Prerequisites for enlightenment (if any)

[dwai]

[3bob]

Were the historic Buddha of Buddhism or the Self realized Guru's of Hinduism neophytes...and should we thus discard those teachings since we know better per our enlightened correlations, comparisons and interpretations?

[SeekerOfHealing]

Even Buddha discarded hindu teachings as failure so (as all other spiritual process come from india then... all other teachings are failure). Why pushing so hard on that point while you have someone who practiced it all and said it's all bs?

Edited May 7, 2017 by SeekerOfHealing

[dwai]

Were the historic Buddha of Buddhism or the Self realized Guru's of Hinduism neophytes...and should we thus discard those teachings since we know better per our enlightened correlations, comparisons and interpretations?

No they were not neophytes and nothing needs to be "discarded". But they were not contradicting each other either. Because the Buddha refused to label that which is beyond the non-self. What Vedantic masters call "atman" is not a limited beingness. It is none other than what they call Brahman (the empty yet full source of everything). It is beyond all duality, so beyond self and no-self. call it what you may,..it's your choice.

[thelerner]

This is what I said, you judge before putting things into your mouth so you will never know and basing judgement based on me about some meditation is also ignorant approach. Just try it and then we can talk about it - otherwise it's just smearing faces without any point behind but if you are aim is only aimlessly talk here - i'm fine with that too.

 

and yes, there is only one way and one method which is blessing for those who seek simplicity and curse for those who like playing with toys (and endlessly look for result even if they keep missing more and more into the point). I have no need to promote it. It's just a mention in contrastic way - you do whatever you want to do. If you think you are more experienced then me and knowledgeable to say "all paths are the same and everyone points to the same results" - you need to prove those claims otherwise it's just hypocrisy at it finest.

 

 

so please do not speak aimlessly sameism doctrine without any substance behind.

Let's see.. You should read things closer, otherwise your loud prejudices keep you from reading the actual words and intent.  It's not that "all paths are the same" what people of experience are saying, based on there years and the people they've met is that different practices have led people to enlightenment and liberation.

 

Shhh, different practices have led people to enlightenment and liberation.  OK?    We're not saying all practices are great or perfect or the same.. just different practices have connected well with some people and led them far along the path.   At 51, having traveled the world, with an interest in mysticism, that's what I've found.  Amazing people from different practices. 

 

You have a very misogynistic, sexist mindset.  You seem to prejudge half the world's population and every art that is not your own harshly.  You seem like a bitter man,  like your only contribution here is negativity.  Circling back to the OP, such negativity seems like it'd move a person in the opposite direction.

[C T]

 

 

I've known and talked to many great Buddhists, loved listening to there dharma talks or sharing coffee with them.  Seekerofhealing, you are the only TWIM person I've been exposed to, and your prejudices and constant negativity do them no credit. 

TWIM .. This Week in Microbiology? 

 

Anyway... of what use is all the knowledge and intelligent discourse when even basic courtesy and manners have not yet taken root? 

[C T]

 

Emptiness is also an interesting concept. In some way, related to the meaning of "nirvana"---the blowing out; an emptying.

Falun gong actually has practitioners that have reached the level of walking in the heavenly realm created by the school's master. By their reckoning, emptiness is not universal godhood per se. In fact, it was reiterated when the history of the sutras was discussed, there are truths much higher than emptiness; the truths of skillful means were considered more profound than emptiness. Emptiness wasn't a thing as much as it was a goal. And it wasn't even what most people think---not emptiness in a perceptual sense or in the sense of a state of consciousness (well...partly as a state of consciousness). It was in the sense that a person would have been emptied of attachments. But that process has no ending. Hence the greater importance given to skillful means. In some sense, the doctrine of emptiness (as it is today), is an example of skillful means gone wrong. Emptiness in the experiential sense was a tool for getting people to drop attachments. But with it, when it is stubbornly held onto, it generates another form of attachment and destructive resonance.

 

For a lengthier discourse on Emptiness (Mahayana emptiness) i'd recommend this article: 

 

http://www.buddhanet.net/cbp2_f6.htm

[3bob]

No they were not neophytes and nothing needs to be "discarded". But they were not contradicting each other either. Because the Buddha refused to label that which is beyond the non-self. What Vedantic masters call "atman" is not a limited beingness. It is none other than what they call Brahman (the empty yet full source of everything). It is beyond all duality, so beyond self and no-self. call it what you may,..it's your choice.

