Bernadette Roberts: Christian Contemplative View On Buddhism

[yabyum24]

Yeah, we're on thin ice there

[gatito]

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...

 

Interestingly, and to be fair, Greg Goode makes the point that Emptiness does not equal Consciousness (God).

 

(However, Consciousness/Awareness = Atman = Brahman = God )

[gatito]

Emptiness is another kind of nondual teaching. Emptiness teachings demonstrate that the "I," as well as everthing else, lacks inherent existence. The notion of lacking inherent existence has several senses. In one sense, empty things lack essence, which means that there is no intrinsic quality that makes a thing what it is. In another sense, empty things lack independence, which means that a thing does not exist on its own, apart from conditions, relations or cognition. A great deal of what one studies in the emptiness teachings demonstrates the relations between these two senses, and heightens one's sensitivity to their ramifications.

 

Greg Goode

 

Emptiness Teachings by Greg Goode: -

 

http://www.heartofnow.com/files/emptiness.html

www.heartofnow.com/files/emptiness.html

[Jeff]

Interestingly, and to be fair, Greg Goode makes the point that Emptiness does not equal Consciousness (God).

 

(However, Consciousness/Awareness = Atman = Brahman = God )

 

Thanks. I have not read any Greg Goode.

 

As to the rest... Feel free to take your "theories" over to christian mysticism land...

 

But while Emptiness = Brahman = God, Consciousness only equals the Holy Spirit (God in Creation/Existence), while Buddha = Ishwara = Christ.

Edited February 24, 2014 by Jeff

[C T]

Buddhadharma is not a locus to become fixated upon.

 

Real Dharma does not require defensive advocates.

 

It clarifies itself, endlessly, without any need for assistance or interference whatsoever.

 

How it does this in an individual is completely at the disposal of said individual. We are all responsible for our own salvation, so said the Buddha.

 

Prior to Buddhahood, who are we to determine how the Dharma fulfils its purpose in beings?

 

Some say water and wetness is inseparable.

[Jeff]

Emptiness Teachings by Greg Goode: -

 

http://www.heartofnow.com/files/emptiness.html

www.heartofnow.com/files/emptiness.html

 

Since we are now safely back on "hard ice" with some buddhism...

 

Reading the link, I would say that Greg is only talking about a more limited "emptiness of self". Emptiness of self is only a preliminary realization. It is like a clear and quiet mind. As discussed in another thread recently, it requires the realization of the "light" and the ongoing realization of "ultimate reality" or as the Dzogchen guys like to call it, ongoing "spontaneous perfection".

[gatito]

Thanks. I have not read any Greg Goode.

 

As to the rest... Feel free to take your "theories" over to christian mysticism land...

 

But while Emptiness = Brahman = God, Consciousness only equals the Holy Spirit (God in Creation/Existence), while Buddha = Ishwara = Christ.

 

You'd probably find him very useful

 

No way am I stepping foot in Christian mysticism land - anyway, it died out completely with the Cathars

 

Your last sentence, I'll disagree with because it's incorrect (e.g. Brahman doesn't equal Ishwara - you'll find the details of why that's the case in the Preface to Atma Darshan and Atma Nirvriti - and Emptiness doesn't equal Brahman etc.).

[Jeff]

Prior to Buddhahood, who are we to determine how the Dharma fulfils its purpose in beings?

 

Excellent point...

 

But, we are the true members of the Taobums... And great honor is at stake!

 

 

 

 

 

Best wishes and great clarity to all.

[gatito]

Since we are now safely back on "hard ice" with some buddhism...

 

Reading the link, I would say that Greg is only talking about a more limited "emptiness of self". Emptiness of self is only a preliminary realization. It is like a clear and quiet mind. As discussed in another thread recently, it requires the realization of the "light" and the ongoing realization of "ultimate reality" or as the Dzogchen guys like to call it, ongoing "spontaneous perfection".

