About the nature of non existence.

[suninmyeyes]

Just been reading bits of the this thread and got reminded of Advahoota Gita , as Dattatreya keeps on mentioning homogenous Brahman which is akin to Undivided Light but in different terminology (edit to add:although I am not 100%sure and am in a stage where I am exploring and some new experiental understanding is taking place).

The following is worth reading with an open mind as previous posters mention.

http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Avadhoota-Gita.pdf

 

There are no Vedas,no words,no gods,no sacrifices.

There is certanly no caste , no stage in life, no family , no birth.

There is neither path of smoke , nor the path of light.

There is only highest truth, the homogenous Brahman.

-----

The mind is indeed the form of space.

The mind is indeed omnifaced.

The mind is the past.

The mind is all.

In reality there is no mind.

Edited January 24, 2012 by suninmyeyes

[Vmarco]

[Seth Ananda]

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

Again this post, is based on your minds theorys, and has nothing to do with how Advaitins describe Brahman.

To a realized Advaitan, Brahman is pure presence, beyond Time, and all opposites and extremes.

To say Brahman 'believes' something is to imply it thinks or has cognizance.

 

That is totally ridiculous, except if in your thinking you have a bunch of ideas and beliefs that say:

 

"Brahman is a creator being/great spirit and there is no way I will accept that there is any other category people would use for Brahman being of a different nature to this" - lol which pretty much sums up your point of view...

[konchog uma]

To understand Righteous Intolerance, one must first comprehend the compassion of a Bodhisattva. Although people today, like yourself, have some very bizarre ideas about compassion, how to understand compassion is quite clear,...The root of Buddhist practice is Compassion, which according to Buddha, only arises through the realization of the emptiness of inherent existence.

 

i like how when faced with unavoidable facts you just change the subject. Intolerance and compassion/emptiness have nothing to do with each other.

 

i would ask what my bizarre ideas are but i really don't need to know. thanks anyway.

 

(and please read slowly so to comprehend)

 

you've quoted that quote about compassion and emptiness 1000 times, but i actually stopped reading there. We can have this conversation in the future when you learn not to be condescending. There is such a marked difference between the widsom teachers you quote and your own words.

 

hahaha as if by pointing out that the buddha never mentioned righteous intolerance i am now "anti-buddhist" Bwahahahaaaha you may have yourself fooled but you don't fool me.

 

no need to reply unless you need the last word.

Edited January 25, 2012 by anamatva

[xabir2005]

Your belief that Brahman is "pure presence", is first a lie,

Your belief that Brahman is not Pure Presence is the first lie.

 

Advaitin sage Ramana Maharshi:

 

1. Who am I ?

 

The gross body which is composed of the seven

humours (dhatus), I am not; the five cognitive

sense organs, viz. the senses of hearing, touch,

sight, taste, and smell, which apprehend their

respective objects, viz. sound, touch, colour,

taste, and odour, I am not; the five cognitive senseorgans,

viz. the organs of speech, locomotion, grasping,

excretion, and procreation, which have as

their respective functions speaking, moving, grasping,

excreting, and enjoying, I am not; the five

vital airs, prana, etc., which perform respectively

the five functions of in-breathing, etc., I am not;

even the mind which thinks, I am not; the nescience

too, which is endowed only with the residual

impressions of objects, and in which there are no

objects and no functioning's, I am not.

 

2. If I am none of these, then who am I?

 

After negating all of the above-mentioned as `not this',

`not this', that Awareness which alone remains - that I am.

 

3. What is the nature of Awareness?

 

The nature of Awareness is existence-consciousness-bliss

 

4. When will the realization of the Self be gained?

 

When the world which is what-is-seen has been removed,

there will be realization of the Self which is the seer.

 

5. Will there not be realization of the Self even while

the world is there (taken as real)?

 

There will not be.

 

6. Why?

 

The seer and the object seen are like the rope and

the snake. Just as the knowledge of the rope

which is the substrate will not arise unless the

false knowledge of the illusory serpent goes, so the

realization of the Self which is the substrate will

not be gained unless the belief that the world is

real is removed.

 

7. When will the world which is the object seen be removed?

 

When the mind, which is the cause of all cognition's

and of all actions, becomes quiescent, the

world will disappear.

Brahman is seen as the Creator (a condition of movement);

Your belief that Brahman is a Creator is the second lie.

 

 

In the Advaita tradition, it is only the Brahman with attributes that is seen as a creator, but that is all from the viewpoint of ignorance (avidya) and ultimately untrue.

