifesting in any way whatsoever is nirmanakaya. These three kayas are again spontaneously present as an indivisible identity."

 

It sounds like you're fully and completely hung up on a nihilistic position, and denying that "emptiness is also form." You can say it is all emptiness, but, as I said, you can only be half right if that's your stance.

 

How is what you say not the Nihilistic point of view that Shakyamuni refuted? I don't think you can't just say emptiness emptiness emptiness emptiness and claim that to be the same as what Buddha taught. Forms may be empty, but not recognizing the other side to that would nihilism. I'm not seeing a constant middle way in your counters...

Actually I already answered you with my explanation above.

 

You don't deny the unceasing flowing of river, but you understand river is empty of any unchanging or independent core. There is no river-ness behind flowing, just the unceasing stream of activities of flowing.

 

Same with mindstream and knowing without knower.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Actually I already answered you with my explanation above.

 

You don't deny the unceasing flowing of river, but you understand river is empty of any unchanging or independent core. There is no river-ness behind flowing, just the unceasing stream of activities of flowing.

 

Same with mindstream and knowing without knower.

 

Right, so just as you don't deny the unceasing flowing of river, I don't deny these inseparable trinities, nor God, that God is a manifestation of them, nor that everything has primordial existence in Nothingness which is the original nature of everything (to use slightly different terms than usual, but I hate to concede that there are less than a multitude of ways to describe Ultimate truth..).

[xabir2005]

Right, so just as you don't deny the unceasing flowing of river, I don't deny these inseparable trinities, nor God, that God is a manifestation of them, nor that everything has primordial existence in Nothingness which is the original nature of everything (to use slightly different terms than usual, but I hate to concede that there are less than a multitude of ways to describe Ultimate truth..).

The problem is that God implies a universal, unchanging, independent source of things.

 

Such a notion is utterly rejected in buddhism in various texts. Buddhism teaches anatta, emptiness, insubstantiality and interdependent origination. No truly existing ultimate origin can be found.

 

There is no mind-agent or a universal mind, only a mind stream that interdependently originates without a beginning, in fact utterly empty and non-arisen.

 

Minds have no beginning because they are fundamentally empty and unarisen. It is not the case that our minds were created or derived origin from a God. And by the way God can't be a manifestation when it is a source of manifestation so what you said is contradictory, and all manifestation interdepedently originates without an ultimate agent or origin, hence there is therefore no God in Buddhism.

Edited January 6, 2012 by xabir2005

[konchog uma]

hence there is therefore no God in Buddhism.

 

does it ever make you wonder why buddhism is the only spiritual tradition not to honor the creator according to its understanding?

 

you may think thats because buddhist understanding is superior and everyone else is wrong. But i would put forth the suggestion that it has to do with a deep misunderstanding of the nature of the force that all the other world traditions call "creator" by any name. So in other words, i don't think the problem is supreme perfect understanding here... hahhaa but a lack thereof.

 

I haven't said anything because buddhist babble drives me nuts, and i can't explain god. I don't understand it. I guess some people just go through enough to know that life is intelligent and that there is a hierarchy of being up to the top. And some don't. And the ones that don't believe in any root to the plant just see the leaves and think they dreamed themselves into existance, or smell the flower without pondering deeply what nourishes it. But i digress.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

The problem is that God implies a universal, unchanging, independent source of things.

 

Such a notion is utterly rejected in buddhism in various texts. Buddhism teaches anatta, emptiness, insubstantiality and interdependent origination. No truly existing ultimate origin can be found.

 

There is no mind-agent or a universal mind, only a mind stream that interdependently originates without a beginning, in fact utterly empty and non-arisen.

 

Minds have no beginning because they are fundamentally empty and unarisen. It is not the case that our minds were created or derived origin from a God. And by the way God can't be a manifestation when it is a source of manifestation so what you said is contradictory, and all manifestation interdepedently originates without an ultimate agent or origin, hence there is therefore no God in Buddhism.

 

"There is no mind-agent or a universal mind, only a mind stream that interdependently originates without a beginning, in fact utterly empty and non-arisen."

