About the nature of non existence.

[xabir2005]

Thanks for the link,...it helps me to better understand your vocabulary. And yes, I would agree that your path has been laid out,...my best wishes to you on that.

 

Many here like yourself are desireous to teach and share to pursuade others to join their path. Any sharing that I do is merely as consequence while engaging ignorance. Why people cling to ignorance for their identity is a fascinating subject.

 

"Human kind cannot bear very much reality" T. S. Eliot

So Buddha's and countless masters' teaching people is a result of engaging ignorance? haha... that's funny. Edited January 21, 2012 by xabir2005

[Vmarco]

 

I would like to not write the Ideas off to quickly without deeper analysis.

 

He is saying [and please correct me if I am wrong Vmarco] that the Alaya Vijnana is the same as the IAM state. That sounds very feasible to me considering the descriptions of both states.

 

Next he is saying is that he has personal experience of the IAM/alaya state.

 

And then, that he has gone beyond the IAM state, and is describing how the new state is different to the IAM state.

 

I think it would be wise to get clear about the specifics.

 

Vmarco if you are willing, would you please give us a detailed description of your experience with the IAM state?

 

If it can be clearly seen that you have a solid footing in your understanding of what the IAM is, [experientially] then your claims to have moved past it, into something deeper will hopefully be taken or looked more seriously...

 

 

Deeper analysis, that is harmonizing one "thing" with an "approved thing" does not allow for alaya to be popped,...popping alaya necessitates a letting go of analysis. However, it is understandable that sentient beings pursuing deeper paths to make their perceived lives more palatable, seek harmony with their accumulated knowledge.

 

Alaya Vijnana or the Eighth Alaya (dimension of consciousness) can be considered the point of I Am from which the "i think" and aggreregates descend into further ignorance.

 

There appears to be many levels or viewpoints within Alaya Vijnana,...but the main thing to understand is that it flows from Still Source or Undivided Light. Everything that "flows" is split,...nothing unsplit flows. However, without a familiarity with the 'What is Light' thread in TTB, understanding the above may be non-viable.

 

Depending on the assemblege point from which it participates with the universe, Alaya Vijnana can be viewed through a blissful dreamstate with little karma, or as a Tathagata, awake from the dream within Alaya.

Some Buddhists claim that Alaya Vijnana is the dharmadhatu field through which all is projected. Nagarjuna may have said that: "The dharmadhatu is the ground, for buddhahood, nirvana, purity, and permanence."

 

Dharmadhatu may be the "ground" for Boundless Buddhic permanence; however, the word permanent in this context can be misleading. There is no Buddha Nature in the Noumena of permanent Undivided Light (see the Mountain Doctrine),...Buddha Nature is that which stands aware upon the fulcrum of Undivided Light. It could be said that Buddha Nature is simultaneously split and unsplit,...and thus beyond the going and coming of that which identifies as only split and flowing, such as sentient beings.

 

Buddha Nature understands that Alaya Vijnana is not "home." On the hand, many that are conscious of the Upper Alayas believe they have arrived at Source, and because of this, sustain the illusions of suffering for the Lower Alayas. Thus one can say that identification with Brahman is the source of all suffering,...although in reality, suffering never existed.

 

To take that last paragraph further,...there was a necessity to manifest and descend into the Lower Alaya in order to show those identified with the Higher Alayas, that their blissful delusory state is the problem, not the cure. That is to say, those identified within the Higher Alaya have no impluse to pop out of Alaya,...however, from the Lower Alayas we can pop out of the delusion of the Higher Alayas.

 

V

[Vmarco]

So Buddha's and countless masters' teaching people is a result of engaging ignorance? haha... that's funny.

 

Yes,...the Buddha's and Master are engaging ignorance,...did you think that you, and other sentient beings were not ignorant?

 

The creator of the universe is not a god, or Brahman, but Avidya or ignorance. Brahman is Ignorance,...so ignorant that it thinks it's god.

 

V

[xabir2005]

Yes,...the Buddha's and Master are engaging ignorance,...did you think that you, and other sentient beings were not ignorant?

 

The creator of the universe is not a god, or Brahman, but Avidya or ignorance. Brahman is Ignorance,...so ignorant that it thinks it's god.

