Bernadette Roberts: Christian Contemplative View On Buddhism

[gatito]

I personally have a headache to sift through the points being made. The only contradiction I saw is that you stated there is neither non-dual nor non-dual state;

 

Gatito stated it is non-dual but agree there is no non-dual state.

 

That is as close as I interpret embracing two sides (double standard).

 

~~~~~ MOD COMMENTS AND WARNING ~~~

 

As SJ is the OP, I want to respect this is his thread and he has stated what his topic is and he has every right to ask posters to stay on topic. He can try to manage that by explaining, ignoring, asking others to stay on topic or not post, and report posts.

 

But the method of communicating the position of the points gets a little personal, accusatory and included other members who were meant to seem their years as a practitioner was for not. You can address the issues but you need to avoid addressing the member directly.

 

I want the topic to stay open for discussion but will expect it to stay on topic and not get personal. And this would go for all involved. Thanks.

 

 

~~~~ MOD OUT ~~~~

 

Thanks again dawei

 

My understanding of the thread is that it is an attempt to promote a dogma of anatta/anatman, which appears not to be understood (Self-realised) by the OP. The subject of the OP is evidenced by the tagging of this post with anatta and anatman.

 

I'm not clear what you yourself understand by stating that you see a contradiction in me saying that there's no such thing as a non-dual state but I'll attempt to address the implied misunderstanding: -

 

A state has a beginning and an end (and it is also an object) therefore, it could not be nondual. However that does not invalidate nonduality, therefore, there is no double-standard (and double standard was obviously both an ad hominem and an implied insult).

 

Furthermore, in addressing misunderstandings about nonduality in words, provisional credence has to be given to common misunderstandings (e.g. that there is a separate self -atman). Later, more advanced teachings then demolish the earlier provisional teachings. This is known as "sublation" in Western philosophy and is refered to in the Eastern traditions as "using a thorn to remove a thorn". There's no "double standard" in that.

 

Also, as I've outlined above in response to Jeff, the non-existence of a separate self does not invalidate the existence of a nondual Self.

[Simple_Jack]

Thanks again dawei

 

My understanding of the thread is that it is an attempt to promote a dogma of anatta/anatman, which appears not to be understood (Self-realised) by the OP. The subject of the OP is evidenced by the tagging of this post with anatta and anatman.

 

I'm not clear what you yourself understand by stating that you see a contradiction in me saying that there's no such thing as a non-dual state but I'll attempt to address the implied misunderstanding: -

 

A state has a beginning and an end (and it is also an object) therefore, it could not be nondual. However that does not invalidate nonduality, therefore, there is no double-standard (and double standard was obviously both an ad hominem and an implied insult).

 

Furthermore, in addressing misunderstandings about nonduality in words, provisional credence has to be given to common misunderstandings (e.g. that there is a separate self -atman). Later, more advanced teachings then demolish the earlier provisional teachings. This is known as "sublation" in Western philosophy and is refered to in the Eastern traditions as "using a thorn to remove a thorn". There's no "double standard" in that.

 

Also, as I've outlined above in response to Jeff, the non-existence of a separate self does not invalidate the existence of a nondual Self.

The double standard and logical fallacies, made by gatito, stems from gatito's bias towards the philosophy and praxis of buddhardharma; due in part to how buddhadharma undermines an eternalist position of a self-standing entity, in this case Cit i.e. "Consciousness/Awareness".

 

No, this thread was meant to show that it is possible, for certain people, to not have any emotional hang-ups when differentiating the insights between traditions. Buddhardharma completely undermines both eternalism and annihilationism.

[gatito]

<snip>

 

The double standard and logical fallacies, made by gatito, stems from gatito's bias towards the philosophy and praxis of buddhardharma; due in part to how buddhadharma undermines an eternalist position of a self-standing entity, in this case Cit i.e. "Consciousness/Awareness".

<snip>

 

 

Reported

[Jeff]

Hello Jeff

 

That's not true - that which is reading these words exists.

 

If it did not exist, it would be unable to deny its own existence.

 

Just stick with that for a while until it makes sense.

 

If you're unable to see that clearly, you'll remain firmly stuck in your dualistic belief system and you'll make no progress whatsoever with demolishing all those false beliefs (e.g subconscious obstructions).

