Buddha kept silent about God

[stefos]

Are you saying the Mahasiddhas are not Buddhas?

 

By the way, Vajrayana is based on Madhyamaka since India.

 

 

 

Noone is claiming that Buddhism is "the word of the Buddha". Buddhism is the word of the Mahasiddhas too.

What I'm saying is that I have ZERO experience of the Mahasiddhas except for Sweet Garab Dorje...that's it.

 

Vajrayana is ALSO based on the sarvastivada too.

Dzogchen, which is not Vajrayana, is not based on the sarvastivada.

 

Dzogchen IS the authentic essense of the Buddha Shakyamuni!

 

E MA HO!!!

stefos

[stefos]

The story goes that Bodhidharma gave Huike the Lankavatara Sutra as a symbol of transmission after he helped him to reach his great awakening. This was passed down to each successive Patriarch's, until Hongren (5th patriarch) recited stanzas from the Diamond Sutra to Hui-neng. From then on the Diamond Sutra became the definitive sutra of the Ch'an school.

 

Did you read my post on pg.2? Many of the Chinese Agamas were from Central Asia. These scriptures were not based off of Pali, but several different languages which included Gandhari (which the oldest sutras come from.) There wasn't a single corpus from which all sutras came from, but a collection which different schools put to writing after a period of being passed on orally. The Chinese Agamas are nearly identical to the contents of the Pali cannon, despite not stemming from the same translations (I've seen this mentioned more than once, by people who can read/translate Classical Chinese.)

 

 

"Neti, neti," is an affirming negation, to discover the Self, which is unseparated from Brahman. This has no place in the anatman teachings of Buddhism. Nibbana in Theravada, is described as the cessation of ignorance, aggression and craving. Clearly, these are your own interpolations.

 

Yes, Buddha borrowed a lot from Vedic Culture, because he was a Vedic Indian. He didn't set out to usurp nor subvert Vedic culture. Instead, he repurposed many of these concepts to fit with his teachings. The cosmology of Buddhism is completely different from the essentially top-down Monist cosmology of Advaita (due to Buddha teaching dependent origination.) This also differs from the other eternalist atmavada schools of Samkhya and Jainism, even though they don't posit a creator God either.

 

 

 

Via Negativa, is just another way another way of affirming some "thing," via negation. This is still based off of realist views, which are predicated upon imputations of "it is" and "it is not." Nibbana, is the "undying, unborn, unbecoming, unconditioned," because the 12-fold chain of dependent origination ceases due to the cessation of ignorance, craving, aggression.

 

Yes, "atman," was expressed differently between the different sects. Buddha covers every eternalist and nihilist view in the Brahmajala Sutta. This does not mean that Buddhism taught an atman or held views of partial eternalism. There are also translations out there where atta was wrongly and deliberately used by certain translators. This is covered in Wapola Rahula's "What The Buddha Taught."

 

The different sub-scools that split after the 2nd council, didn't differ so radically that they were completely divorced from what we have today. Some of those sub-schools died out, while some of the other teachings were carried on and merged to create today's Hinayana and Mahayana.

O.K.....by the numbers sir:

 

1. Ch'an is close to what the Buddha taught.

 

I did read what you posted & thank you for it. Tell me please: Does Ch'an have an Abhidharma similar to the Theras or not?

 

The Theras Abhidhamma & Sutras are at odds with one another and their system of meditation absorptive states or "jhanas" are taught in a gradual way.

 

Many problems with the Sutras & Theravada Abhidhamma.

 

2. Nibbana is the "unborn, undying, uncreated, unbecoming" and the Pali texts say "it is HERE that conditioned consciousness ceases to be." Now, the only "thing" as you put it, that fits the bill as to what Nibbana is, is UN-conditioned consciousness which is what Brahman is: Sat-Chit-Anand. Notice I said Brahman, not Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva.

 

In Dzogchen this is called the nature of the mind. Not "the mind"....2 different things in Dzogchen.

 

3. No where in the Pali Nikayas is the neuter term Brahman mentioned. Futhermore, the Pali Nikayas & Ghandaran texts are not the verbatim word of the Buddha, however due to textual criticism the Nikayas both Thera & Ghandaran (probably since I've never read them) contain portions of the Buddhas words.