 

V

Ah, misread you.

[xabir2005]

Vmarco is talking about I AM, not the Alaya. To him the Alaya is still not ultimate, the I AM is. That is what I would have said in the I AM phase of insight too.

 

However, both Alaya, and the true I AM is not yet the realization of non-dual and anatta.

 

From Simpo_, another one of my friends and Thusness's students who been through all 7 Thusness stages -

 

13 Jan 12

 

Hi Jui,

 

You are doing well. This something beneath 'witnessing' is what we call the 'I AM' phase.

 

However, you have not reach the pure experience of it ... which will appear as all-pervading / borderless.

 

Will like to stress that this 'witness' as being underneath is a FALSE impression. The witness/awareness is not underneath ... it is embed with the flow of thoughts.

 

To understand that the witnessing is not underneath, one must progress towards the next phase which is the insight of non-duality or 'no subject-object division'... which should in turn lead to the insight of no-self.

 

Good luck... May you enter the stream soon.

 

.....

 

In a paradoxical manner, realised Buddhist practitioners do understand why and know how the idea of God (and even Soul) come about... Along their way on the realisation path, they would have come across transcendental experiences that could easily be identified as God (and even Soul)... BUT in order to move towards deeper level of realisations ... they will have to go beyond these states.

 

Just a sharing about my personal experience of what the experience of God and Soul are. Certainly nothing definitive .

 

God experience - This can either be

 

1. the I AM/Eternal witness experience with no thoughts or

 

2. the luminosity experience when mind deconstruct. When luminosity is experienced without the understanding/realisation of non-duality, this bright 'light' will be labelled as God. The God experience is the ultimate subject-object division experience.

 

 

 

 

 

Soul experience - surprisingly the soul experience is more subtle to experience that the God experience. Haha. This state should be the same as Alaya consciousness.

 

Soul experience is the subtlest experience where a mental formation is still being registered. It is experienced when the physical mind level activity is suspended. This state is a formless state that have registered all past life experiences of a Being. Because it retained all the past life experiences of a Being... it will be exalted when compared with the physical (gross) mental state. However, an important point to note is that this formless subtle state DO NOT necessarily understand its own empty and no-self nature. To me, the 'soul' state is the original point of cyclical transmigration. If the non-dual and emptiness nature is recognised at this level/state, the 'Being' will be enlightened. If this state is ignorant of its own non-dual and empty nature, it will move into dualistic action believing in the projections. Not written in Buddhist teaching is that the Soul state (in my experience) actually holds the intention of what it attempts to achieve in a particular lifetime. I have personally experienced the 'purpose' of incarnation... however as i have mentioned.. because this formless level of consciousness may not necessarily realise its non-dual and emptiness nature .. it will 'seek action' as a way to resolve what is being perceived as karmic issues.... resulting in transmigration.

 

 

 

The dream state roughly seats between this formless 'soul' state' and physical gross mental state.

 

For New age guys that talks about recieving guidance from the Soul, many do not actually experience this 'soul' state directly. Rather, they experience projected images and feelings. This so-call 'soul' state is extremely subtle and cannot be experienced when gross mental formations ( such as language and images) are present.

 

 

 

Ultimately... both 'God' and 'soul' experiences are not entities/selfs and are non-dual and empty.

 

Note: I will not respond to anyone who dispute these understandings unless they themselve have pass beyond non-dual and emptiness phases.

Edited January 22, 2012 by xabir2005

[Vmarco]

Vmarco is talking about I AM, not the Alaya. To him the Alaya is still not ultimate, the I AM is. That is what I would have said in the I AM phase of insight too.

 

Note: I will not respond to anyone who dispute these understandings unless they themselve have pass beyond non-dual and emptiness phases.

 

No,...VMarco, as per post #52, did not imply an I Am beyond the Alaya. "Passing beyond" non-dual emptiness is simply Presence. There is no Present in Alaya in any flowing view-point. There is no Present in flow,...in reality, there is no flow. Flowing is a perception of ignorance.

 

If you still the 6 senses and observe flow,...flash beyond it. The Higher Alayas are as a prison of bliss where the realization of true enlightenment is improbable.