 

You can argue that with Greg: I'm not a fan of the Emptiness approach myself - I find it somewhat indirect

[Jeff]

You'd probably find him very useful

 

No way am I stepping foot in Christian mysticism land - anyway, it died out completely with the Cathars

 

Your last sentence, I'll disagree with because it's incorrect (e.g. Brahman doesn't equal Ishwara - you'll find the details of why that's the case in the Preface to Atma Darshan and Atma Nirvriti - and Emptiness doesn't equal Brahman etc.).

 

Hi gatito,

 

If you take another look, I think you will see that I said a buddha = Ishwara (not Brahman).

 

Also, I will make you a deal... If you will read the Lankavatara Sutra, I will read a Greg Goode book.

 

Jeff

[C T]

Excellent point...

 

But, we are the true members of the Taobums... And great honor is at stake!

 

 

 

 

 

Best wishes and great clarity to all.

On a side note, maybe there ought to be some encouragement to compose a theme song for TTB. Howbouthat?

[asunthatneversets]

Since we are now safely back on "hard ice" with some buddhism...

 

Reading the link, I would say that Greg is only talking about a more limited "emptiness of self". Emptiness of self is only a preliminary realization. It is like a clear and quiet mind. As discussed in another thread recently, it requires the realization of the "light" and the ongoing realization of "ultimate reality" or as the Dzogchen guys like to call it, ongoing "spontaneous perfection".

 

He discusses both the emptiness of self and phenomena, and has mentioned before that there isn't really a dichotomy made between the two when it comes to Madhyamaka. The elements which comprise the self are truly no different than the factors which comprise what we take to be external to the self.

[gatito]

Hi gatito,

 

If you take another look, I think you will see that I said a buddha = Ishwara (not Brahman).

 

Also, I will make you a deal... If you will read the Lankavatara Sutra, I will read a Greg Goode book.

 

Jeff

 

Ah - I see - my bad - however, having reread , I still disagree (as you seem to be trying to merge diffent established systems into your own fundamentally dualistic model).

 

My gratuitous advice to anyone else (i.e. not to you Jeff ) is to pick either Emptiness or Direct Path Advaita (and don't even attempt to mix them with each other, let alone with Christianity ).

 

Sorry, no deal about the reading list Jeff - it's entirely up to you whether you read Greg's stuff - or not.

[Jeff]

He discusses both the emptiness of self and phenomena, and has mentioned before that there isn't really a dichotomy made between the two when it comes to Madhyamaka. The elements which comprise the self are truly no different than the factors which comprise what we take to be external to the self.

 

Thank you for your description. I would definitely agree that there is no difference between self and external to self, but I find it very rare when one does not have a difference in the actual realization of the aspects. The challenge is that much of the percieved separation with something like a "tree" or "rock" is not normally in conscious parts of "mind". Hence, the importance of a guru or divine partner (completion stage practices) to help release those obstructions.

[Jeff]

Ah - I see - my bad - however, having reread , I still disagree (as you seem to be trying to merge diffent established systems into your own fundamentally dualistic model).

 

My gratuitous advice to anyone else (i.e. not to you Jeff ) is to pick either Emptiness or Direct Path Advaita (and don't even attempt to mix them with each other, let alone with Christianity ).

 

Sorry, no deal about the reading list Jeff - it's entirely up to you whether you read Greg's stuff - or not.

 

Sorry to hear that you would not take me up on the deal, but thanks for the discussion anyways.

 

Also, I will still have to disagree with you on the "dualistic model" point. In the end, nothing but emptiness (or whatever you want to call it).

[Tibetan_Ice]

@ TI

 

 

I don't think it's anyone's intention to disparage any particular set of teachings by comparing and contrasting the insights between individual traditions, teachers, etc. If the above offends you, for the reason just stated, then this is something you should reflect on; instead of succumbing to a knee jerk reaction of aversion towards someone who doesn't conform to perennialism.

 

Sample Jock,

You think that what Thusness says is valid because that's what somebody else says. You have no practice and you have no experiences to give you any insight. You cannot tell if what Thusness is saying true, only that it parrots the generally accepted principles of Buddhism, that of no self and emptiness and dependent origination.