 

Of course, Dzogchen has Guru Garab Dorje's teachings which are much "tighter" time wise along with Guru Padmasambhava & Vimalamitra & Sri Singha.

 

OM AH HUM

Stefos

 

P.S. "Buddhist Cosmology" is taken from Vedic sources...so the Top/Down framework still is in Buddhism.

Edited February 6, 2013 by stefos

[Simple_Jack]

O.K.....by the numbers sir:

 

1. Ch'an is close to what the Buddha taught.

 

I did read what you posted & thank you for it. Tell me please: Does Ch'an have an Abhidharma similar to the Theras or not?

 

The Theras Abhidhamma & Sutras are at odds with one another and their system of meditation absorptive states or "jhanas" are taught in a gradual way.

 

Many problems with the Sutras & Theravada Abhidhamma.

 

2. Nibbana is the "unborn, undying, uncreated, unbecoming" and the Pali texts say "it is HERE that conditioned consciousness ceases to be." Now, the only "thing" as you put it, that fits the bill as to what Nibbana is, is UN-conditioned consciousness which is what Brahman is: Sat-Chit-Anand. Notice I said Brahman, not Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva.

 

In Dzogchen this is called the nature of the mind. Not "the mind"....2 different things in Dzogchen.

 

3. No where in the Pali Nikayas is the neuter term Brahman mentioned. Futhermore, the Pali Nikayas & Ghandaran texts are not the verbatim word of the Buddha, however due to textual criticism the Nikayas both Thera & Ghandaran (probably since I've never read them) contain portions of the Buddhas words.

 

Of course, Dzogchen has Guru Garab Dorje's teachings which are much "tighter" time wise along with Guru Padmasambhava & Vimalamitra & Sri Singha.

 

OM AH HUM

Stefos

 

P.S. "Buddhist Cosmology" is taken from Vedic sources...so the Top/Down framework still is in Buddhism.

For Ch'an, it goes further than that: It is the 'mental reality' of Buddha's teachings.

 

The Chinese Agamas most likely have the Sarvastivadan Abhidharma. Ask someone who is actually knowledgeable and who can read Classical Chinese.

 

Thankfully, I know what Brahman is. As for the rest....Hey, you're free to interpret things any way you want.

[RongzomFan]

No where in the Pali Nikayas is the neuter term Brahman mentioned.

 

 

What do you expect? Most of the Upanishads come after Buddha.

[Simple_Jack]

There are also translations out there where atta was wrongly and deliberately used by certain translators. This is covered in Wapola Rahula's "What The Buddha Taught."

Correction: These are MODERN translations, from MODERN translators in the West.

[stefos]

What do you expect? Most of the Upanishads come after Buddha.

 

However the ones that came BEFORE the Buddha reveal a different understanding of Brahman and the so called "gods" of "Hinduism" per se.

 

There simply is ZERO proof that the Buddha denied Brahman.

 

Nibbana is beyond Shunya....The Buddha stated "HERE is where conditioned consciouness ceases to exist."

One must posit that SOMETHING positive is metaphysically qualified as Nibbana due to the above statement, at a minimum.

 

'Nuff said!

Stefos

[stefos]

For Ch'an, it goes further than that: It is the 'mental reality' of Buddha's teachings.

 

The Chinese Agamas most likely have the Sarvastivadan Abhidharma. Ask someone who is actually knowledgeable and who can read Classical Chinese.

 

Thankfully, I know what Brahman is. As for the rest....Hey, you're free to interpret things any way you want.

Of course, a spoken word is a human construct and NOT beyond the sphere of a human construct.

 

Nibbana is not a human construct, it is a fact!

 

Being in the state of bare attention as the Theras say or as we say in Dzogchen "Naked Awareness", thoughts can viewed and allowed to dissipate leaving a state in which the mind doesn't "spew" thoughts........This is called the "calm state" and past that is the state of presesence OR the "unconditioned consciousness" that Buddha Shakyamuni spoke of.