Besides and regardless of my sarcasm, the historic Buddha spent a fair amount of time in his teachings refuting Atman, and that can in no way be denied or glossed over with modern day, super broad tolerant based correlations or interpretations being that his stance was inflexible on this key point of doctrine.

[Sudhamma]

#97, are we in trouble?  are we saved? who saves whom, he wondered as he wandered...

 

If we keep on wondering, and wandering, we are definitely in trouble. More trouble besets us as we wait for some-one to save us. How then can we be saved?

 

Quote from Dhammapada:

"By oneself is evil done;

by oneself is one defiled.

By oneself is evil left undone;

by oneself is one made pure.

Purity and impurity depend on oneself;

no one can purify another."

-Dhammapada v 165.

 

By wondering, there is still doubt about the Teachings of the Buddha. By wandering, precious time is wasted. In some comic scenes in films, there is the unlocked door, yet, the character tries hard to open the window to gain entry. Wondering and wandering is just like that. Why not boldly venture in when there is an open invitation by The Buddha to anyone who wants to test his teachings and findings?

"Well expounded is the Dhamma by the Blessed One.

to be realized; with immediate results.

To be approached, to be seen.

Capable of being entered upon;

To be realized by the wise, each by himself."

- Homage to the Dhamma. (Dhajaggaparittam sutta)

 

#97 after all, where do I stop and you begin?

 

Arhant Angulimala was once a murderous person before being a chief disciple of The Buddha. Angulimala was told by his teacher that he had to collect 99 fingers from 99 living individuals (to be enligthened, to be a god, an immortal) and he was chasing after The Buddha for the 99th finger. However, how fast Angulimala ran, The Buddha was still in front of him, merely walking. Angulimala shouted "Stop, don't run!" The Buddha, stopped, and turned around and said to the panting Angulimala, and said "i've stopped, have you?" These words made Angulimala reflected and for that moment, he realised how foolish he was. He dropped his weapon and on his knees asked to be accepted to be Buddha's disciple. His time of reckoning had arrived. You may have to wait for yours, if this is not the time of your reckoning. I don't mean to be rude, but it is the truth that each of us will have our time of reckoning. So, I've stopped, have you?

 

My apology if this becomes a digression from the OP.

Edited May 8, 2017 by Sudhamma

[Michael Sternbach]

Besides and regardless of my sarcasm, the historic Buddha spent a fair amount of time in his teachings refuting Atman, and that can in no way be denied or glossed over with modern day, super broad tolerant based correlations or interpretations being that his stance was inflexible on this key point of doctrine.

A long time ago,I discussed this question with a Zen priest during a lecture in the Sosenji temple (Kyoto), as I was hard pressed to reconcile the Buddhist teaching of impermanence with the concept of the higher self found in Hinduism and Western metaphysical systems.

 

My conclusion today is that, even though there is indeed a 'higher' self or soul, it is not the closed system I once imagined it to be; it expands unlimitedly and merges with the universal self (or whatever you like to call it) eventually. No frontiers, flow, impermanence... Isn't it said in Hinduism that Atman is actually Brahman?!

 

Regarding Buddha's statements about this, a few things come to mind:

 

For Buddhism to become an independent system, Buddha did have to emphasize in what ways it differed from what had come before.

 

Not that he was spreading misinformation in any way! It is likely that many Hindus had a limited - and limiting - view of Atman at the time. So Buddha actually gave the ones who became his followers right what they needed to hear - another perspective that freed their mind.

 

Are electrons particles or waves? Neither assumption is wrong. They are both - it is a matter of perspective.

 

Only on an advanced level of understanding is it possible to reconcile the contradictory teachings of different systems.

 

Eventually it turns out that probably for every truth, there is an opposite truth that complements it.

[Brian]

A long time ago,I discussed this question with a Zen priest during a lecture in the Sosenji temple (Kyoto), as I was hard pressed to reconcile the Buddhist teaching of impermanence with the concept of the higher self found in Hinduism and Western metaphysical systems.