 

In the ultimate reality - the Brahman without attributes - there is no creator, and no creation.

 

The notion that mAyA has no reality in itself, and that brahman is the only real, allows the sRshTi-dRshTi vAdin to "graduate", so to speak, to ajAtivAda, the view that no creation really occured ever.

 

You seriously need to study some basic Advaita otherwise you are attacking your bogeyman version of it, really. The real Advaitins will laugh at you.

[Vmarco]

Again this post, is based on your minds theorys, and has nothing to do with how Advaitins describe Brahman.

To a realized Advaitan, Brahman is pure presence, beyond Time, and all opposites and extremes.

 

If Brahman is Present, and beyond time, it cannot be a creator, universal spirit, an undifferentiated Being, One, or that which underlies all existence. This is not a "mind theory", it is what it is. There is no Creator, creation, no Big Bang, no Singularity, universal spirit, or undifferentiated Beings in the Present,...that is an irrefutable fact of anyone who has directly experienced the Present.

 

VMarco has no intent or wish to "realize Advaitan" or Brahman's illusory pure presence. To realize the Absolute Present, you must flash beyond the Alaya,...beyond Brahman. That is the message of Sakyamuni Buddha. There is nothing ridiculous about it.

 

V

[Vmarco]

You seriously need to study some basic Advaita otherwise you are attacking your bogeyman version of it, really. The real Advaitins will laugh at you.

 

Please alter all accepted definitions of Brahman to fit or better harmonize with your belief regarding Brahman, and I will gladly alter my posts accordingly.

 

You can begin here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

 

For example, it is said that the universe does not simply possess consciousness, it is consciousness, and this consciousness is Brahman. Buddha taught that identification with universal consciousness is an ego delusion.

 

The Advaita Vedanta says "Brahman is knowledge"...Buddhists understand that all knowledge arises from the skandhas,...thus Brahman arose from the skandhas.

 

"Brahman is everything, and all we see are His different energies:...yet there is no energy in the Present.

 

Etc.

Edited January 25, 2012 by Vmarco

[xabir2005]

I'd rather you read more reliable sources than wikipedia.

 

Anyway it is well established that in Advaita tradition, the world is maya (illusory), being maya, there is no creator and no creation. Only Brahman (Pure Presence/Undivided Light etc) is real, unchanging, etc.

 

So you are just criticizing your own bogeyman formulation of Brahman that has nothing at all to do with the real Advaita tradition.

 

You are unwilling to see that your views are much prevalent in non-Buddhist religions.

Edited January 25, 2012 by xabir2005

[Seth Ananda]

If Brahman is Present, and beyond time, it cannot be a creator, universal spirit, an undifferentiated Being, One, or that which underlies all existence. This is not a "mind theory", it is what it is. There is no Creator, creation, no Big Bang, no Singularity, universal spirit, or undifferentiated Beings in the Present,...that is an irrefutable fact of anyone who has directly experienced the Present.

 

VMarco has no intent or wish to "realize Advaitan" or Brahman's illusory pure presence. To realize the Absolute Present, you must flash beyond the Alaya,...beyond Brahman. That is the message of Sakyamuni Buddha. There is nothing ridiculous about it.

 

V

{Pulls hair out in frustration} I dont know why I bother trying to converse with you.

Maybe because I think that you are smart enough to be good at this stuff, if you just put your BS interpretations of the world aside for a minute.

 

As has been said, over and over again, by me and several others in this thread, is that most or at least many Advaitans do not see Brahman as a creator, or as active in the world in any way.

 

Get that through your thick skull. Brahman is not a creator, but is pure presence, beyond movement, opposites and time.

 

 

We all get that you have a problem with the Hindu's who believe that Brahma is other than this, like a creator with a body and a bunch of heads, or a Great Creative Spirit behind all things, but they are different people, following different sects and teachings.

Start using your brain and realize the diversity of the often conflicting views in the Hindu traditions...

[Ascension20122]

Brahmā (Sanskrit: ब्रह्मा; IAST:Brahmā) is the Hindu god (deva) of creation and one of the Trimūrti, the others being Viṣņu and Śiva. According to the Brahmā Purāņa, he is the father of Manu, and from Manu all human beings are descended. In the Rāmāyaņa and the Mahābhārata, he is often referred to as the progenitor or great grandsire of all human beings. He is not to be confused with the Supreme Cosmic Spirit in Hindu Vedānta philosophy known as Brahmān, which is genderless.