 

Stefos

Edited February 8, 2013 by stefos

[RongzomFan]

However the ones that came BEFORE the Buddha reveal a different understanding of Brahman and the so called "gods" of "Hinduism" per se.

 

There simply is ZERO proof that the Buddha denied Brahman.

 

Nibbana is beyond Shunya....The Buddha stated "HERE is where conditioned consciouness ceases to exist."

One must posit that SOMETHING positive is metaphysically qualified as Nibbana due to the above statement, at a minimum.

 

'Nuff said!

Stefos

 

 

I don't think Buddha ever heard of Upanishadic concepts.

[RongzomFan]

Yes, Buddha borrowed a lot from Vedic Culture, because he was a Vedic Indian.

 

 

Maybe thats what Malcolm says, but several scholars disagree with that.

[stefos]

I don't think Buddha ever heard of Upanishadic concepts.

 

WHAT????

I respectfully disagree!

 

The whole of India had the vedas but not the whole of it was tiered into an ossified caste system.

Even when the caste system appeared, it was originally based on your character and categorically NOT your birth. It became degraded into a rigid "birth based" system.......Swami Prabhupada of ISKCON mentioned this quite a bit from what I understand, to mention one source.

 

Besides, as I stated many moons ago, the term "atman" had a LOT of different meanings in the time of Buddha Shakyamuni.

 

Not only that but If you read "The origin of Buddhist meditation" by Alexander Wynn, you'll see that the Pali texts put vedic concepts into the mouth of the Buddha left & right.

 

OM AH HUM

Stefos

[RongzomFan]

WHAT????

I respectfully disagree!

 

The whole of India had the vedas but not the whole of it was tiered into an ossified caste system.

Even when the caste system appeared, it was originally based on your character and categorically NOT your birth. It became degraded into a rigid "birth based" system.......Swami Prabhupada of ISKCON mentioned this quite a bit from what I understand, to mention one source.

 

Besides, as I stated many moons ago, the term "atman" had a LOT of different meanings in the time of Buddha Shakyamuni.

 

Not only that but If you read "The origin of Buddhist meditation" by Alexander Wynn, you'll see that the Pali texts put vedic concepts into the mouth of the Buddha left & right.

 

OM AH HUM

Stefos

 

atman just means identity. Its the sanskrit word for identity.

 

Vedism at the time was quite restricted in India. I can quote many scholars, but for now I'll reference Lal Mani Joshi (scroll down a little):

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=RvuDlhpvvHwC&pg=PA10&dq=The+Buddhist+Visnu+Religious+Transformation,+Politics,+And+Culture++Sakyas,+Mallas,+or+Licchavis&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QVoUUeGiG8iK0QH1xoDwBQ&ved=0CDMQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Buddhist%20Visnu%20Religious%20Transformation%2C%20Politics%2C%20And%20Culture%20%20Sakyas%2C%20Mallas%2C%20or%20Licchavis&f=false

Edited February 8, 2013 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

.Swami Prabhupada of ISKCON

 

 

.Swami Prabhupada is a terrible source of information.

[Simple_Jack]

There simply is ZERO proof that the Buddha denied Brahman.

 

Well, obviously there's no direct reference to Brahman in the Pali cannon; though there is an indirect example of this view, in the Alagaddupama Sutta:

 

 

"There are, monks, these six grounds for false views.....and also this ground for views (holding): 'The universe is the Self.[19] That I shall be after death;[20] permanent, stable, eternal, immutable; eternally the same,[21] shall I abide in that very condition' — that (view), too, he considers thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self.'[22]....and what is seen, heard, sensed, and thought; what is encountered, sought, pursued in mind, this also he does not consider in this way: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'; and also this ground for views (holding): 'The universe is the Self. That I shall be after death; permanent, stable, eternal, immutable, eternally the same shall I abide in that very condition' — that (view), too, he does not consider thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self.'

17. "Considering thus, he is not anxious about unrealities."[23].....20. "Lord, can there be anxiety about unrealities, in the internal?"