 

My conclusion today is that, even though there is indeed a 'higher' self or soul, it is not the closed system I once imagined it to be; it expands unlimitedly and merges with the universal self (or whatever you like to call it) eventually. No frontiers, flow, impermanence... Isn't it said in Hinduism that Atman is actually Brahman?!

 

Regarding Buddha's statements about this, a few things come to mind:

 

For Buddhism to become an independent system, Buddha did have to emphasize in what ways it differed from what had come before.

 

Not that he was spreading misinformation in any way! It is likely that many Hindus had a limited - and limiting - view of Atman at the time. So Buddha actually gave the ones who became his followers right what they needed to hear - another perspective that freed their mind.

 

Are electrons particles or waves? Neither assumption is wrong. They are both - it is a matter of perspective.

 

Only on an advanced level of understanding is it possible to reconcile the contradictory teachings of different systems.

 

Eventually it turns out that probably for every truth, there is an opposite truth that complements it.

This is my current understanding, too.

[3bob]

I can dig the intentions of your post Michael, they are good ones!

 

I'm playing the devils advocate somewhat along these lines....

 

Btw,  I have zero doubt about the fact of Atman/Brahman per my experience, as for the historic Buddha doing his very best to refute such per recorded texts there is also zero doubt that he did so -  not by my word but by his own. 

 

It is also interesting and revealing that a sideways kind of "new age" if you will interpretation and compromise is being made that muddies the water so to speak about this key point of doctrine. On another hand and for instance a lot of people look up to the Dalai Lama and as far as I know he didn't muddy the waters - yet so many seem to say or imply, "'oh, no problem the highly detailed doctrine really means or can also mean the opposite of what it is pointing to...."  Anyway I have no problem with  Buddhists  happily doing their Noble thing or the Noble Eight Fold Path,  I do have a problem with the subtle or not so subtle thinking or feeling, "that everyone is a Buddhist and that Buddhist teachings are the only fully viable system, it's just that those people don't know it yet. but they will sooner or later". 

Edited May 8, 2017 by 3bob

[Jeff]

I can dig the intentions of your post Michael, they are good ones!

 

I'm playing the devils advocate somewhat along these lines....

 

Btw,  I have zero doubt about the fact of Atman/Brahman per my experience, as for the historic Buddha doing his very best to refute such per recorded texts there is also zero doubt that he did so -  not by my word but by his own. 

 ...

 

I would agree with your efforts. To say that the two views are the same, one would need to say that Brahman = Emptiness, and as you have stated, per Buddha, this is clearly not the case.

 

Additionally, the wheel turns over time, and hence, the resulting technology/practices (and potential) changes.This can be clearly seen when one compares Dzogchen/Bon to early sutra views. Similarly, the teachings of Jesus are dramatically different than Moses and the Old Testament.

[allinone]

I can dig the intentions of your post Michael, they are good ones!

 

I'm playing the devils advocate somewhat along these lines....

 

Btw,  I have zero doubt about the fact of Atman/Brahman per my experience, as for the historic Buddha doing his very best to refute such per recorded texts there is also zero doubt that he did so -  not by my word but by his own. 

 

It is also interesting and revealing that a sideways kind of "new age" if you will interpretation and compromise is being made that muddies the water so to speak about this key point of doctrine. On another hand and for instance a lot of people look up to the Dalai Lama and as far as I know he didn't muddy the waters - yet so many seem to say or imply, "'oh, no problem the highly detailed doctrine really means or can also mean the opposite of what it is pointing to...."  Anyway I have no problem with  Buddhists  happily doing their Noble thing or the Noble Eight Fold Path,  I do have a problem with the subtle or not so subtle thinking or feeling, "that everyone is a Buddhist and that Buddhist teachings are the only fully viable system, it's just that those people don't know it yet. but they will sooner or later". 

 

buddhist is just a language. So basically the only correct path is buddhist, but if you use other language then its different word.

 

to clarify you can use the language of biology, or language of sun. NB: sun asks me to get naked sometimes.

Edited May 8, 2017 by allinone

[dwai]

A long time ago,I discussed this question with a Zen priest during a lecture in the Sosenji temple (Kyoto), as I was hard pressed to reconcile the Buddhist teaching of impermanence with the concept of the higher self found in Hinduism and Western metaphysical systems.