 

V

[Seth Ananda]

 

Alaya Vijnana or the Eighth Alaya (dimension of consciousness) can be considered the point of I Am from which the "i think" and aggreregates descend into further ignorance.

Ok thats one question off the list, so Buddhist Alaya Vijnana = Hindu I AM state, thanks...

 

There appears to be many levels or viewpoints within Alaya Vijnana,...but the main thing to understand is that it flows from Still Source or Undivided Light. Everything that "flows" is split,...nothing unsplit flows. However, without a familiarity with the 'What is Light' thread in TTB, understanding the above may be non-viable.

 

Depending on the assemblege point from which it participates with the universe, Alaya Vijnana can be viewed through a blissful dreamstate with little karma, or as a Tathagata, awake from the dream within Alaya.

Some Buddhists claim that Alaya Vijnana is the dharmadhatu field through which all is projected. Nagarjuna may have said that: "The dharmadhatu is the ground, for buddhahood, nirvana, purity, and permanence."

 

Dharmadhatu may be the "ground" for Boundless Buddhic permanence; however, the word permanent in this context can be misleading. There is no Buddha Nature in the Noumena of permanent Undivided Light (see the Mountain Doctrine),...Buddha Nature is that which stands aware upon the fulcrum of Undivided Light. It could be said that Buddha Nature is simultaneously split and unsplit,...and thus beyond the going and coming of that which identifies as only split and flowing, such as sentient beings.

 

Buddha Nature understands that Alaya Vijnana is not "home." On the hand, many that are conscious of the Upper Alayas believe they have arrived at Source, and because of this, sustain the illusions of suffering for the Lower Alayas. Thus one can say that identification with Brahman is the source of all suffering,...although in reality, suffering never existed.

 

To take that last paragraph further,...there was a necessity to manifest and descend into the Lower Alaya in order to show those identified with the Higher Alayas, that their blissful delusory state is the problem, not the cure. That is to say, those identified within the Higher Alaya have no impluse to pop out of Alaya,...however, from the Lower Alayas we can pop out of the delusion of the Higher Alayas.

 

V

 

But the rest does not really answer my other questions...

 

Would you oblige me with simple answers in your own words to these few questions?

It's the only way I can think of to be sure, step by step, that we are on the same page in understanding these concepts...

 

1. What is your {not someone else's} experience of the I AM/Alaya Vijnana? How certain are you that you experienced the IAM stage clearly? What was it like for you?

 

2. When you say you have passed the IAM into something Higher, what is that like? In your words and experience how is it different to the I AM state? How sure are you that it is completely different to the I AM? Based on what?

 

 

 

If you can satisfy some of the critical minds here that you know - experientially - what you are talking about regarding the different stages/states, then we all may reach a more meaningful dialogue. So far we have just been going round in circles.

 

You say: "Undivided light is beyond the I AM" and cut and paste a few quotes...

 

Someone else says: "no your just talking about the I AM" because it sounds like that to us...

 

You say: "No..." and so it goes...

 

If you can show that your experiential and personal experience of the I AM is clear, then you may be able to get better quality dialogue here as to whether your 'beyond' is really different to the I AM.

 

In other words if people here can go: "Oh, yes he really knows the I AM state clearly, that is definitely the I AM that he is talking about", then it will be easier for them entertain the possibility, that when you say you found something that is beyond the I AM, that you may actually know what you are talking about...

Edited January 22, 2012 by Seth Ananda

[dwai]

Yes,...the Buddha's and Master are engaging ignorance,...did you think that you, and other sentient beings were not ignorant?

 

The creator of the universe is not a god, or Brahman, but Avidya or ignorance. Brahman is Ignorance,...so ignorant that it thinks it's god.

 

V

Obviously you and your cohorts have no fsking idea what you are talking about. Why dont you stick to indrajal?

[Birch]

Brahman "thinks"? I feel a bit pre-school for this thread and I'm not much of a scholar but from what I understand (asking me how would be a problem though) Brahman doesn't have any specific activity itself. The stuff happens within what I can only express as the 'fabric' of Brahman but it's no different from Brahman.

Sounds like VMarco is referring to something 'beyond' Brahman. Not something I can speak to. There's always someone to tell you you haven't made the cut

The 'soul' idea is presently being referred to in the PTSD thread.