 

Going by the quotes I posted earlier, I think this is incorrect according to Buddhist doctrine. Dharmakaya is the mind-agent, inseparable from the other 2 kayas. Once again, "This all-ground, not a mere nihilistic and void nothingness, is self-luminous cognizance that occurs unceasingly."

 

"God can't be a manifestation when it is a source of manifestation"

They are all wrapped up in one, in the same way as the 3 kayas. That is what I meant by that.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

@Anamatva

 

Yes, I don't see why someone can't fathom that there is a beginning to form. Sure it's nature may be emptiness, but everything started somewhere. Plants need light. What does light need? Energy, I guess. What does energy need? There is a first step or there would be no dependent origination, with everything coming from something. Sure it all goes back to emptiness, but what about step 2 and 3? Could they not be something at the base? That doesn't seem to clash with D.O. at all, by my humble estimation.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Harmonious Emptiness

[Lucky7Strikes]

@Anamatva

 

Yes, I don't see why someone can't fathom that there is a beginning to form. Sure it's nature may be emptiness, but everything started somewhere. Plants need light. What does light need? Energy, I guess. What does energy need? There is a first step or there would be no dependent origination, with everything coming from something. Sure it all goes back to emptiness, but what about step 2 and 3? Could they not be something at the base? That doesn't seem to clash with D.O. at all, by my humble estimation.

This is a good criticism of Xabir's understanding of dependent origination. His excuse for there being no first cause is that...things are unarisen and empty. And to support this claim he says, it's unaraisen and empty because it is dependently originated.

 

So his logic goes like this.

 

1. There is no first cause because

2. Phenomena is empty and unarisen because

3. Pheonomena is dependently originated because

4. Phenomena is empty and unarisen

 

[Lucky7Strikes]

The problem is that God implies a universal, unchanging, independent source of things.

 

Such a notion is utterly rejected in buddhism in various texts. Buddhism teaches anatta, emptiness, insubstantiality and interdependent origination. No truly existing ultimate origin can be found.

 

There is no mind-agent or a universal mind, only a mind stream that interdependently originates without a beginning, in fact utterly empty and non-arisen.

 

Minds have no beginning because they are fundamentally empty and unarisen. It is not the case that our minds were created or derived origin from a God. And by the way God can't be a manifestation when it is a source of manifestation so what you said is contradictory, and all manifestation interdepedently originates without an ultimate agent or origin, hence there is therefore no God in Buddhism.

Huh? What does a mindstream interdependently originate on? I thought you believe everything is disjointed, even each moment to the next. So how can there be a continuum of something called a "mindstream"? I really wish you didn't throw these terms out without much thought behind them.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

The alaya-vijnana holds all the karmic seeds of consciousness, it is a never ceasing flow, yet it is not actually any "thing." It itself is dependently originated and hence empty of an absolute, unchanging, independent existence. This Mind, is No-Mind.

Dependently originated on what?

 

Dependently originate is not a clear verb in itself. It's not something one does, like "Jim is going to go dependently originate." That doesn't make any sense. It's like saying "A is going to go originate."

Edited January 6, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[C T]

The problem is that God implies a universal, unchanging, independent source of things.

 

Such a notion is utterly rejected in buddhism in various texts. Buddhism teaches anatta, emptiness, insubstantiality and interdependent origination. No truly existing ultimate origin can be found.

 

There is no mind-agent or a universal mind, only a mind stream that interdependently originates without a beginning, in fact utterly empty and non-arisen.

 

Minds have no beginning because they are fundamentally empty and unarisen. It is not the case that our minds were created or derived origin from a God. And by the way God can't be a manifestation when it is a source of manifestation so what you said is contradictory, and all manifestation interdepedently originates without an ultimate agent or origin, hence there is therefore no God in Buddhism.

Who in this discussion is arguing for a truly existing ultimate origin, Xabir?

 

This discussion is directed towards contemplating whether some parallels could be drawn between the Buddhist concept of the Kayas and another mystical tradition which may also possess a similar concept but worded in a way which may only appear to be contradictory on the surface.