 

My conclusion today is that, even though there is indeed a 'higher' self or soul, it is not the closed system I once imagined it to be; it expands unlimitedly and merges with the universal self (or whatever you like to call it) eventually. No frontiers, flow, impermanence... Isn't it said in Hinduism that Atman is actually Brahman?!

 

Regarding Buddha's statements about this, a few things come to mind:

 

For Buddhism to become an independent system, Buddha did have to emphasize in what ways it differed from what had come before.

 

Not that he was spreading misinformation in any way! It is likely that many Hindus had a limited - and limiting - view of Atman at the time. So Buddha actually gave the ones who became his followers right what they needed to hear - another perspective that freed their mind.

 

Are electrons particles or waves? Neither assumption is wrong. They are both - it is a matter of perspective.

 

Only on an advanced level of understanding is it possible to reconcile the contradictory teachings of different systems.

 

Eventually it turns out that probably for every truth, there is an opposite truth that complements it.

 

First, the Buddha did not create "buddhism". What is called Buddhism was formulated into a separate system after the death of Gautama Buddha. 

 

And Vedanta says Brahman and Atman are one and the same. We use the term Brahman when referring to the universe/multiverse. It is unknowable, ineffable, empty and full of potentiality, out of which all phenomena arise, and into which all phenomena collapse.

 

We use Atman when referring to the fact that all that is known, knowable or unknown are from a purely subjective source, which is our inner-most being (Atman...Self). But the Atman itself is unknowable and ineffable, empty and yet full of potentiality. Therefore Atman is none other than Brahman. Since being Non-dual, there can be not be two "unknown unknowable emptinesses".

[Michael Sternbach]

I can dig the intentions of your post Michael, they are good ones!

 

I'm playing the devils advocate somewhat along these lines....

I appreciate it. You're making me think and clarify my position that way.

 

Btw,  I have zero doubt about the fact of Atman/Brahman per my experience, as for the historic Buddha doing his very best to refute such per recorded texts there is also zero doubt that he did so -  not by my word but by his own. 

We would have to look at specific quotes.

 

It is also interesting and revealing that a sideways kind of "new age" if you will interpretation and compromise is being made that muddies the water so to speak about this key point of doctrine. On another hand and for instance a lot of people look up to the Dalai Lama and as far as I know he didn't muddy the waters - yet so many seem to say or imply, "'oh, no problem the highly detailed doctrine really means or can also mean the opposite of what it is pointing to...." 

Let me tell you something about my own story. In my childhood and early teenage years, the only view I accepted was the scientific one; I regarded the religious thinking of some of the people around me as unfounded and naive.

 

It wasn't before I took up martial arts that I learned about Buddhism and Daoism. Gradually, I started practicing some of their methods and reading some of their books. There was much I deeply resonated with. My curiosity had been kindled.

 

When I discovered that there was actually comparable wisdom to be found in my own culture - far beyond the naive faith I was expected to buy into as a child - I expanded my studies accordingly.

 

Yes, hypothetically, I could have settled for one of the views that I was presented with and become another subservient follower of this or that faith. I even kind of tried that for awhile. It didn't work for me. My thinking and spiritual experiences kept beating the doors of the frameworks I tried to impose on them.

 

I needed real answers. I needed to know how all that I felt to be true fit together.

 

And I do think that my experiences reflect those of others - not necessarily new agers, but, let's say,'information agers'. People not satisfied with blindly accepting thousands of years old doctrines as THE truth. People who dare to ask the difficult questions.

 

These are the people I reach out to. If some of them find one or the other conclusion of mine worthwhile or, better yet, extend on them and come up with their own, I will have achieved my purpose.

 

Anyway I have no problem with  Buddhists  happily doing their Noble thing or the Noble Eight Fold Path,  I do have a problem with the subtle or not so subtle thinking or feeling, "that everyone is a Buddhist and that Buddhist teachings are the only fully viable system, it's just that those people don't know it yet. but they will sooner or later".

 

Yes, that's nothing but pure fundamentalism.

[s1va]

Even Buddha discarded hindu teachings as failure so (as all other spiritual process come from india then... all other teachings are failure). Why pushing so hard on that point while you have someone who practiced it all and said it's all bs?