[xabir2005]

No,...VMarco, as per post #52, did not imply an I Am beyond the Alaya. "Passing beyond" non-dual emptiness is simply Presence. There is no Present in Alaya in any flowing view-point. There is no Present in flow,...in reality, there is no flow. Flowing is a perception of ignorance.

 

If you still the 6 senses and observe flow,...flash beyond it. The Higher Alayas are as a prison of bliss where the realization of true enlightenment is improbable.

 

V

In other words, you are saying I AM (what you called Presence) is beyond the Alaya.

Edited January 22, 2012 by xabir2005

[Vmarco]

In other words, you are saying I AM (what you called Presence) is beyond the Alaya.

 

 

No,...in the consciousness of I Am, the Present is very difficult to realize. In your Soulestrial Orienteering it is wise to create a surrogate I,...so to not get attached to any notion of a real I, because there is no real I.

 

In Buddhism, one practice to pop the illusion of the I, is to focus upon Other. When Other pops, the I pops,...and duality is transcended.

 

Non-duality is as beyond One and Many, Here and There, Center and Boundary, I and Them. A Tathagata is beyond the I Am.

 

V

[Vmarco]

Edited January 22, 2012 by Vmarco

[xabir2005]

No,...in the consciousness of I Am, the Present is very difficult to realize. In your Soulestrial Orienteering it is wise to create a surrogate I,...so to not get attached to any notion of a real I, because there is no real I.

 

In Buddhism, one practice to pop the illusion of the I, is to focus upon Other. When Other pops, the I pops,...and duality is transcended.

 

Non-duality is as beyond One and Many, Here and There, Center and Boundary, I and Them. A Tathagata is beyond the I Am.

 

V

No. You are not understanding the Hindu Brahman at all. It is exactly the same as what you are experiencing. It is the Pure Presence you are talking about.

[Vmarco]

No. You are not understanding the Hindu Brahman at all. It is exactly the same as what you are experiencing. It is the Pure Presence you are talking about.

 

 

I'm not attempting to understand the Hindu Brahman. If Brahman is the one supreme, universal Spirit, it is not Present, Undivided Light,...just as there is no I Am or 'Other Am' in Present, Undivided Light.

 

There is no duality in Present, Undivided Light,...that means no One or Many, no Here or There, no Center or Boundary, no Creator or Created, no in-breath/out-breath of spirit.

 

There is no alaya in Present, Undivided Light. To me, "Pure Presence" is absolute Present, Undivided Light,...it is beyond time, space, creation and Creators,....Present, Undivided Light has no "spirit", energy, motion, nor any characteristic of Brahman such as infinite Beingness. The consciousness and bliss of Brahman, which could be intellectualized as the I Am, is a pleasure prison that veils what Buddha was pointing to. Brahman is an opiate.

 

It is nearly impossible to enter Presence from Braham,...but quite possible to enter Presence from the lowly physical, which is the most harmoniously balanced interchange of duality in the scheme of Divided Light. Brahman may be the closest to the split,...however, that position keeps it blind to the fact that it is also in the prison of duality.

 

There is no duality in the Present. There is no confusion in regards to VMarco's understanding of the Present. There is no Present in time.

 

V

[xabir2005]

I'm not attempting to understand the Hindu Brahman. If Brahman is the one supreme, universal Spirit, it is not Present, Undivided Light,...just as there is no I Am or 'Other Am' in Present, Undivided Light.

 

There is no duality in Present, Undivided Light,...that means no One or Many, no Here or There, no Center or Boundary, no Creator or Created, no in-breath/out-breath of spirit.

 

There is no alaya in Present, Undivided Light. To me, "Pure Presence" is absolute Present, Undivided Light,...it is beyond time, space, creation and Creators,....Present, Undivided Light has no "spirit", energy, motion, nor any characteristic of Brahman such as infinite Beingness. The consciousness and bliss of Brahman, which could be intellectualized as the I Am, is a pleasure prison that veils what Buddha was pointing to. Brahman is an opiate.

 

It is nearly impossible to enter Presence from Braham,...but quite possible to enter Presence from the lowly physical, which is the most harmoniously balanced interchange of duality in the scheme of Divided Light. Brahman may be the closest to the split,...however, that position keeps it blind to the fact that it is also in the prison of duality.