"There can be, monk," said the Blessed One. "In that case, monk, someone has this view: 'The universe is the Self. That I shall be after death; permanent, stable, eternal, immutable; eternally the same shall I abide in that very condition.' He then hears a Perfect One expounding the Teaching for the removal of all grounds for views, of all prejudices, obsessions, dogmas and biases; for the stilling of all (kamma-) processes, for the relinquishment of all substrata (of existence), for the extirpation of craving, for dispassion, cessation, Nibbaana. He then thinks: 'I shall be annihilated, I shall be destroyed! No longer shall I exist!' Hence he grieves, is depressed and laments; beating his breast, he weeps, and dejection befalls him. Thus, monk, is there anxiety about unrealities, in the internal."

 

 

 

Of course, a spoken word is a human construct and NOT beyond the sphere of a human construct.

Being in the state of bare attention as the Theras say or as we say in Dzogchen "Naked Awareness", thoughts can viewed and allowed to dissipate leaving a state in which the mind doesn't "spew" thoughts........This is called the "calm state" and past that is the state of presesence OR the "unconditioned consciousness" that Buddha Shakyamuni spoke of.

Meh, it's all relative.

 

Ummm, you've just made Dzogchen lower than Hinayana. Dzogchen is considered the path of "self-liberation." Rigpa consists of 3 wisdoms: Two of which are kadag and lhun grub. As a student of ChNN explained (anyone correct me please,) thoughts are termed nangwa and are absent by definition. Since they aren't grasped, thought's don't become concepts; they are spontaneously 'self-liberated' upon inception. This is how ChNN explains it [http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Chogyal%20Namkhai%20Norbu%20Rinpoche:] ...Even if those who begin to practice this find it difficult to continue in this state for more than an instant, there is no need to worry about it. Without wishing for the state to continue for a long time and without fearing the lack of it altogether, all that is necessary is to maintain pure presence of mind, without falling into the dualistic situation of there being an observing subject perceiving an observed object. If the mind, even though one maintains simple presence, does not remain in this calm state, but always tends to follow waves of thoughts about the past or future, or becomes distracted by the aggregates of the senses such as sight, hearing, etc., then one should try to understand that the wave of thought itself is as insubstantial as the wind. If one tries to catch the wind, one does not succeed; similarly if one tries to block the wave of thought, it cannot be cut off. So for this reason one should not try to block thought, much less try to renounce it as something considered negative. In reality, the calm state is the essential condition of mind, while the wave of thought is the mind's natural clarity in function; just as there is no distinction whatever between the sun and its rays, or a stream and its ripples, so there is no distinction between the mind and thought. If one considers the calm state as something positive to be attained, and the wave of thought as something negative to be abandoned, and one remains thus caught up in the duality of accepting and rejecting, there is no way of overcoming the ordinary state of mind."

 

"Naked Awareness," is a bad and misleading translation of rigpa. As ChNN teaches, rigpa means knowledge; which is contrasted with marigpa. I've also seen gnas pa translated as "calm state." Going by Malcolm's translation, this is inaccurate [http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=81&t=10147:] "...For example, "rang gi lus" means simply "one's body" likewise, "rang gi rig pa" means simply "one's knowledge". In the most ancient dzogchen commentaries such as the two volume commentary on the sgra thal gyur, "rang" of rang rig is glossed simply as gnas pa i.e. as a location."

 

Also, Nibanna is simply the cessation of ignorance, craving, and aggression. Nibanna is unconditioned because the 12-fold chain of dependent co-arising ceases:

 

 

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.011.nypo.html

 

Ahara Sutta: Nutriment

 

At Savatthi.

"There are, O monks, four nutriments for the sustenance of beings born, and for the support of beings seeking birth. What are the four?

"Edible food, coarse and fine; secondly, sense-impression; thirdly, volitional thought; fourthly, consciousness.

"Of these four nutriments, O monks, what is their source, what is their origin, from what are they born, what gives them existence?

"These four nutriments, O monks, have craving as their cause, have craving as their origin, are born of craving, and craving gives them existence.

"And this craving, O monks, what is its source, what its origin, from what is it born, what gives it existence? Craving has feeling as its source and origin, it is born of feeling, and feeling gives existence to it.

"And this feeling, O monks, what is its source and origin, from what is it born and what gives existence to it? Feeling has sense-impression as its source and origin...