 

Some food for further thought - and this is also very basic self-inquiry like the exercise that I've given above - ask yourself the question that if something is not yet perceived, where is the evidence that it actually exists? If you don't percieve something then its proposed existence is only a belief (i.e. a single thought).

 

Hi gatito,

 

I did not say that it (or the concept of you) did not exist. I just said that the view is inherently obscured by subconscious issues and fears. Also, I do not see how what I said was "dualistic".

 

Finally, self-inquiry is a game of "mind" or consciousness that only leads to "cessation". But, as the Heart Sutra states...

 

Form = Void and Void = Form.

 

In the second half of the equation Void = Form is where one finds out how to do a "light transmission" (on which SJ doesn't seem to want to respond. )

 

Best wishes to you (and all).

[Simple_Jack]

Reported

No, this thread was meant to show that it is possible, for certain people, to not have any emotional hang-ups when differentiating the insights between traditions. Buddhardharma completely undermines both eternalism and annihilationism.

 

Case in point, gatito.

[Simple_Jack]

In the second half of the equation Void = Form is where one finds out how to do a "light transmission" (on which SJ doesn't seem to want to respond. )

 

Honestly, it's irrelevant.

[yabyum24]

Buddhardharma completely undermines both eternalism and annihilationism.

And which of the two was the lady allegedly positing? I don't know what the point was of trying to prove that she wasn't "enlightened" from a Buddhist POV.

[Simple_Jack]

And which of the two was the lady allegedly positing? I don't know what the point was of trying to prove that she wasn't "enlightened" from a Buddhist POV.

 

The point was to show that non-buddhists (you recall I mentioned Krishnamurti, right?) can have certain experiences that are similar to, but nonetheless, falling short of penetrating to the direct experiential realization of anatta.

[gatito]

 

Hi gatito,

 

I did not say that it (or the concept of you) did not exist. I just said that the view is inherently obscured by subconscious issues and fears. Also, I do not see how what I said was "dualistic".

 

Finally, self-inquiry is a game of "mind" or consciousness that only leads to "cessation". But, as the Heart Sutra states...

 

Form = Void and Void = Form.

 

In the second half of the equation Void = Form is where one finds out how to do a "light transmission" (on which SJ doesn't seem to want to respond. )

 

Best wishes to you (and all).

See my point that if something is subconscious - it dioesn't exist - obviously!

 

You assert the existence of subconscious and therefore of conscious - so that's an (obvious) duality

 

Self-inqiiry is no game - it's deadly serious because it destroys all false beliefs, including the existence of the (fictional) separate self and it therfore it therefore equates to death.

 

Form = Consciousness and Consciousness = Form would be a better translation.

[gatito]

 

Case in point, gatito.

 

What case Simple_Jack?

[yabyum24]

The point was to show that non-buddhists (you recall I mentioned Krishnamurti, right?) can have certain experiences that are similar to, but nonetheless, falling short of penetrating to the direct experiential realization of anatta.

Well, Buddhists themselves can have a range of experiences too. There is no definitive check list we can hold up and evaluate people off against. The attempt is doomed from the outset as we have the inadequate medium of language with which to define it. I would think that many Buddhists would count themselves lucky to have gone as far as she has.

Edited February 24, 2014 by yabyum24

[gatito]

Born around 515 BC., Parmenides, was a citizen of Elea, a small town in the south of Italy. His poem "On Reality" was probably comprised of three parts of which we have only the first two largely intact.

The first part takes the form of an allegorical poem in which we see the poet, impelled by a strong desire, travel toward the domain of the Goddess, in a chariot pulled by powerful runners. After unveiling their faces for him, the Maidens of light guide him to the "threshold where the roads of Night and of Day converge", and he is allowed to cross it as a result of their intercession. He is then welcomed with benevolence by the Goddess who takes his right hand in hers and commences her teaching.

The second part, translated here, is the metaphysical section and contains the teaching of the truth.

The third, which is fragmentary, is the physical part. It represents ignorant public opinion according to which reality is the physical universe which came into existence in the past, exists today, and is destined to disappear one day.

 

fff

 

Now then, I will instruct you; hear what I say:

Two paths are open to investigation.

The first says: being is and non-being is not.