 

There is no duality in the Present. There is no confusion in regards to VMarco's understanding of the Present. There is no Present in time.

 

V

It is simple really. You treat the 'Undivided Light' as the ultimate Self. Brahman is the Presence that is the Ultimate Self, it is not dual. It is a non intellectual, non conceptual realization.

 

Basically, your view and experience is really no different from Hinduism. You have not realized the view of Buddha.

Edited January 23, 2012 by xabir2005

[Seth Ananda]

I'm not attempting to understand the Hindu Brahman. If Brahman is the one supreme, universal Spirit, it is not Present, Undivided Light,...just as there is no I Am or 'Other Am' in Present, Undivided Light.

That seems to be the problem in these communications. You have a few loose faulty ideas about what 'Brahman' is, Rather than actually knowing what its experience actually is. Then you go talking about it as if you know all about it and have surpassed it...

 

...that means no One or Many, no Here or There, no Center or Boundary, no Creator or Created, no in-breath/out-breath of spirit.

No one describes Brahman as having these qualities {usually there are always a few exceptions a person may dig up}

 

There is no alaya in Present, Undivided Light. To me, "Pure Presence" is absolute Present, Undivided Light,...it is beyond time, space, creation and Creators,....Present,

But They do describe Brahman as Having these qualities...

 

 

I am pretty much convinced now that you have no Idea what you are talking about. You are an intelligent intellectual with good cut and paste skills, lots of premature conclusions and a lousy ability to research things that might challenge your conclusions.

 

I think you are afraid to challenge your own Ideas {as you constantly admonish others to do} because you are a writer. You have written a book with these ideas in it, so now you can't let yourself discover that some of your Ideas are mistaken... It turns you into a broken record.

 

It seems funny that you are here teaching Hindu ideas [badly] as if they were Buddhist Ideas, and that is not meant to denigrate either tradition.

 

As an experiment, go over to the Vedic subforum, drop the 'Buddhist' language and start talking about the state you go on about. I imagine your reception will be very different as most of them 'know' the state you are talking about!

[Vmarco]

That seems to be the problem in these communications. You have a few loose faulty ideas about what 'Brahman' is, Rather than actually knowing what its experience actually is. Then you go talking about it as if you know all about it and have surpassed it...

 

No one describes Brahman as having these qualities {usually there are always a few exceptions a person may dig up}

 

 

But They do describe Brahman as Having these qualities...

 

 

I am pretty much convinced now that you have no Idea what you are talking about. You are an intelligent intellectual with good cut and paste skills, lots of premature conclusions and a lousy ability to research things that might challenge your conclusions.

 

 

Yes, there is a problem with the communication.

 

In the USA, Brahman is defined as the one supreme, universal Spirit that is the origin and support of the phenomenal universe. Brahman is sometimes referred to as the Absolute or Godhead which is the Divine Ground of all being. The sages of the Upanishads teach that Brahman is the ultimate essence of material phenomena including the original identity of the human self whose nature can be known through the doctrine of self-knowledge (atma jnana). According to Advaita, a liberated human being (jivanmukta) has realised Brahman as his or her own true self (see atman).

 

To me the above definition agrees with my statement,..."If Brahman is the one supreme, universal Spirit, it is not Present, Undivided Light,...just as there is no I Am or 'Other Am' in Present, Undivided Light."

 

I see nothing in the Hindu definition that suggests Brahman is Present. All the characteristics of a Creator like Braham are in time, with spirit (or the energy of in-breath/out-breath, oneness or supreme one, and the essence of material phenomena.

 

Brahman cannot answer the truth of suffering,...because it is ultimately the progenator of suffering,...and that is what Buddha was pointing to.

 

I appreciate your response. It is helpful in understanding your ignorance.

 

V

[Seth Ananda]

 

In the USA, Brahman is defined as the one supreme, universal Spirit that is the origin and support of the phenomenal universe. Brahman is sometimes referred to as the Absolute or Godhead which is the Divine Ground of all being. The sages of the Upanishads teach that Brahman is the ultimate essence of material phenomena including the original identity of the human self whose nature can be known through the doctrine of self-knowledge (atma jnana). According to Advaita, a liberated human being (jivanmukta) has realised Brahman as his or her own true self (see atman).