 

In Sanskŗta grammar, the noun stem brahman forms two distinct nouns; one is a neuter noun bráhman, whose nominative singular form is brahmā ब्रह्म; this noun has a generalized and abstract meaning.

 

Contrasted to the neuter noun is the masculine noun brahmán, whose nominative singular form is Brahma ब्रह्मा. This noun is used to refer to a person, and as the proper name of a deity Brahma it is the subject matter of the present article.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma

Edited January 25, 2012 by Ascension20122

[dwai]

{Pulls hair out in frustration} I dont know why I bother trying to converse with you.

Maybe because I think that you are smart enough to be good at this stuff, if you just put your BS interpretations of the world aside for a minute.

 

As has been said, over and over again, by me and several others in this thread, is that most or at least many Advaitans do not see Brahman as a creator, or as active in the world in any way.

 

Get that through your thick skull. Brahman is not a creator, but is pure presence, beyond movement, opposites and time.

 

 

We all get that you have a problem with the Hindu's who believe that Brahma is other than this, like a creator with a body and a bunch of heads, or a Great Creative Spirit behind all things, but they are different people, following different sects and teachings.

Start using your brain and realize the diversity of the often conflicting views in the Hindu traditions...

 

Seth, I think VMarco knows exactly what you are trying to say. But he loves the idea of his version of Brahman that can be used as a straw man to beat up, crap on, etc intellectually to show how "GREAT" VMarco's Undefined Light is...

 

I didn't bother commenting on his useless diatribe beyond telling him exactly what I thought about his "knowledge" in one post. He is worse than Mikz and VH in his emptiness... :rofl:

 

Also surprisingly, Brahma is the one deity who is "NOT" worshipped by 99.99% of Hindus. There are no temples in his honor, there are no murtis of his. So, even as Saguna Brahman, "Brahma" is mostly neglected as the object of ritualistic reverence.

 

NOTE: I was admonished in a PM (by a moderator) that my post was an ad-hominem against some members of this board. I wasn't really criticizing the individuals...only their understanding of a specific topic. So, even though I was asked to retract my statement, I refuse to do so. I am not trying to be difficult here. I only want to make a point. For that "affront", if I'm "banished" from TTB, then I will be happy to disappear...

Edited January 25, 2012 by dwai

[Vmarco]

I'd rather you read more reliable sources than wikipedia.

 

Anyway it is well established that in Advaita tradition, the world is maya (illusory), being maya, there is no creator and no creation. Only Brahman (Pure Presence/Undivided Light etc) is real, unchanging, etc.

 

So you are just criticizing your own bogeyman formulation of Brahman that has nothing at all to do with the real Advaita tradition.

 

You are unwilling to see that your views are much prevalent in non-Buddhist religions.

 

Nowhere have I ever heard or directly experienced, that Brahman is Undivided Light. They are only bogeymen of your making.

 

I'm fully available to view prevalent non-Buddhist beliefs. Please forward me a credible definition of Brahman that does not include: Universal spirit, Undifferentiated Being, One, Light of the Universe, Material Cause of Creation, All Knowledge, Universal Consciousness, Absolute God, I Am Brahman, Impersonal Infinite Bliss, Creator of All Beings of this World, The Screen or reality onto which human perceptions of differentiation are projected, the eternal first cause, the Beginning, Pure Being, etc....because all those characteristics or conditions listed above cannot be uncovered in the Present.

 

From the little I've read of Advaita traditions, I must agree with Buddha,...it is a barrier to uncovering the Present.

 

V

[Apech]

**** Moderator Message *****

 

Just a kindly warning. This thread is getting heated and while you are discussing some high level ideas ... its getting personal. Please could you remember that no matter how much you disagree with another poster they are entitled to their view. Maybe they are wrong, maybe they have a different understanding, maybe they are right in their own terms.

 

Please keep it respectful and no personal insults or attacks on the person rather than the ideas.

 

Thanks.

 

*** Mod Message Ends ***

 

[Vmarco]

{Pulls hair out in frustration} I dont know why I bother trying to converse with you.

Maybe because I think that you are smart enough to be good at this stuff, if you just put your BS interpretations of the world aside for a minute.

 

As has been said, over and over again, by me and several others in this thread, is that most or at least many Advaitans do not see Brahman as a creator, or as active in the world in any way.

 

Get that through your thick skull. Brahman is not a creator, but is pure presence, beyond movement, opposites and time.

