Misdirected Path

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[dwai]

Yup, no problem man.

 

 

Though the fact that you said the above, shows me that you still haven't been able to drop the Hindu framework, in order to understand what anatta and dependent origination are pointing to. Of course experiential realization is 'beyond,' conceptual designations and elaborations, yet itself is dependently originated. Therefore, in Buddhism even the non-conceptual mode of instant presence is not taken to be an 'absolute.' Conceptual designations and elaborations are in themselves also 'empty,' hence both a state of thoughts or no-thoughts are both equalized (both being relative according to causes and conditions,) with the former posing no obstructions whatsoever.

There is no "two" to dependently co-rise...in the nondual state. Dependent origination implies more than one thing rising together. Remember the one handed clap?

[C T]

Refresher course:

 

http://www.buddhanet.net/cbp2_f4.htm

[gatito]

There is no "two" to dependently co-rise...in the nondual state. Dependent origination implies more than one thing rising together. Remember the one handed clap?

 

Interesting discussion.

 

I agree with dwai but I'm not familiar enough with Buddhist terminology to contribute much I'm afraid, so I'll just lurk and learn.

 

However, I'd like to say that I don't like the emphasis on suffering - the Self (Atman) is always free of suffering.

[dwai]

Interesting discussion.

 

I agree with dwai but I'm not familiar enough with Buddhist terminology to contribute much I'm afraid, so I'll just lurk and learn.

 

However, I'd like to say that I don't like the emphasis on suffering - the Self (Atman) is always free of suffering.

 

Its amusing to say the least, to observe the intellectual gymnastics being executed by nairmatmya-vadins

[Subtle]

[gatito]

Its amusing to say the least, to observe the intellectual gymnastics being executed by nairmatmya-vadins

 

Flawless execution.

 

Namaste Sifu

[xabir2005]

There is no "two" to dependently co-rise...in the nondual state. Dependent origination implies more than one thing rising together. Remember the one handed clap?

There's a difference between substantial nonduality (nondual experience interpreted through the framework of inherency, so everything is subsumed to be the one consciousness that is source and substance of all) and insubstantial nonduality (where there is no framework of subject-object duality and no inherent existence - the view that there truly exists a "one thing" is also deconstructed). Nondual experience is similar in both case but the view is different, and liberation in buddhism depends on liberating inherent view. If one does not see how a subjective essence is not needed nor exists, then it will be difficult for him to see how d.o. is relevant to one's experience.

 

After anatta its easier to penetrate further and it is here that dependent origination is more relevant as it replaces all notion of source, agency, self/Self into the agentless process of self-luminous phenomenality which dependently originates (and are ultimately empty and non-arising).

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/10/zen-exploration-of-bahiya-sutta.html

 

Alex weith:

 

(Third step is anatta)

 

This also means that the first step is to disembed from impermanent phenomena until the only thing that feels real is this all pervading uncreated all pervading awareness that feels like the source and substance of phenomena. Holding on to it after this realization can hower become a subtle form of grasping diguised as letting go.

 

The second step is therefore to realize that this brightness, awakeness or luminosity is there very nature of phenomena and then only does the duality between the True Self and the appearences arising and passing within the Self dissolve, revealing the suchness of what is.

 

The next step that I found very practical is to push the process of deconstruction a step further, realizing that all that is experienced is one of the six consciousness. In other words, there is neither a super Awareness beyond phenomena, not solid material objects, but only six streams of sensory experiences. The seen, the heard, the sensed, the tasted, the smelled and the cognized (including thoughts, emotions, and subtle thougths like absorbtion states, jhanas).

 

At this point it is not difficult to see how relevent the Bahiya Sutta can become.

 

...

 

Just for the sake of clarification, I would like to make it clear that I never said that "these luminous self-perceiving phenomena which are craving-free and nondual are the Ultimate", if there could still be any ambiguity about that.

 

On the contrary, I said that what I used to take for an eternal, empty, uncreated, nondual, primordial awareness, source and substance of all things, turned out to be nothing more than the luminous nature of phenomena, themselves empty and ungraspable, somehow crystallized in a very subtle witnessing position. The whole topic of this thread is the deconstruction of this Primordial Awareness, One Mind, Cognizing Emptiness, Self, Atman, Luminous Mind, Tathagatgabha, or whatever we may call it,

 

As shocking as it may seem, the Buddha was very clear to say that this pure impersonal objectless nondual awareness (that Vedantists called Atma in Sanskrit, Atta in Pali) is still the aggregate of consciousness and that consciousness, as pure and luminous as it can be, does not stand beyond the aggregates.

 

"Any kind of consciousness whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.'" (Anatta-lakkhana Sutta).

 

.............

 

What I realized also is that authoritative self-realized students of direct students of both Ramana Maharishi and Nisargadatta Maharaj called me a 'Jnani', inviting me to give satsangs and write books, while I had not yet understood the simplest core principles of Buddhism. I realized also that the vast majority of Buddhist teachers, East and West, never went beyond the same initial insights (that Adhyashanti calls "an abiding awakening"), confusing the Atma with the ego, assuming that transcending the ego or self-center (ahamkara in Sanskrit) was identical to what the Buddha had called Anatta (Non-Atma).