 

My feeling is that HE is attempting to delve deeper to see if there could be similarities somewhere, which you and Jack do not seem to want to participate with even the slightest degree of eagerness. Sometimes it can be helpful to not presuppose contemplations which in appearance (only) seems to contradict your own realizations, which, in any case, is not yet fully entrenched in complete omniscience like a buddha's, so i am guessing there's still room to allow the recognition that others may opt to shape their investigation in a direction which is different to the one you have chosen - this however does not invalidate other people's options, how they, within their own understanding choose to conduct their own discoveries, more so when such options as chosen by others are not really in total contrast to yours, but, for some reason, it feels as if you refuse to even slightly acknowledge the possibility of diverse methods of investigative contemplations. If this is true, then your purist leanings indicate a kind of stuckness, which needs to be looked at and unknotted. For example, all the main sects (with some secondary sub-sects included) in Tibetan Buddhism have their own peculiar investigative models and paths towards emancipation, but ultimately, the pinnacle of realization, which is the complete cessation of kleshas, or Buddhahood in other words, is one. By acknowledging this ultimate attainment all the different schools have come to a sort of common understanding, and they all work via this common theme to avoid petty arguments and disagreements, resulting in a 'movement' which they have named Rime.

 

Please dont misunderstand that i am trying to disempower your realizations here, and i apologize in advance if you think otherwise. Its obvious you have attained to very high levels of clarity which far exceed mine. All i am saying is that sometimes its good not to forget the basics, which in this instance, means to have an openness which can welcome and contain all views without clinging to any particular one. This, in my mind, assures one of always being able to rest in equanimous poise, no matter how distracting and noisy the world outside may be.

[xabir2005]

Who in this discussion is arguing for a truly existing ultimate origin, Xabir?

God only has its meaning as a truly existing ultimate origin.

 

I'm sure HE is not talking about a man with a white beard (Abrahamic sense of God, or the god Brahma). More of an 'emanationistic' kind of Ground of Being, i.e. Brahman.

 

However even such a view contradicts the basic tenets of Dependent Origination and Anatta.

 

You cannot call D.O. as God because D.O. is not an agent, it just means dependent on various causes and conditions manifestation arises and upon the cessation of various causes and conditions, manifestation cease, and there is no unchanging, eternal agent whatsoever.

Edited January 6, 2012 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

This is a good criticism of Xabir's understanding of dependent origination. His excuse for there being no first cause is that...things are unarisen and empty. And to support this claim he says, it's unaraisen and empty because it is dependently originated.

 

So his logic goes like this.

 

1. There is no first cause because

2. Phenomena is empty and unarisen because

3. Pheonomena is dependently originated because

4. Phenomena is empty and unarisen

 

Actually, there is no logic or reason why things are dependently originated, or why things are impermanent, or why things are anatta.

 

It just is. Just like there is no reason or logic why the mind is luminous - it just is, it is the essence of mind. Mind is not luminous because God wanted it to be luminous - it is simply so. You don't need reason to see this fact in direct experience, and neither can inferrential thought ever touch luminosity. A thought can however point - sort of, but the pointer is not the pointed.

 

You never actually see Buddha giving detailed logic about emptiness, about anatta, impermanence, dukkha, etc. He did elaborate on it by giving examples (such as dukkha is such and such), but not through logical analysis or reasoning. He prefers people to investigate it in direct experience. He only says 'suffering is such as such' and can be seen and observed in direct experience.

 

You either see it, or accept it by faith and then contemplate then see it.

 

I cannot give you a logic, but I can point out certain things you can look into: there is no controller or agency behind sensations and thoughts*, there is no perceiver or agency behind perception - in seeing just the seen not seer seeing seen, etc. You just have to investigate and see them yourselves.

 

Dependent on sense organ and sense object, various modes of consciousness manifest. Through this dependent origination, the eighteen dhatus arise as the Buddha has elaborated in details**. It is just the way things are.

 

 

 

* http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.nymo.html

 

"Bhikkhus, consciousness is not self. Were consciousness self, then this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.' And since consciousness is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.'

 

"Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?" — "Painful, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."