 

 

That is interesting,....why do these Advaitans, who deny the Advaita Vedanta, that is, that Brahman is the gender neutral, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Incorporeal, Independent, Creator of the world, its ruler and also destroyer, the indestructible, transcendental living entity...why do these Advaitans with whom you resonate with, consider themselves Advaitans? This indestructible, transcendental living Brahman is pretty much as Buddha said,...indestructable in its imovability to pop out of its higher alaya. One would think that these Advaitans would become Buddhists, except that Buddha insisted that one let go of all phenomenal characteristics like those attributed to Brahman.

 

I sense that the problem here is one of Advaitans attempting to adopt Unconditional aspects upon their Conditional Deity to make it more palatable for their cling to this idea for their identity,...but in truth, conditions do not "fit into" the Unconditional. Sort of how the ignorant interchange the Who's Who of Duality according to their human-centric beliefs.

 

Their is either Conditional (Universal spirit, Undifferentiated Being, One, Light of the Universe, Material Cause of Creation, All Knowledge, Universal Consciousness, Absolute God, I Am Brahman, Impersonal Infinite Bliss, Creator of All Beings of this World, The Screen or reality onto which human perceptions of differentiation are projected, the eternal first cause, the Beginning, Pure Being) or Unconditional (the Present beyond conditions).

 

V

Edited January 25, 2012 by Vmarco

[Seth Ananda]

That is interesting,....why do these Advaitans, who deny the Advaita Vedanta, that is, that Brahman is the gender neutral, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Incorporeal, Independent, Creator of the world, its ruler and also destroyer, the indestructible, transcendental living entity...why do these Advaitans with whom you resonate with, consider themselves Advaitans? This indestructible, transcendental living Brahman is pretty much as Buddha said,...indestructable in its imovability to pop out of its higher alaya. One would think that these Advaitans would become Buddhists, except that Buddha insisted that one let go of all phenomenal characteristics like those attributed to Brahman.

 

V

 

Again, what a pile of rubbish! Your ideas are rubbish!

 

Why can't you understand that Hinduism is not one gloriously unified whole? the Vedas contain different and often conflicting teachings.

 

Different Upanishads contain different teachings and many traditions follow some or even one, but not the Others.

 

This is not a subtle philosophical difference that can be argued.

 

This is just the physical reality of Indian Traditions. Different Traditions use the word Brahman for different and sometimes conflicting things to other traditions...

 

Is your edifice of be[lie]fs so strong that you cant even consider a possibility outside of how you 'think' things are?

 

Where is your 'deep and inquiring mind, ready to challenge any belief, including your own' that should have come from your wonderful realizations of Undivided Light?

 

I'll spell it out again.

 

Brahman in one school = God...

 

Brahman in another school = not God, but timeless presence...

 

Advaita usually leans towards the second.

 

I know its hard for you because you think in absolutes, but some schools may even 'utilize the teachings from the first school, as a temporary aid while focusing on the second' - Shudder, what deluded idiots!

 

Take some Advaitin schools, that focus on the I AM first, getting its sense stabalized as quickly as possible so that the student knows exactly what it is, and then moving beyond it! Thats what Nissagardata did with his students.

 

Stabilize the I AM then realize that even that is an object/experience and move beyond...

Edited January 26, 2012 by Seth Ananda

[Vmarco]

[Seth Ananda]

[dwai]

Not that unavailable, I have seen thousands of references over the years to 2+ forms of Brahman...

 

 

2+...

 

 

Sure, but keep ones mind open... There may be cases where Brahman is spoken about with references to the world of qualities, that are simply allegorical...

 

 

Ahhh sanity at last

 

 

 

Why would they [indians] do that? 'Undivided Light' is in English not Sanskrit. Indians using their own Language are going to describe things according to their Language and culture. If the word Brahman to them means 'the highest attainment' or The Supreme Level or something similiar, then that is exactly what they will call it... anyway many of the Advaitins refer to the God, with personal qualities as Brahma to distinguish it from their Brahman...

 

The problem i see repeatedly is a case of misunderstanding. People who come to dharmic traditions from an abrahamic (whether theistic or atheistic) background assume that words like "ishwara" or "bhagavan" translate to god. Unfortunately the answer is both yes and no. So someone who has "shunned" the dogma of a jealous god will conditionally abhor a tradition that might focus on such an ishwara. However the fact (aside from some abrahamesque sects like hare krshnas) is that the native practitioner is quite free to choose his/her deity and transcend the deity by doing atma vicara. While in one hand i get extremely irritated by semi-literate diatribes such that on this thread, i also feel compassion for such individuals because they have not been able to give up that which they have shunned. They are caught between two worlds, but never fully in either (trishanku)...