"And this sense-impression, O monks, what is its source...? sense-impression has the six sense-bases as its source and origin...

"And these six sense-bases, O monks, what is their source...? The six sense-bases have mind-and-body as their source and origin...

"And this mind-and-body, O monks, what is its source...? Mind-and-body has consciousness as its source and origin...

"And this consciousness, O monks, what is its source...? Consciousness has kamma-formations as its source and origin...

"And these kamma-formations, O monks, what is their source and origin, from what are they born, what gives existence to them? Kamma-formations have ignorance as their source and origin, they are born of ignorance and ignorance gives existence to them.

"Thus, O monks, through ignorance conditioned are kamma-formations; through the kamma-formations conditioned is consciousness; through consciousness conditioned is mind-and-body; through mind-and-body conditioned are the six sense-bases; through the six sense-bases conditioned is sense-impression; through sense-impression conditioned is feeling, through feeling conditioned is craving; through craving conditioned is clinging; through clinging conditioned is becoming; through becoming conditioned is birth; through birth conditioned are decay and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair. Thus arises this whole mass of suffering."

"Mind-body," is nama-rupa.

[Simple_Jack]

Maybe thats what Malcolm says, but several scholars disagree with that.

 

Haha, yeah I totally parroted Malcolm on that one. When I saw that, I was thinking of suttas like the Tivijja Sutta (On Knowledge of The Vedas,) for example [http://www.dhammaweb.net/Tipitaka/read.php?id=13 - Where Buddha doesn't teach the path to reach arhatship to the Brahmins, but only on the means for "union with Brahma.] So, I initially thought that it would make sense that Gautama was raised a Vedic Indian, being that he was born in the kshatriya caste (according to the Pali cannon.) That he definitely didn't set out to subvert Vedic culture, but repurposed Vedic concepts.

 

Of course, I'm not saying he was a reformer (among one of the things that 'Hindu' propaganda like's to push.) Since, clearly he set out to teach a path that was said to have been tread by others before him, but rediscovered and propagated to those with the conditions to understand his Dharma; after initially hesitating, before he set out to do so: "This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. But this generation delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment. For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying attachment, this/that conditionality and dependent co-arising are hard to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding. And if I were to teach the Dhamma and if others would not understand me, that would be tiresome for me, troublesome for me."

 

 

Vedism at the time was quite restricted in India. I can quote many scholars, but for now I'll reference Lal Mani Joshi (scroll down a little):

 

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=RvuDlhpvvHwC&pg=PA10&dq=The+Buddhist+Visnu+Religious+Transformation,+Politics,+And+Culture++Sakyas,+Mallas,+or+Licchavis&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QVoUUeGiG8iK0QH1xoDwBQ&ved=0CDMQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Buddhist%20Visnu%20Religious%20Transformation%2C%20Politics%2C%20And%20Culture%20%20Sakyas%2C%20Mallas%2C%20or%20Licchavis&f=false

Reading this though, for me, sheds new light on the matter. Could you cite some other names of authors that mention this?

[RongzomFan]

Reading this though, for me, sheds new light on the matter. Could you cite some other names of authors that mention this?

 

 

Check out Johannes Bronkhorst.

[stefos]

Well, obviously there's no direct reference to Brahman in the Pali cannon; though there is an indirect example of this view, in the Alagaddupama Sutta:

 

Ummm, you've just made Dzogchen lower than Hinayana. Dzogchen is considered the path of "self-liberation." Rigpa consists of 3 wisdoms: Two of which are kadag and lhun grub. As a student of ChNN explained (anyone correct me please,) thoughts are termed nangwa and are absent by definition. Since they aren't grasped, thought's don't become concepts; they are spontaneously 'self-liberated' upon inception. This is how ChNN explains it [http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Chogyal%20Namkhai%20Norbu%20Rinpoche:] ...Even if those who begin to practice this find it difficult to continue in this state for more than an instant, there is no need to worry about it. Without wishing for the state to continue for a long time and without fearing the lack of it altogether, all that is necessary is to maintain pure presence of mind, without falling into the dualistic situation of there being an observing subject perceiving an observed object. If the mind, even though one maintains simple presence, does not remain in this calm state, but always tends to follow waves of thoughts about the past or future, or becomes distracted by the aggregates of the senses such as sight, hearing, etc., then one should try to understand that the wave of thought itself is as insubstantial as the wind. If one tries to catch the wind, one does not succeed; similarly if one tries to block the wave of thought, it cannot be cut off. So for this reason one should not try to block thought, much less try to renounce it as something considered negative. In reality, the calm state is the essential condition of mind, while the wave of thought is the mind's natural clarity in function; just as there is no distinction whatever between the sun and its rays, or a stream and its ripples, so there is no distinction between the mind and thought. If one considers the calm state as something positive to be attained, and the wave of thought as something negative to be abandoned, and one remains thus caught up in the duality of accepting and rejecting, there is no way of overcoming the ordinary state of mind."