It is the path of certainty, because it follows the truth.

The other says: being is not, therefore non-being is.

This misdirected path, I tell you, cannot lead to a sound conviction

For, if this statement were true, it would not be possible for you to conceive of non-being, nor to name it.

 

Speaking and thinking necessarily arise from being, because being is.

And non-being is not. I invite you to reflect deeply on this point,

And to move away, in your search, from that other path

As from the one traveled by those ignorant mortals

Who are the men of two minds: the uncertainty which resides in their hearts

Misleads their wavering reason. They are swept along,

Deaf and blind, benighted, the masses without discernment

Who pretend that being and non-being are simultaneously identical

And different, they for whom, for any statement, the opposite is equally true.

 

No power will ever bring non-being into existence.

So direct your thinking away from this path of exploration.

May habit, so often resumed, not force you to return to it,

With eyes blinded, ears filled with noise

And mouth with words, and may your intelligence alone resolve this contentious issue.

 

Only one path remains for us to pursue:

Being is. And countless signs prove

That being is free from birth and death

Because it is complete, immutable and eternal.

It never was, it never will be, because it is completely whole in the now,

One, endless. What beginning, indeed, should we attribute to it?

Whence would it evolve? Whither?

I will not allow you to say or to think that it comes from nothingness,

Nor that being is not. What exigency would have brought it forth

Later or earlier, from non-being?

Thus, it can only be, absolutely, or not at all.

Our firm innermost conviction will never admit

That something can spring forth from nothingness.

In this way the goddess of Justice, forbidding birth and death,

Preserves without respite the existence of being. Whereas the question was to resolve

Whether being is or is not. We must therefore decide to abandon as false

The second hypothesis, the path which can neither be thought nor formulated,

And to hold to the first, which is the path of the truth.

How could what is, one day cease to be? How could it have, one day, come to be?

What is born, is not, neither what is to be born.

Thus dies birth and thus dies death.

Within being there remain no differences because it is completely identical to itself.

There is not, here, something more that comes to break continuity

Neither, there, something less: but everything is filled with being.

Thus it is all continuous: being adjoined to being.

On the other hand, maintained motionless by powerful links,

It is without beginning and without end, since birth and death

Have been rejected as contrary to our intuition of truth.

Remaining itself, existing within itself, supported by itself,

Thus, immutable, it remains in the same place because the powerful necessity,

Hemming it in from all sides, keeps it firmly unified.

That is why it is not permitted that being be unfinished,

Because there is nothing missing in it; unfinished, it would be missing everything!

Thought is identical to being, and so it is for the object to which thought refers;

Thus there is nothing, and there will never be anything, outside of being

Which Destiny compels to an eternal bliss. Thus,

To be born and to die, to be or not to be,

To change place or appearance,

All of these events are but names superimposed by manÕs ignorance.

Being the ultimate, it is everywhere complete.

Just as an harmoniously round sphere

Departs equally at all points from its center.

Nothing can be added to it here nor taken away from it there.

What is not, cannot interrupt itÕs homogeneous existence.

What is, cannot possess it more or less. Out of all reach,

Everywhere identical to itself, beyond all limits, it is.

 

Highly relevant to the OP

 

(Translation by Francis Lucille - who was one of Greg Goode's teachers)

 

http://www.stillnessspeaks.com/Francis_Lucille_Translations

//www.stillnessspeaks.com/Francis_Lucille_Translations

[Simple_Jack]

Form = Consciousness and Consciousness = Form would be a better translation.

 

Who's the one promoting dogma now, gatito?

 

What case Simple_Jack?

 

That you are inherently biased towards buddhardharma when it clearly undermines a self-standing entity, aka. Atman, and as a consequence react by carrying out a smear campaign to disparage buddhadharma.

 

Well, Buddhists themselves can have a range of experiences too. There is no definitive check list we can hold up and evaluate people off against. The attempt is doomed from the outset as we have the inadequate medium of language with which to define it. I would think that many Buddhists would count themselves lucky to have gone as far as she has.

 

The point is that her type of experience may very well be more common among practitioners of various traditions, even those of traditional and neo-Advaita; by extension many people in ordinary life could very well encounter these same experiences, but due to clinging and views of inherency, they do not penetrate further.