[suninmyeyes]

Nowhere have I ever heard or directly experienced, that Brahman is Undivided Light. They are only bogeymen of your making.

 

I'm fully available to view prevalent non-Buddhist beliefs. Please forward me a credible definition of Brahman that does not include: Universal spirit, Undifferentiated Being, One, Light of the Universe, Material Cause of Creation, All Knowledge, Universal Consciousness, Absolute God, I Am Brahman, Impersonal Infinite Bliss, Creator of All Beings of this World, The Screen or reality onto which human perceptions of differentiation are projected, the eternal first cause, the Beginning, Pure Being, etc....because all those characteristics or conditions listed above cannot be uncovered in the Present.

 

From the little I've read of Advaita traditions, I must agree with Buddha,...it is a barrierto uncovering the Present.

 

V

Although you were conversing with Xabir I feel like taking opportunity to answer .

Brahman in its explanation doesent get more present than this

Brahman = Ekam Advitiyam- The One Without The Second

[Birch]

I have a question. Does it matter so much what Brahman is defined as? Why? I was thinking, if you're looking for a 'non-dual' definition then, well, there you go.

 

Sorry, that's as clear as mud. So you have to define it by saying what it isn't and then wait for people to get it. People can get stuff like this, I insist they can! If everyone stops getting in each other's way with it and arguing the toss forever because whatever it is, it's already here.

 

I think a problem is that the road to getting it is paved with other people that think they've got it and then tell everyone else or worse, force them to believe what they think they've 'got'. I'm wondering what makes people 'not get it'.

 

Just saying. I don't think I've got it either but I sort of think I understand sometimes. And not the rest of the time. It's a thought-impediment I have.

[JustARandomPanda]

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

 

1. Could you please clarify this a bit further? I read this and it reminded me of something I vaguely recall from the Western Mystic Rudolf Steiner a transcript of his lecture topic. I could've sworn I remembered reading a snippet of a talk Steiner gave on Evil wherein he said that the blessed state of higher beings exists only because some others stayed behind and suffer. Now, it may be that I misunderstood and misremember what Steiner was saying. I found his lecture puzzling. Honestly...I keep second-guessing what Steiner might have meant by that but it sounds somewhat similar to what you just said.

 

Was Steiner (and you?) saying that because I (since Buddhists teach Human Birth is Precious), for example - will not relinquish my desire for pleasures/bliss/oneness/insert-amazing-blessing, etc - set up some kind of vibratory "feedback" or "resonance" in the Triple Realm/Universe-Multiverse, etc that "causes" unwholesome states/unblessed states to ALSO be sustained?

 

 

2. When you speak of Undivided Light - is this the same light as the Tathagata Amitabha Buddha? The Buddha of Infinite Light? Also - is it a LITERAL Light?! As in, something even I, a zero-realization person would say "yep, that's definitely Light alright!" sort of thing. Is it the case that Amitabha really - quite literally (and not just figuratively) is - Infinite Light?

[Vmarco]

[Vmarco]

The perceived reality of Maya is along the Center Pillar. At the bottom, comprising Neanderthal humanity is Malkuth. For those who rise above much of the ignorance is Tiferet. Whereas Daas can be as related to Tathagata, where all ten sephirot in the Tree of Life, and thus the Ain Soph Aur are simultaneously understood.

 

A Tathagata, to respond to your inquiry, is sort of, according to Buddha, a synonym for Undivided Light. Like Undivided Light, a Tathagata has not moved even a centimeter in all eternity. Buddha said, "If anyone should say that the Tathagata comes or goes or sits or reclines, he fails to understand my teaching. Why? Because TATHAGATA has neither whence nor whither, therefore is He called "Tathagata."

V

 

To understand "neither whence nor whither" one must "Cultivate a form of thinking independent of sensory experience?

[JustARandomPanda]

Because there is such an attachment to the sense organ of thinking (for example, i think, therefore I am) , great emphasis is placed on meditation to quiet the "i think", so to uncover the barriers that thought has built against the mind.

 

This is the stage I'm trying to get at. Interestingly Master Nan Hai-Chin, when instructing totally-noob students (in one of his books I own) said, "My words are poison but without them you will not get well."