 

"Naked Awareness," is a bad and misleading translation of rigpa. As ChNN teaches, rigpa means knowledge; which is contrasted with marigpa. I've also seen gnas pa translated as "calm state." Going by Malcolm's translation, this is inaccurate [http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=81&t=10147:] "...For example, "rang gi lus" means simply "one's body" likewise, "rang gi rig pa" means simply "one's knowledge". In the most ancient dzogchen commentaries such as the two volume commentary on the sgra thal gyur, "rang" of rang rig is glossed simply as gnas pa i.e. as a location."

 

Also, Nibanna is simply the cessation of ignorance, craving, and aggression. Nibanna is unconditioned because the 12-fold chain of dependent co-arising ceases:

 

When looking into Brahman, we should perhaps state the following:

 

1. "Brahman isn't mentioned in the Pali suttas."

 

2. We should also state the the Buddha said that Nibbana "is where conditioned consciousness" isn't.

 

3. We should state that the Buddha called NIbbana "the unborn, undying, uncreated, unbecoming" as well.

 

Sooo...Overall Nibbana is the ONlLY metaphysical reality that Shakyamuni Buddha posits.....Period.

 

My current level of understanding is that Brahman is the same as Nibbana: Part of human existence and a metaphysical reality.

 

Regarding "naked awareness":

I got that from a book by Jonathan Myrdhin Reynolds entitled "Self liberation through seeing with Naked Awareness"

 

I never meant to go into a long &/or heady explanation about rigpa!

 

I just wanted to state that "bare awareness" is also very similar to (not the same however) as "naked awareness" mentioned by Guru Padmasambhava who wrote the above text

 

Stefos

[RongzomFan]

These Upanishadic concepts are later than Buddha. Some of the key Upanishads show strong Buddhist influence.

[stefos]

These Upanishadic concepts are later than Buddha. Some of the key Upanishads show strong Buddhist influence.

Disclaimer:

Are you speaking to me or someone else?

 

Please clarify when posting, I'd appreciate it!

 

Thank you,

Stefos

 

 

The 10-12 classical Upanshads of the Prasthanathrya are all Pre-Buddhistic, not post.

 

That a number of Upanishads were influenced by "Buddhist" thought is true.

However, IS that brand of "Buddhism" what Shakyamuni taught?

Remember, Upanishads were also written post Buddha and pre-Vajrayana...waayyy before Vajrayana in a number of cases.

 

Take care

[Simple_Jack]

Correction to my previous post: Rigpa consists of 3 knowledges.

 

 

2. We should also state the the Buddha said that Nibbana "is where conditioned consciousness" isn't.

 

3. We should state that the Buddha called NIbbana "the unborn, undying, uncreated, unbecoming" as well.

 

Sooo...Overall Nibbana is the ONlLY metaphysical reality that Shakyamuni Buddha posits.....Period.

 

My current level of understanding is that Brahman is the same as Nibbana: Part of human existence and a metaphysical reality.

 

According to the suttas in Theravada Buddhism, this is what Nibbana means [http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca3/nibbana.html:]

 

 

 

Nibbana names the transcendent and singularly ineffable freedom that stands as the final goal of all the Buddha's teachings.

Defined in terms of what it is...

"This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Nibbana."