 

Hmm, if you use just that definition [which some of the Upanishads definitely use] you are then missing Most of the Advaitic teachings which are pretty much like how you describe Undivided light. Where Brahman is beyond time, movement, opposites...

 

Now one has to remember that many schools use the word Brahman in different ways.

 

In some schools Brahman is simply Transcendent [from our unreal human perspective] and the world is simply dreamlike nothing...

 

In some Brahman is Both Transcendent and Immanent in that it is beyond everything, unmoving, yet the source of the illusory display of dreams we call the world...

 

And finally some seem more Immanent or 'Great Spirit' like, as you describe...

 

You say undivided light is the True self, and that is what the first school I listed would say as well. Because you are both talking about the same thing...

[xabir2005]

That seems to be the problem in these communications. You have a few loose faulty ideas about what 'Brahman' is, Rather than actually knowing what its experience actually is. Then you go talking about it as if you know all about it and have surpassed it...

 

 

No one describes Brahman as having these qualities {usually there are always a few exceptions a person may dig up}

 

 

But They do describe Brahman as Having these qualities...

 

 

I am pretty much convinced now that you have no Idea what you are talking about. You are an intelligent intellectual with good cut and paste skills, lots of premature conclusions and a lousy ability to research things that might challenge your conclusions.

 

I think you are afraid to challenge your own Ideas {as you constantly admonish others to do} because you are a writer. You have written a book with these ideas in it, so now you can't let yourself discover that some of your Ideas are mistaken... It turns you into a broken record.

 

It seems funny that you are here teaching Hindu ideas [badly] as if they were Buddhist Ideas, and that is not meant to denigrate either tradition.

 

As an experiment, go over to the Vedic subforum, drop the 'Buddhist' language and start talking about the state you go on about. I imagine your reception will be very different as most of them 'know' the state you are talking about!

Well said. Vmarco can only understand Hindu Brahman if he has an open mind.

[Vmarco]

[xabir2005]

[Vmarco]

Actually the Brahman POV is that illusion don't exist, only Brahman is real.

 

 

Exactly! Brahman, which is in the higher alaya, believes it is real, quite similiar to the sciential-minded believing that the phenomena of the human-centric dream is real. Buddha suggested that Brahman is not real, only the Tathagata is real. The Tathagata is beyond the conditional state (one supreme, universal Spirit) of Brahman.

 

In reality, Humanism (the Many) does not exist without Brahman (the One). There can be no One, without a Many. There is no Great Self without a Great Other. Brahman, by definition, is the Highest Ego illusion.

 

Why isn't that clear enough in my above posts?

 

V

[xabir2005]

Exactly! Brahman, which is in the higher alaya, believes it is real, quite similiar to the sciential-minded believing that the phenomena of the human-centric dream is real. Buddha suggested that Brahman is not real, only the Tathagata is real. The Tathagata is beyond the conditional state (one supreme, universal Spirit) of Brahman.

 

In reality, Humanism (the Many) does not exist without Brahman (the One). There can be no One, without a Many. There is no Great Self without a Great Other. Brahman, by definition, is the Highest Ego illusion.

 

Why isn't that clear enough in my above posts?

 

V

Because Brahman is seen to be Pure Presence, not the conditional state of mind you had in mind.

 

By taking 'Tathagata' as real, you are in fact holding the same self view and also having the same experience as that of Brahman. You should read their texts with open mind and I'm sure you will find much similarities.

[Vmarco]

[konchog uma]

Gate, Gate, Paragate, Parasamgate, Bodhi Svaha! leads to a commitment of righteous intolerance and the abolition of spiritual ignorance, not the moderation and appeasing of religious traditions and faith-based ideals.

 

the buddha never mentioned righteous intolerance, thats your own doctrine i think. And its not a very awakened one if i may say so. You're a crusader tho, and i'm not, so i'm sure our opinions are bound to differ.

 

edit: in my case, the mantra propels me beyond intolerance of any kind. The heart sutra is about moving beyond dichotomous concepts like awakedness and ignorance. There is nothing in that sutra that feeds righteous intolerance.

 

Hahahahha righteous intolerance... is there any other kind?!

Edited January 24, 2012 by anamatva