 

Very few are interested in such practice. Gurdjieff said, Knowledge is not deliberately hidden, but most people simply are not interested; and referred to those capable of receiving the work as "five of twenty of twenty" - that is, only twenty per cent of all people ever think seriously about higher realities. Of these, only twenty per cent ever decide to do anything about it. And of these, only five per cent ever actually get anywhere.

 

Yes. I liked Gurdjieff. He was very much all about how one must work their asses off to get anywhere. He also had a reputation of occasionally being a less-than-kindly Sifu/Teacher sort.

 

 

Not all consciousness at this level of the Supernal Sephiroth trine is equal,...it depends on the assembledge view,...thus consciousness in Binah focused in a descending way, with Keter (the point of split into Divided Light at their backs) believes itself to be in Heaven or Brahman.

 

Below Binah is Gevurah and Hod; while below Chokhmah is Khesed and Netzach. From those consciousness' there is no direct path to flash out of Alaya.

 

I have not studied the Kabbalah but I am very interested in it. Your explanation - especially the visual diagramming of it was helpful.

 

A short story: One day as I was meditating the word "Chokma" kept arising in my mind. I had to look it up on Wikipedia. But then I remembered what the Zen Patriarchs advised. To ignore it anyway because even something like that is still illusion. It is interesting (and oddly makes it easier for me!) to take the Zen Patriarchs advice literally.

 

I'm wondering if that's going to bring howls of protest on this board? It certainly would from Materialists! There have been debates at this very board as to whether the Buddha taught that the world actually IS illusion or merely operates LIKE an illusion. The general consensus I think was that it merely operates LIKE one, not actually IS one.

 

In fact I don't think even I had the balls in that thread to say it actually IS illusion (of course I'm not at a stage where I could assert or deny such a statement with authority anyway but whatever). I know some folks in that thread howled about how making the strong statement of this world and everyone/everything in it IS Illusion was irrational and unfounded even in Buddhism (it all had to do with who's view was the Buddha's Right View of D.O and Emptiness [who had the "Viewless View" - which I have no clue what that is either] and what Emptiness implies about Illusion, etc etc etc) and it certainly was against Taoism to state the world IS illusion (if I'm remembering that whole thread correctly - which I admit I might not be - but that's how I understood how that whole *very loooooong* thread of arguing back and forth went down).

 

I take it the Zen Patriarchs would say, No...the world actually IS illusion. And maybe be unpopular to boot as a result but who knows...

 

But back to your above referenced quote:

 

When I read the above it reminded me of passages I read in the Shurangama Sutra. That there are Beings who - though they manage to rise to an extremely high level of realization - almost seem trapped? They're playing around (with what I can't remember) but unable to make that final step to true Enlightenment. Master Nan says that this is called the Outside Path. How in the world does one get out of an Outside Path if one finds one is in it?!! (assuming that's even possible. Is it possible to be trapped in an Outside Path for all eternity?)

 

Master Nan and Master Hsuan Hua both advise the careful study of the Shurangama Sutra as it is the only Sutra that discusses how exceedingly, ridiculously high level Beings (human or otherwise) making erroneous conclusions about their equally exceedingly, ridiculously high level Direct Realization (read: probably higher realization by orders of magnitude beyond anybody who posts here).

 

The two Outside Pillars are astral-like levels comprising mass and anti-mass, and are not only as blind to their polar opposites, but are not readily capable to discern the dense reality of a solidified physical universe that we perceive.

 

Master Nan says our world is "major solidified false thinking". I have often pondered what he means by that. But perhaps it is something similar to what you are referring to above? Is the astral also the result of major (albeit less-solidified) false thinking?

 

The perceived reality of Maya is along the Center Pillar. At the bottom, comprising Neanderthal humanity is Malkuth. For those who rise above much of the ignorance is Tiferet. Whereas Daas can be as related to Tathagata, where all ten sephirot in the Tree of Life, and thus the Ain Soph Aur are simultaneously understood.

 

Bodri says (oddly enough) - that being born a human in some cases is better than being born in the god realms. Around us everyday we still have all-too-evident reminders of evil and suffering and it helps to spur one (well for those who bother to anyway) to resolve to be a Buddha to get out of it. If we were all born in bliss realms we might not have the werewithal to resolve to do anything else but just naturally enjoy the bliss of being a god. He said you can see this even with humans who are born very fortunate or achieve great fortune. Those with great wealth, power, status, etc very rarely have the gumption to give all of that up or turn away from it to pursue the Truth.

[Vmarco]

Edited February 2, 2012 by Vmarco