— AN 3.32

There's no fire like passion, no loss like anger, no pain like the aggregates, no ease other than peace. Hunger: the foremost illness. Fabrications: the foremost pain. For one knowing this truth as it actually is, Unbinding is the foremost ease. Freedom from illness: the foremost good fortune. Contentment: the foremost wealth. Trust: the foremost kinship. Unbinding: the foremost ease.

— Dhp 202-205

The enlightened, constantly absorbed in jhana, persevering, firm in their effort: they touch Unbinding, the unexcelled safety from bondage.

— Dhp 23

...and in terms of what it is not

"There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor stasis; neither passing away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support [mental object]. This, just this, is the end of stress."

— Ud 8.1

"There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned."

— Ud 8.3

Where water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing: There the stars do not shine, the sun is not visible, the moon does not appear, darkness is not found. And when a sage, a brahman through sagacity, has known [this] for himself, then from form & formless, from bliss & pain, he is freed.

— Ud 1.10

One's first breakthrough to Nibbana puts an end to so much suffering

Then the Blessed One, picking up a little bit of dust with the tip of his fingernail, said to the monks, "What do you think, monks? Which is greater: the little bit of dust I have picked up with the tip of my fingernail, or the great earth?"

"The great earth is far greater, lord. The little bit of dust the Blessed One has picked up with the tip of his fingernail is next to nothing. It's not a hundredth, a thousandth, a one hundred-thousandth — this little bit of dust the Blessed One has picked up with the tip of his fingernail — when compared with the great earth."

"In the same way, monks, for a disciple of the noble ones who is consummate in view, an individual who has broken through [to stream-entry], the suffering & stress that is totally ended & extinguished is far greater. That which remains in the state of having at most seven remaining lifetimes is next to nothing: it's not a hundredth, a thousandth, a one hundred-thousandth, when compared with the previous mass of suffering. That's how great the benefit is of breaking through to the Dhamma, monks. That's how great the benefit is of obtaining the Dhamma eye."

— SN 13.1

What happens to one who has fully realized Nibbana?

[Aggivessana Vacchagotta:] "But, Master Gotama, the monk whose mind is thus released: Where does he reappear?"

[The Buddha:] "'Reappear,' Vaccha, doesn't apply."

"In that case, Master Gotama, he does not reappear."

"'Does not reappear,' Vaccha, doesn't apply."

"...both does & does not reappear."

"...doesn't apply."

"...neither does nor does not reappear."

"...doesn't apply."

"How is it, Master Gotama, when Master Gotama is asked if the monk reappears... does not reappear... both does & does not reappear... neither does nor does not reappear, he says, '...doesn't apply' in each case. At this point, Master Gotama, I am befuddled; at this point, confused. The modicum of clarity coming to me from your earlier conversation is now obscured."

"Of course you're befuddled, Vaccha. Of course you're confused. Deep, Vaccha, is this phenomenon, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. For those with other views, other practices, other satisfactions, other aims, other teachers, it is difficult to know. That being the case, I will now put some questions to you. Answer as you see fit. What do you think, Vaccha: If a fire were burning in front of you, would you know that, 'This fire is burning in front of me'?"

"...yes..."

"And suppose someone were to ask you, Vaccha, 'This fire burning in front of you, dependent on what is it burning?' Thus asked, how would you reply?"

"...I would reply, 'This fire burning in front of me is burning dependent on grass & timber as its sustenance.'"

"If the fire burning in front of you were to go out, would you know that, 'This fire burning in front of me has gone out'?"

"...yes..."

"And suppose someone were to ask you, 'This fire that has gone out in front of you, in which direction from here has it gone? East? West? North? Or south?' Thus asked, how would you reply?"

"That doesn't apply, Master Gotama. Any fire burning dependent on a sustenance of grass and timber, being unnourished — from having consumed that sustenance and not being offered any other — is classified simply as 'out' (unbound)."

"Even so, Vaccha, any physical form by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of form, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply.

"Any feeling... Any perception... Any mental fabrication...

"Any consciousness by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of consciousness, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea."

— MN 72

The victory cry of the arahants

"Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world."

— SN 22.59

The end of samsara

Some are born in the human womb, evildoers in hell, those on the good course go to heaven, while those without effluent: totally unbound.