 

 

** http://www.leighb.com/mn38.htm

 

"No, venerable sir. In various ways we have been taught that consciousness arises dependently. Without a cause there is no arising of consciousness."

 

"Good, bhikkhus! Good that you know the Dhamma taught by me. In various ways I have taught that consciousness arises dependently. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet, this bhikkhu Sati, son of a fisherman, by holding to this wrong view, misrepresents us and destroys himself and accumulates much demerit, and it will be for his suffering for a long time.

 

"Bhikkhus, consciousness is reckoned by the condition dependent upon which it arises. If consciousness arises on account of eye and forms, it is reckoned as eye consciousness. If on account of ear and sounds it arises, it is reckoned as ear consciousness. If on account of nose and smells it arises, it is reckoned as nose consciousness. If on account of tongue and tastes it arises, it is reckoned as tongue consciousness. If on account of body and touch it arises, it is reckoned as body consciousness. If on account of mind and mind-objects it arises, it is reckoned as mind consciousness. Bhikkhus, just as a fire is reckoned based on whatever that fire burns - fire ablaze on sticks is a stick fire, fire ablaze on twigs is a twig fire, fire ablaze on grass is a grass fire, fire ablaze on cowdung is a cowdung fire, fire ablaze on grain thrash is a grain thrash fire, fire ablaze on rubbish is a rubbish fire - so too is consciousness reckoned by the condition dependent upon which it arises. In the same manner consciousness arisen on account is eye and forms is eye consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of ear and sounds is ear consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of nose and smells is nose consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of tongue and tastes is taste consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of body and touch is body consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of mind and mind-objects is mind consciousness.

Edited January 6, 2012 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Huh? What does a mindstream interdependently originate on? I thought you believe everything is disjointed, even each moment to the next. So how can there be a continuum of something called a "mindstream"? I really wish you didn't throw these terms out without much thought behind them.

Mindstream means a stream of activities occuring as a causal continuum, not the continuity of any entity. Because there is causal continuum, relatively speaking karma of your past life still ripens this life, events of yesterday can be remembered, etc. But it does not mean there is a soul, self-core or an unchanging self.

 

A is the cause of B. B arise due to causal relation with A. So B is not different from A, but neither is it the same as A. A and B are disjoint and yet, B is interdependently originated in accord with A as a causal condition.

 

An example is a causal continuum - I am neither same as my teacher, but neither is it totally different, since teacher imparts knowledge to me and therefore the knowledge of this continuum is a causal continuum of my teacher but not a continuity of an entity. Nonetheless understand teacher and me to be disjoint, relatively speaking, yet interdependently originated.

 

 

In the //Milindapanha// the King asks Nagasena:

 

"What is it, Venerable Sir, that will be reborn?"

 

"A psycho-physical combination (//nama-rupa//), O King."

 

"But how, Venerable Sir? Is it the same psycho-physical

combination as this present one?"

"No, O King. But the present psycho-physical combination produces

kammically wholesome and unwholesome volitional activities, and

through such kamma a new psycho-physical combination will be

born."

 

 

Namdrol:

 

Causes and effects are not the same, nor are they different.

 

The mind that takes rebirth is not as same as the previous mind nor is it different.

 

This is the reason why it is possible for sentients beings to experience serial rebirth through the appropriation of an infinite series of new physical bodies over time, relatively speaking.

 

By saying that there is no actual rebirth, one is committing oneself to a metaphysical position called ucchedavada i.e. annihilationism. Commiting oneself to the position that there is an actual self, person, or entity that is reborn is called śāśvatavāda, eternalism.

 

But when one understands that one instant of mind is neither the same nor different than the next instant of mind; since they are not the same, one avoids śāśvatavāda; and since they are not different, one avoids ucchedavada — thus one can understand the truth of rebirth, karma and its result, and dependent origination in the manner in which the Buddha intended and leave off the metaphysical speculations that plague non-Buddhists about such issues. One can then also understand that since the mind has no beginning, it never arose; and since it never arose, it never ceases.

 

N

Edited January 6, 2012 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

[xabir2005]

"There is no mind-agent or a universal mind, only a mind stream that interdependently originates without a beginning, in fact utterly empty and non-arisen."