 

You think something is 'bs', everything other than what you do is 'bs', this is fine with me.  I thank you for participating on the discussion and sharing your thoughts.

 

You can continue to share your thoughts and opinions, as you wish & I respect them, as long as you are within the guidelines of the forums rules set by moderators.  Also, if I were you, I would watch out to see whether my words can hurt someone or negatively influence a discussion.  When we have such strong opinions or positions and we go out of our way and express it in places, where people don't share similar opinion or thoughts, then there will be consequences.  I am sure, you are smart enough to know these things.

 

I don't know what you think is the only path.  I asked directly about this, when you mentioned kriya yoga is useless, on the kriya yoga discussion.  You don't explain clearly what your path, explain it's merits and participate in discussion.  Instead you just jump into the discussions and say, this is 'bs', that is 'bs'.  This can provoke people.  

 

Most importantly we should know the audience we are talking to.  If I go to forums meant for fishing,  they are discussing about fishing passionately.  I jump in and say, I have done all the fishing, it is all useless 'bs'.  That won't be smart on my part.  I should look for 'fishing haters' forum and go express my feelings.  I would even be welcome at that place.

[3bob]

Dwai,  Where do the Upanishads say anything about the Self/Atamn being unknowable by the Self/Atamn?  It's true that the mind can not know that beyond the mind but not so for the Self...

Jiva is Siva or Self! 

 

Also and very obviously and as recorded by very carefully handed down information the historic Buddha was the founder of Buddhism, granted a great deal of written material and branches of the practice of Buddhism came into being after his passing.

Edited May 8, 2017 by 3bob

[s1va]

Besides and regardless of my sarcasm, the historic Buddha spent a fair amount of time in his teachings refuting Atman, and that can in no way be denied or glossed over with modern day, super broad tolerant based correlations or interpretations being that his stance was inflexible on this key point of doctrine.

 

Their seems to be agreement at many levels, like impermanence.  There is debate on what is beyond impermanence.  Debate on what cannot be understood by intellect or described in words.  These may perhaps be disagreements in the way each personally understood or interpreted the terms or words that described the truth.

 

I have engaged in some lengthy arguments before.  Only to understand in the end, that both of us were talking and agreeing about the same thing.  The terms or words we used to describe something, and the way we understood them were different.

[Jeff]

Their seems to be agreement at many levels, like impermanence.  There is debate on what is beyond impermanence.  Debate on what cannot be understood by intellect or described in words.  These may perhaps be disagreements in the way each personally understood or interpreted the terms or words that described the truth.

 

I have engaged in some lengthy arguments before.  Only to understand in the end, that both of us were talking and agreeing about the same thing.  The terms or words we used to describe something, and the way we understood them were different.

 

 

Impermanence is one of the actual major disagreement points.  I think if you check the Upanishads, Brahman is described as Sat-cit-ānanda and is unchanging & permanent. The highest ultimate reality.

[dwai]

Dwai, Where do the Upanishads say anything about the Self/Atamn being unknowable by the Self/Atamn? It's true that the mind can not know that beyond the mind but not so for the Self...

Jiva is Siva or Self!

 

Also and very obviously and as recorded by very carefully handed down information the historic Buddha was the founder of Buddhism, granted a great deal of written material and branches of the practice of Buddhism came into being after his passing.

Atman cannot become an object of the mind. Whatever the senses and mind finds as an object, in process of inquiry, is discarded as "not this, not this", until eventually one gets emptiness. That is why there is a difference between jiva and atman in Vedanta.

 

You should go back and re-read the ten principal upanishads and also read texts like yoga vasishta, if you have doubts.

 

Again note, I am not referring to dvaita interpretations of upanishads. which only deal with jiva and ishwara duality.

Edited May 8, 2017 by dwai

[dwai]

Impermanence is one of the actual major disagreement points. I think if you check the Upanishads, Brahman is described as Sat-cit-ānanda and is unchanging & permanent. The highest ultimate reality.

It is also called "tad ekam evadvitiyam". It means existence and non-existence, permanence and impermanence have no meaning from that Perspective.