[Trunk]

~~~ admin statement ~~~

 

Members can post most often faster than the moderation team can get together and decide what to do about a situation. That's why we've invented the "immediate suspension until we figure out to do with this mess", which is what I'm doing now. I've temporarily suspended Simple_Jack while the moderation team sorts out this situation.

 

- Trunk

 

p.s.

This is not a presumption of guilt, but a practical act to staunch the chaos while mods discuss.

 

~~~ /admin out ~~~

[yabyum24]

The point is that her type of experience may very well be more common among practitioners of various traditions, even those of traditional and neo-Advaita; by extension many people in ordinary life could very well encounter these same experiences, but due to clinging and views of inherency, they do not penetrate further.

Well, that's an big assumption regarding the OP. I would say that any unified experience is only possible when clinging and views are discarded. The extent may vary from case to case but how can anyone be sure that a non-Buddhist can't attain liberation?

 

If you are using Buddhist views to counter views you impute on others, then you are still clinging to views.

[Jeff]

Honestly, it's irrelevant.

 

OK. Maybe next time...

 

Best wishes.

[Jeff]

See my point that if something is subconscious - it dioesn't exist - obviously!

 

You assert the existence of subconscious and therefore of conscious - so that's an (obvious) duality

 

Self-inqiiry is no game - it's deadly serious because it destroys all false beliefs, including the existence of the (fictional) separate self and it therfore it therefore equates to death.

 

Form = Consciousness and Consciousness = Form would be a better translation.

 

The "something" that exists in the subconscious is an energy structure of what you would call "consciousness".

 

Subconscious and conscious are descriptive terms for useful discussion. All is ultimately emptiness.

 

Self-inquiry is a game of mind in mind. It does not escape mind.

 

Yes, form is directly the same thing as consciousness. But Form is only the same thing as Void when one has realized emptiness. That is the point of the Heart Sutra.

[gatito]

 

The "something" that exists in the subconscious is an energy structure of what you would call "consciousness".

I might call that a thought (a belief) , a feeling or a sensation. No more than that and of no more significance than any other apparently experienced object.

 

Subconscious and conscious are descriptive terms for useful discussion. All is ultimately emptiness.

 

So why are they useful in the context of anatta/anatman?

 

Can you define Emptiness in your own words and from your own direct experience of Emptiness?

 

Self-inquiry is a game of mind in mind. It does not escape mind.

 

 

No it's not a game, it's a tool - a thorn used to remove false beliefs (a.k.a. ignorance).

 

Yes, form is directly the same thing as consciousness. But Form is only the same thing as Void when one has realized emptiness. That is the point of the Heart Sutra.

 

 

That's a fundamental misunderstanding.

 

Form = Consciousness always

 

Everything is always Empty (Void)

 

Do you see that you have three things to which you refer?

 

Consciousness, Form and Void (Emptiness)

 

Emptiness is simply a descriptor of Consciousnes/Form.

[gatito]

<snip>

 

That you are inherently biased towards buddhardharma when it clearly undermines a self-standing entity, aka. Atman, and as a consequence react by carrying out a smear campaign to disparage buddhadharma.

 

<snip>

 

Au contraire.

 

I've pointed out several times that there's no separate individual self (atman).

 

Nowhere, have I disparaged the actual teachings of the Buddha, which have served as a great inspiration to me - and which I cannot fault.

 

In fact, once when I got into a discussion with a Buddhist (in the real world), I was told that what I was saying about Life, the Universe and Everything was pure Buddhism, so perhaps I'm actually a defender of Buddhadharma?

[Jeff]

I might call that a thought (a belief) , a feeling or a sensation. No more than that and of no more significance than any other apparently experienced object.

So why are they useful in the context of anatta/anatman?

 

Can you define Emptiness in your own words and from your own direct experience of Emptiness?

No it's not a game, it's a tool - a thorn used to remove false beliefs (a.k.a. ignorance).

That's a fundamental misunderstanding.

 

Form = Consciousness always

 

Everything is always Empty (Void)

 

Do you see that you have three things to which you refer?

 

Consciousness, Form and Void (Emptiness)

 

Emptiness is simply a descriptor of Consciousnes/Form.

 

Hi gatito,

 

Yes, I speak directly from my own experiences.