— Dhp 126

 

So, we can conclude that Nibbana is the complete blowing out/cessation of the cycle of becoming. Paying particular attention to the text in bold: We can see that Nibbana, shares the same meaning as in the "Prajnaparamita-Sutras." That it's not an actual state that is free from extremes nor a real state of 'non-duality.' In this context, it's pointing to the non-arising of dharmas; which in Buddhism is due to their interdependent nature.

 

Maybe, you should keep questioning your current understanding?

 

 

I never meant to go into a long &/or heady explanation about rigpa!

Just thought, you wouldn't mind learning more about Dzogchen: Since you've said you been initiated into the Dzogchen Community of ChNN.

[RongzomFan]

Disclaimer:

Are you speaking to me or someone else?

 

Please clarify when posting, I'd appreciate it!

 

Thank you,

Stefos

 

 

The 10-12 classical Upanshads of the Prasthanathrya are all Pre-Buddhistic, not post.

 

That a number of Upanishads were influenced by "Buddhist" thought is true.

However, IS that brand of "Buddhism" what Shakyamuni taught?

Remember, Upanishads were also written post Buddha and pre-Vajrayana...waayyy before Vajrayana in a number of cases.

 

Take care

 

 

10-12 are pre-Buddha?

 

That sounds a little high

[RongzomFan]

Remember, Upanishads were also written post Buddha and pre-Vajrayana...waayyy before Vajrayana in a number of cases.

 

Take care

 

 

And?

[stefos]

10-12 are pre-Buddha?

 

That sounds a little high

 

Oh well!!!! The 10-12 used in the Prasthanathraya by Sankara are pre-Buddha.

 

It's very easy to conflate every idea about Brahman to a "Buddhist influence."

Not that I'm saying you are saying this.

 

Stefos

 

And?

There IS a difference between PRE & POST Buddha Upanishads....just don't confuse the two to make things "easy."

 

There was a great schism within the Buddhist Sangha called "The 24 schools period."

 

I am VERY leery of all modern "Buddhist" schools just as I am "Christian" denominations and forms of "Yoga."

 

Stefos

[RongzomFan]

Oh well!!!! The 10-12 used in the Prasthanathraya by Sankara are pre-Buddha.

 

 

Well thats B.S.

[stefos]

Correction to my previous post: Rigpa consists of 3 knowledges.

 

 

 

According to the suttas in Theravada Buddhism, this is what Nibbana means [http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca3/nibbana.html:]

 

 

 

So, we can conclude that Nibbana is the complete blowing out/cessation of the cycle of becoming. Paying particular attention to the text in bold: We can see that Nibbana, shares the same meaning as in the "Prajnaparamita-Sutras." That it's not an actual state that is free from extremes nor a real state of 'non-duality.' In this context, it's pointing to the non-arising of dharmas; which in Buddhism is due to their interdependent nature.

 

Maybe, you should keep questioning your current understanding?

 

 

Just thought, you wouldn't mind learning more about Dzogchen: Since you've said you been initiated into the Dzogchen Community of ChNN.

 

Regarding Dzogchen:

Thanks for your concern. I actually have a lot of books by Guru Norbu.

 

I refrain from speaking because the teachings are meant for those initiated not open discussion here.

Of course, general things can be spoken of. I just prefer not to go into huge debates....it's called burnout.

 

Regarding Nibbana:

"Quote:"

— Ud 8.1

"There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned."

 

The Pali suttas DO contain a metaphysical framework. This is obvious, as you know.

 

The pinnacle of this framework is Nibbana/Nirvana.

 

The Buddha said that Nibbana is where "conditioned consciousness ceased to be/is non-existent."

(This is found in the Suttas, unfortuneately I don't remember where but it is there if you search.)

 

So, Brahman as taught by Sri Ramana Maharshi & Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj is the same as what the Buddha states, supposedly, here.

 

That's all I'm ultimately saying.

Stefos

[stefos]

Well thats B.S.

 

Well, please do your research and post what you find then....easy.

 

If what I say is wrong, then correct me because I want to be right when I make statements.

 

Stefos

Edited February 9, 2013 by stefos