 

It would seem therefore that the Buddha had realized the Self at a certain stage of his acetic years (it is not that difficult after all) and was not yet satisfied. As paradoxical as it may seem, his "divide and conquer strategy" aimed at a systematic deconstruction of the Self (Atma, Atta), reduced to -and divided into- what he then called the five aggregates of clinging and the six sense-spheres, does lead to further and deeper insights into the nature of reality. As far as I can tell, this makes me a Buddhist, not because I find Buddhism cool and trendy, but because I am unable to find other teachings and traditions that provide a complete set of tools and strategies aimed at unlocking these ultimate mysteries, even if mystics from various traditions did stumble on the same stages and insights often unknowingly.

Edited June 15, 2012 by xabir2005

[dwai]

There's a difference between substantial nonduality (nondual experience interpreted through the framework of inherency, so everything is subsumed to be the one consciousness that is source and substance of all) and insubstantial nonduality (where there is no framework of subject-object duality and no inherent existence - the view that there truly exists a "one thing" is also deconstructed). Nondual experience is similar in both case but the view is different, and liberation in buddhism depends on liberating inherent view. If one does not see how a subjective essence is not needed nor exists, then it will be difficult for him to see how d.o. is relevant to one's experience.

 

After anatta its easier to penetrate further and it is here that dependent origination is more relevant as it replaces all notion of source, agency, self/Self into the agentless process of self-luminous phenomenality which dependently originates (and are ultimately empty and non-arising).

 

http://awakeningtore...hiya-sutta.html

 

Alex weith:

 

(Third step is anatta)

 

This also means that the first step is to disembed from impermanent phenomena until the only thing that feels real is this all pervading uncreated all pervading awareness that feels like the source and substance of phenomena. Holding on to it after this realization can hower become a subtle form of grasping diguised as letting go.

 

The second step is therefore to realize that this brightness, awakeness or luminosity is there very nature of phenomena and then only does the duality between the True Self and the appearences arising and passing within the Self dissolve, revealing the suchness of what is.

 

The next step that I found very practical is to push the process of deconstruction a step further, realizing that all that is experienced is one of the six consciousness. In other words, there is neither a super Awareness beyond phenomena, not solid material objects, but only six streams of sensory experiences. The seen, the heard, the sensed, the tasted, the smelled and the cognized (including thoughts, emotions, and subtle thougths like absorbtion states, jhanas).

 

At this point it is not difficult to see how relevent the Bahiya Sutta can become.

 

...

 

Just for the sake of clarification, I would like to make it clear that I never said that "these luminous self-perceiving phenomena which are craving-free and nondual are the Ultimate", if there could still be any ambiguity about that.

 

On the contrary, I said that what I used to take for an eternal, empty, uncreated, nondual, primordial awareness, source and substance of all things, turned out to be nothing more than the luminous nature of phenomena, themselves empty and ungraspable, somehow crystallized in a very subtle witnessing position. The whole topic of this thread is the deconstruction of this Primordial Awareness, One Mind, Cognizing Emptiness, Self, Atman, Luminous Mind, Tathagatgabha, or whatever we may call it,

 

As shocking as it may seem, the Buddha was very clear to say that this pure impersonal objectless nondual awareness (that Vedantists called Atma in Sanskrit, Atta in Pali) is still the aggregate of consciousness and that consciousness, as pure and luminous as it can be, does not stand beyond the aggregates.

 

"Any kind of consciousness whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.'" (Anatta-lakkhana Sutta).

 

.............

 

What I realized also is that authoritative self-realized students of direct students of both Ramana Maharishi and Nisargadatta Maharaj called me a 'Jnani', inviting me to give satsangs and write books, while I had not yet understood the simplest core principles of Buddhism. I realized also that the vast majority of Buddhist teachers, East and West, never went beyond the same initial insights (that Adhyashanti calls "an abiding awakening"), confusing the Atma with the ego, assuming that transcending the ego or self-center (ahamkara in Sanskrit) was identical to what the Buddha had called Anatta (Non-Atma).

 

It would seem therefore that the Buddha had realized the Self at a certain stage of his acetic years (it is not that difficult after all) and was not yet satisfied. As paradoxical as it may seem, his "divide and conquer strategy" aimed at a systematic deconstruction of the Self (Atma, Atta), reduced to -and divided into- what he then called the five aggregates of clinging and the six sense-spheres, does lead to further and deeper insights into the nature of reality. As far as I can tell, this makes me a Buddhist, not because I find Buddhism cool and trendy, but because I am unable to find other teachings and traditions that provide a complete set of tools and strategies aimed at unlocking these ultimate mysteries, even if mystics from various traditions did stumble on the same stages and insights often unknowingly.

 

More intellectual gymnastics.

 

There is no such thing as substantial nonduality vs insubstantial nonduality. Nondual is nondual because it is not dual. There is no inherency of anything during nondual experience. Any inherency (whether it is of an exalted being-ness or an empty nonbeing-ness) is always after the fact.

 

You cannot use the term "non-dual" if there subject-object duality. Then it is not "Non-Dual", it is "Dual"

 

What you are calling the liberation from inherent view is in itself an inherent view (ie considering a view as not being a view)

 

Now ain't that a Mind-#$%...

Edited June 15, 2012 by dwai