 

Yes, I agree that Form is the same as Consciousness. Form is the definition of consciousness. It is all that can be perceived.

 

Void is more like consciousness with zero activity. Or from the other side, like a completely calm sea of emptiness.

 

Emptiness is not the same thing as consciousness. Consciousness is more like a reflection or "subset" of Emptiness. In Buddhism, the difference between the two are often called things like "noble wisdoms", but it is really more like raw and pure desire/potential.

 

Best regards,

Jeff

[gatito]

Hi gatito,

 

Yes, I speak directly from my own experiences.

 

Yes, I agree that Form is the same as Consciousness. Form is the definition of consciousness. It is all that can be perceived.

 

Void is more like consciousness with zero activity. Or from the other side, like a completely calm sea of emptiness.

 

Emptiness is not the same thing as consciousness. Consciousness is more like a reflection or "subset" of Emptiness. In Buddhism, the difference between the two are often called things like "noble wisdoms", but it is really more like raw and pure desire/potential.

 

Best regards,

Jeff

 

Then we will have to agree to differ Jeff

 

Form is not the definition of Consciousness. Consciousness is that which the apparent subject of the objects (forms).

 

I'll repeat that it's "that which is reading these words (and knows that it's reading these words)"

 

Consciousness changes not, altough there's a deep-seated and usually completely intransigent belief that Consciousness comes and goes and/or that it is a product of an imaginary bodymind.

 

Form appears to change constantly and that lies at the heart of the Buddha's teachings about dukkha.

 

The simple duality is Consciousness and Objects - that's a useful starting point for a fruitful inquiry. If you start overlaying that with even more beliefs, you will continue to go round and round in circles.

 

From what you say, Emptiness (for you) is an experience and therefore it's an object rather than actual Emptiness.

 

Furthermore, there's no desire or potential (or aversion) in Emptiness - it's Empty

[C T]

It's the same when receiving instruction on how to carry out the practice of vipassana, creation and completion stage, tregcho, etc. You wouldn't have an objection to my posting of Greg Goode's article above?

Not that my opinion counts for a lot, but i think its a very helpful article, clear and to the point.

[Jeff]

Then we will have to agree to differ Jeff

 

Form is not the definition of Consciousness. Consciousness is that which the apparent subject of the objects (forms).

 

I'll repeat that it's "that which is reading these words (and knows that it's reading these words)"

 

Consciousness changes not, altough there's a deep-seated and usually completely intransigent belief that Consciousness comes and goes and/or that it is a product of an imaginary bodymind.

 

Form appears to change constantly and that lies at the heart of the Buddha's teachings about dukkha.

 

The simple duality is Consciousness and Objects - that's a useful starting point for a fruitful inquiry. If you start overlaying that with even more beliefs, you will continue to go round and round in circles.

 

From what you say, Emptiness (for you) is an experience and therefore it's an object rather than actual Emptiness.

 

Furthermore, there's no desire or potential (or aversion) in Emptiness - it's Empty

 

Hi gatito,

 

I would not say that Emptiness is an "experience" for me. Emptiness is more like a Void bubbling over with infinite potential. What constitutes "jeff" is just an aspect of that of that "potential".

 

[in Christian terms, I would also say that God = Emptiness and that I am a child of God, but discussing that (and describing it that way) would only lead to even greater confusion for the readers of this thread.]

 

Always nice to be able to disagree in a constructive and thoughtful manner. Thank you for the conversation.

 

Best,

Jeff

[yabyum24]

[in Christian terms, I would also say that God = Emptiness and that I am a child of God, but discussing that (and describing it that way) would only lead to even greater confusion for the readers of this thread.]

I very much agree with this. There are different ways of explaining it - different words but I've often considered god = paramashiva = tao = dharmakaya. The further the light falls from that point, the more it refracts as diverse lights and colours in the multiple lenses of world religions and ultimately in each one of us.

[Jeff]

I very much agree with this. There are different ways of explaining it - different words but I've often considered god = paramashiva = tao = dharmakaya. The further the light falls from that point, the more it refracts as diverse lights and colours in the multiple lenses of world religions and ultimately in each one of us.

 

Thanks, but we should take that point to another subforum, before the powers that be catch us...

 

But... Before I sneak out Brahman = Emptiness too...