 

Going by the quotes I posted earlier, I think this is incorrect according to Buddhist doctrine. Dharmakaya is the mind-agent, inseparable from the other 2 kayas. Once again, "This all-ground, not a mere nihilistic and void nothingness, is self-luminous cognizance that occurs unceasingly."

 

"God can't be a manifestation when it is a source of manifestation"

They are all wrapped up in one, in the same way as the 3 kayas. That is what I meant by that.

Dharmakaya is not an agent, it is the emptiness, which the tantra described as empty of a ground. Emptiness, luminosity and energy/appearance are inseparable. However nowhere does it indicate some sort of ultimate source or agent.

 

First of all when you realize anatta, the entire idea of agency is seen through as false and delusional - there never was an agent behind experience, the entire framework and view is fabricated. This realization breaks down subject object view (I, the seer, sees the objective universe) an inherent self view - the view that there is an inherent, independent, unchanging self, awareness, agent behind the process of phenomenal activities. There is the realization that in seeing there is just the seen, no seer from the beginning, the view of self is a delusion... What this means in effect, not just by inference but this can be directly seen and experienced, is that there is only just a process of activities - there is no-thing substantial, only a process of seamlessly dependently originated activities. No thing is created, they dependently originate according to condition. Dependent origination is incompatible with the idea of a God, Source, or Agent, and as long as you cling to such notions you will never truly realize and experience what D.O. is.

 

What I want to stress is that all these are not just theories, it can be directly realized and experienced... and this realization is beautiful and liberating.

Edited January 6, 2012 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

does it ever make you wonder why buddhism is the only spiritual tradition not to honor the creator according to its understanding?

 

you may think thats because buddhist understanding is superior and everyone else is wrong. But i would put forth the suggestion that it has to do with a deep misunderstanding of the nature of the force that all the other world traditions call "creator" by any name. So in other words, i don't think the problem is supreme perfect understanding here... hahhaa but a lack thereof.

 

I haven't said anything because buddhist babble drives me nuts, and i can't explain god. I don't understand it. I guess some people just go through enough to know that life is intelligent and that there is a hierarchy of being up to the top. And some don't. And the ones that don't believe in any root to the plant just see the leaves and think they dreamed themselves into existance, or smell the flower without pondering deeply what nourishes it. But i digress.

As you said - Buddhist understanding is different from other religions, and it is not just a slight one. It is a fundamental paradigm difference as Acharya Mahayogi Shridhar Rana Rinpoche explained in his article Madhyamika Buddhism Vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta - http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/02/madhyamika-buddhism-vis-vis-hindu.html

 

If you cannot accept Buddhist teachings, at least be open it and when you feel ready to investigate it with an open mind.

 

p.s. One of the important lessons of D.O. is that it breaks down hierarchy. Early last year, Thusness came to my house, and drawn to me a diagram of hierarchy (such as 'Awareness' or 'Ultimate Reality' or 'Source' at the top), and the next diagram representing the D.O. insight breaking all hierarchies into 'all are flat manifestations'. Later, my Taiwanese teacher also sent me a letter telling emphasizing the equality of all dharmas, talking about this essentially same issue.

 

And while it is true that there are relative 'hierarchies' in samsara - ultimately all these are empty and illusory, dependently originated. Even the highest gods are bound to be reborn, their birth completely dependent on karma. As for 'Brahman', Buddhism does not see a 'Brahman' but sees Anatta and D.O. - no hierarchy at all.

 

Life is intelligent - but there is no agent behind intelligence. Life is, no 'liver' of life. The insight into anatta and dependent origination does not deny 'Life', 'Intelligence', 'Vitality', 'Clarity', 'Luminosity' but simply replaces view of 'Self', 'Source', 'Ultimate Agent' with dependent origination and emptiness (which when seen dissolves all views). Dependent Origination and Emptiness has nothing to do with 'dead', 'inert'. Otherwise emptiness, luminosity and energy/appearance cannot be said to be inseparable.

Edited January 6, 2012 by xabir2005