Anyone can invent their own levels of attainment, and for the unsuspecting and uninitiated, it seems quite valid,doesn't it?

Anyone who says that someone else's realizations lack insight ( Ken Wilbur) is not interested in comparing teachings, in order to gain insight, instead they are trying to cover up their own insecurities by propping themselves up and posturing for a higher position.

How can Thusness say "The experience of no-mind might be there, the realization of the dharma seal of anatta or no-self isn't." about Bernadette Roberts? Is he more enlightened than her? What gives him the right to speak about her realizations? If you ask me it looks like the typical anti-Christian rants that is sometimes found by quasi-Buddhists. No boddhicitta there!

 

Intellectual knowledge is a small part of spiritual evolution, the bigger part being practice. There is a reason why Padmasambhava says what he does.

 

Now feel free to post another picture of excrement or admit hypocrisy again, as that seems to be your style. Or better yet, why don't you find another toilet roll of teachings that contradict the other reams of quotes that you post but don't seem to understand so as to misguide and mislead the rest of the readership?

 

 

[Yascra]

No boddhicitta there!

 

No prajna-wisdom usually, which makes it even worse.

 

I largely agree with the rest of your post.

[Simple_Jack]

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.

 

That's the caveat is it not? In order to take any of this seriously it takes having some experience yourself; this is dependent on an individual's conditions. Based on what you said above I can only conclude that you've overlooked the subtleties and purpose of Buddhist view and practice.

 

 

 

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?

 

I can understand why you would arrive at that conclusion especially considering your background in Advaita; conflating the Buddha's teachings of anatman into an affirming-negation to arrive at a transpersonal or universal consciousness. The only thing you accomplish by stating the above is making buddhadharma even more nebulous than it already can be to those unfamiliar with Buddhist philosophy and praxis.

 

Let's look at the instructions of Buddha in the Bahiya Sutta:

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html

 

"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."[2]

 

In order to arrive at this directly one needs to comprehend the purpose of Buddha's teachings on the 3 seals i.e. anicca, dukkha, anatta. The purpose of this is to continually deconstruct cognition, especially the sense of an undifferentiated conglomerate "awareness", down to its basic constituents i.e. eye consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, ear consciousness, body consciousness, mental consciousness; all of which arise dependent on the meeting of the corresponding sense organ and the sense object. The Bahiya Sutta is significant due in part to the "directness" of these instructions. The directness of these instructions points to another significant insight from the Kalakarama Sutta:

 

http://measurelessmind.ca/anattasanna.html

 

Thus, monks, the Tathāgata does not conceive an [object] seen when seeing what is to be seen. He does not conceive an unseen. He does not conceive a to-be-seen. He does not conceive a seer.

 

He does not conceive an [object] heard when hearing what is to be heard. He does not conceive an unheard. He does not conceive a to-be-heard. He does not conceive a hearer.

 

He does not conceive an [object] sensed when sensing what is to be sensed. He does not conceive an unsensed. He does not conceive a to-be-sensed. He does not conceive a senser.

 

He does not conceive an [object] known when knowing what is to be known. He does not conceive an unknown. He does not conceive a to-be-known. He does not conceive a knower.

 

This is actually crucial to understanding the divergence between the experiential insight of the Upanishads and that of buddhadharma which to sum up is: in thinking, no-thinker; in seeing, no-seer; in hearing, no-hearer, etc.

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Moderator team]

~~~~~~~ Mod Message ~~~~~~~~~

 

Hopefully as a final say on the matter and as a general warning: in most cases it is not acceptable to accuse other members of being lesser practitioners or non practitioners just because they hold a slightly different view from yourself. There are thousands of different Buddhist secs still debating to this day the subtleties of what is the correct Buddhist view so I don't think anyone here is qualified to have the final say on the matter. You can say the idea or concept is non Buddhist but leave the labeling and categorisation of the person out of it.

 

Also debate is encouraged but if you are going to accuse someone of something like hypocrisy or double standards you have to be specific about how they are being that way otherwise it will look like a general insult or harassment. Mods do not have the will or patience to trawl back through multiple threads to find out where such accusations come from, if you want to continue such debate in the same way a way do it by pm.

 