 

NOTE: Corrected the statement "tad ekam nadvitiyam to Tad ekam evadvitiyam" (meaning that one, without a second...I had misquoted it)

Edited May 8, 2017 by dwai

[3bob]

Atman cannot become an object of the mind. Whatever the senses and mind finds as an object, in process of inquiry, is discarded as "not this, not this", until eventually one gets emptiness. That is why there is a difference between jiva and atman in Vedanta.

 

You should go back and re-read the ten principal upanishads and also read texts like yoga vasishta, if you have doubts.

 

Again note, I am not referring to dvaita interpretations of upanishads. which only deal with jiva and ishwara duality.

 

Umm, and apparently you completely misunderstand my first little paragraph earlier?  Secondly, the Upanishads are part of Vedic teachings so I see no dichotomy there as you seem to be implying? Thirdly, I have no doubt on the subject and there is really no need for me to read multiple upanishads to find or make an academic point since reading the import of say just one like the Chandogya will cover the primary spiritual points. (at least for me, although the inspiration from all of them is greatly appreciated)

 

Btw, as you well know there are many other schools besides Dvaita which i'm not referring to either, and for instance there is the one that you prefer.  

Edited May 8, 2017 by 3bob

[Michael Sternbach]

I would agree with your efforts. To say that the two views are the same, one would need to say that Brahman = Emptiness, and as you have stated, per Buddha, this is clearly not the case.

If that were true, then I wonder, how come our Hindu friend Dwai could write in his reply to me:

 

We use the term Brahman when referring to the universe/multiverse. It is unknowable, ineffable, empty and full of potentiality, out of which all phenomena arise, and into which all phenomena collapse.

And actually, I would have been more than surprised if it would have been any different. For the view that the universe is the result of an original emptiness splitting up into positive and negative forces that are balancing each other while they continue to sum up to zero, and will cancel each other out eventually to return to original emptiness, is a conception that is - in essence -shared by every metaphysical system that I know about.

 

Additionally, the wheel turns over time, and hence, the resulting technology/practices (and potential) changes.This can be clearly seen when one compares Dzogchen/Bon to early sutra views. Similarly, the teachings of Jesus are dramatically different than Moses and the Old Testament.

The practices change, but the metaphysical principles underlying them don't.

 

But I agree that the wheel keeps turning. In my view, its next turn is immanent and will result in the unification of various systems with each other, and with the scientific view of the universe.

 

First, the Buddha did not create "buddhism". What is called Buddhism was formulated into a separate system after the death of Gautama Buddha.

That is certainly true. I guess I should have been more explicit. Elaborating on my previous statement: Buddha's teachings needed to be distinct in order to eventually emerge as an independent system - whether its founder was aware of it (which I think is quite likely, given his level of insight) or not.

 

And Vedanta says Brahman and Atman are one and the same. We use the term Brahman when referring to the universe/multiverse. It is unknowable, ineffable, empty and full of potentiality, out of which all phenomena arise, and into which all phenomena collapse.

 

We use Atman when referring to the fact that all that is known, knowable or unknown are from a purely subjective source, which is our inner-most being (Atman...Self). But the Atman itself is unknowable and ineffable, empty and yet full of potentiality. Therefore Atman is none other than Brahman. Since being Non-dual, there can be not be two "unknown unknowable emptinesses".

Well said. Another way to express this would be that the innermost centre of the self must correspond with the infinite periphery of the universe or multiverse.

[s1va]

Dwai,  Where do the Upanishads say anything about the Self/Atamn being unknowable by the Self/Atamn?  It's true that the mind can not know that beyond the mind but not so for the Self...

 

Leaving Upanishads aside and just inquiring.  How can the Self/Atman know it as Self/Atman?  Atman/Self is described as everything.  To know, there should be otherness.  If it is everything, how can it know itself?

 

If I were to assume an entity like God, who is everything.  Such God cannot possibly tell the difference between good and bad.  Because God is both good and bad at the sametime.

 

I read in a book, that a little kid questioning, where was God (physical location) before creating the Universe?  The universe is yet unmanifest.  God just was.  It is impossible to give a location where he was before creation.

 

Going by the same logic, Atman cannot know itself.  The moment, the Atman knows it is Atman, it is not Atman anymore (as described).