~~~~~~~~ Mod Out ~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

 

 

[Simple_Jack]

~~~~~~~ Mod Message ~~~~~~~~~

 

Hopefully as a final say on the matter and as a general warning: in most cases it is not acceptable to accuse other members of being lesser practitioners or non practitioners just because they hold a slightly different view from yourself. There are thousands of different Buddhist secs still debating to this day the subtleties of what is the correct Buddhist view so I don't think anyone here is qualified to have the final say on the matter. You can say the idea or concept is non Buddhist but leave the labeling and categorisation of the person out of it.

 

Also debate is encouraged but if you are going to accuse someone of something like hypocrisy or double standards you have to be specific about how they are being that way otherwise it will look like a general insult or harassment. Mods do not have the will or patience to trawl back through multiple threads to find out where such accusations come from, if you want to continue such debate in the same way a way do it by pm.

 

~~~~~~~~ Mod Out ~~~~~~~~~~

 

I didn't accuse yabyum24 (or gatito for that matter) of being a non-practitioner of buddhadharma because he held views that were contrary to views of my own: I said it because the aggregate of consciousness is generally regarded as dependently originated in all the variety of Buddhist sects and tenet systems. This has a real world bearing on Buddhist practice since It forms the foundation of buddhardharma. Also, I've already given an explanation for my accusations towards gatito, here http://thetaobums.com/topic/33012-bernadette-roberts-christian-contemplative-view-on-buddhism/?p=526544

Edited February 25, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

That's the caveat is it not? In order to take any of this seriously it takes having some experience yourself; this is dependent on an individual's conditions. Based on what you said above I can only conclude that you've overlooked the subtleties and purpose of Buddhist view and practice.

 

 

 

I can understand why you would arrive at that conclusion especially considering your background in Advaita; conflating the Buddha's teachings of anatman into an affirming-negation to arrive at a transpersonal or universal consciousness. The only thing you accomplish by stating the above is making buddhadharma even more nebulous than it already can be to those unfamiliar with Buddhist philosophy and praxis.

 

Let's look at the instructions of Buddha in the Bahiya Sutta:

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html

 

"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."[2]

 

In order to arrive at this directly one needs to comprehend the purpose of Buddha's teachings on the 3 seals i.e. anicca, dukkha, anatta. The purpose of this is to continually deconstruct cognition, especially the sense of an undifferentiated conglomerate "awareness", down to its basic constituents i.e. eye consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, ear consciousness, body consciousness, mental consciousness; all of which arise dependent on the meeting of the corresponding sense organ and the sense object. The Bahiya Sutta is significant due in part to the "directness" of these instructions. The directness of these instructions points to another significant insight from the Kalakarama Sutta:

 

http://measurelessmind.ca/anattasanna.html

 

Thus, monks, the Tathāgata does not conceive an [object] seen when seeing what is to be seen. He does not conceive an unseen. He does not conceive a to-be-seen. He does not conceive a seer.

 

He does not conceive an [object] heard when hearing what is to be heard. He does not conceive an unheard. He does not conceive a to-be-heard. He does not conceive a hearer.

 

He does not conceive an [object] sensed when sensing what is to be sensed. He does not conceive an unsensed. He does not conceive a to-be-sensed. He does not conceive a senser.

 

He does not conceive an [object] known when knowing what is to be known. He does not conceive an unknown. He does not conceive a to-be-known. He does not conceive a knower.

 

This is actually crucial to understanding the divergence between the experiential insight of the Upanishads and that of buddhadharma which to sum up is: in thinking, no-thinker; in seeing, no-seer; in hearing, no-hearer, etc.

 

Bump.

[gatito]

I didn't accuse yabyum24 (or gatito for that matter) of being a non-practitioner of buddhadharma because he held views that were contrary to views of my own: I said it because the aggregate of consciousness is generally regarded as dependently originated in all the variety of Buddhist sects and tenet systems. This has a real world bearing on Buddhist practice since It forms the foundation of buddhardharma. Also, I've already given an explanation for my accusations towards gatito, here http://thetaobums.com/topic/33012-bernadette-roberts-christian-contemplative-view-on-buddhism/?p=526544

 

The link leads to this: -

 

 

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".

 

And my response to that nonsense : -

 

Listen, great being, to what I am explaining to you!

 

From the beginning, pure and total consciousness, the supreme source, abides in the authentic all-transcending condition; however, the various traditions with their views are not able to relax in it.

 

THE SUPREME SOURCE

The Kunjed Gyalpo

The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

Edited February 25, 2014 by gatito

[Simple_Jack]

The link leads to this: -

 

 

And my response to that nonsense : -

 

 

THE SUPREME SOURCE

The Kunjed Gyalpo

The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

 

Yes, this is how to accurately understand this Tantra according to how its taught in Dzogchen:

 

http://dharmaconnectiongroup.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-all-creating-king-and-implications.html

 

Soh wrote:

"Hi Namdrol,

As you mentioned about Hindu Vedanta... a question came to mind.

I was just reading someone's post half an hour ago in another forum: ( http://collectionofthoughts.com/bbpress/topic/1499/page/7?replies=200 ).

He/she ('star') states that according to Dzogchen view, everything is Consciousness, and therefore everything is real.

What is your comment on this?

Also, he/she states 'The Supreme Source' as a reference... in which I also personally have some questions regarding this book: in certain parts of the book, Consciousness is described as an all-creating agent, which sounds like God to me. How does Dependent Origination apply here?"

Malcolm wrote:

"This person has confused the Trika non-dual view with Dzogchen.

The mind that is the all-creating king, as Norbu Rinpoche makes clear, is the mind that does not recognize itself, and so enters into samsara, creating its own experience of samsara.

All conditioned phenomena are a product of ignorance, according to Dzogchen view, and so therefore, everything is not real. The basis of that ignorance is the basis, which is also not established as real.

In Dzogchen, everything is unreal, from top to bottom. The basis, in Dzogchen, is described as being 'empty not established in any way at all'. If the basis is not real, then whatever arises from that basis is not real.

In Dzoghen, dependent origination begins from the non-recognition of the state of the basis, when this happens, one enters into grasping self and other, and then the chain of dependent origination begins.*"

-------------------

And here's someone from your yahoo group having this same conversation with Jean-Luc Achard, obviously his answer was ignored...

? wrote:

"That quote above still can be interpreted the same way. The Kunjed Gyalpo says that there is nothing to do, try, search etc... Because everything is from the Supreme Source, thus perfect. There is not two sources, but one. Then what can possibly be 'perfected' ?"

Jean-Luc Achard wrote:

"Supreme Source is not a Dzogchen concept. I don’t know (well i suspect) why they choosed this title (way too New Age for me) but the original is 'All Creating' (kun-byed, lit. 'All Doing') refering to the mind. So mind creates everything, that’s the meaning, its not a reference to some cosmic source somewhere as it may sound from the english title. What can be perfected? Well one’s deluded mind can be perfected, certainly not the natural state. Nobody said the natural state has to be perfected, it’s one’s ultimate essence, but our ordinary being is not our essence, it is deluded, full of ignorance, and this is what has to be perfected."

*"chain of dependent origination" refers to the specific theory of dependent origination which is the 12 nidanas aka. the 12 links of dependent origination. The general theory of dependent origination is "When this exists, that exists; With the arising of this, that arises; When this does not exist, that does not exist; With the cessation of this, that ceases

Edited February 25, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[gatito]

Let's try this again, firstly, Malcolm is clueless, secondly (or rather, firstly : ) : -

 

"Listen, great being, to what I am explaining to you!

From the beginning, pure and total consciousness, the supreme source, abides in the authentic all-transcending condition; however, the various traditions with their views are not able to relax in it."

THE SUPREME SOURCE
The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde