|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
themysticseeker
USA
342 Posts |
 Posted - Jan 12 2009 : 7:37:39 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by CarsonZi
Hi alwayson,
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson
I think so. The view of dependent origination and Madhyamaka allowed Buddha to surpass others while using the same yoga techniques.
So you then obviously perscribe to the notion that there IS a "one and only way" or at least one way that is far superior to all others correct? All roads lead home my friend and everyone is different with different karmic blockages. No one way will be the way for everyone or even most people. We all have to find our own way. I'm sure that was what the Buddha really taught, same as I believe that is what Jesus really taught. No one REALLY knows for sure.
Love,
Carson
No. There's no one and only way. There are many many many ways. There is however, a one and only correct view. Dependent origination and emptiness are unique and subtle views. It opens one's heart to a more full flavored view of ultimate reality. The yogic practices are all the same, more or less. It's the view that allows one to remain open even as one experiences devas, realms, the sense of a God Self, etc., so that one remains unattached, objective and nonplussed.
One way of looking at it is that the formless Self, is not eternal; what is eternal you cannot call a Self. You can't call it anything, but it's not nothing for sure; the moment you tag it, it becomes something it's not. You have to leave the tags off.
Dependent origination is accurate metaphysics for how "things arise." "Emptiness" is accurate metaphysics describing, essentially, space.
This view brings one's thoughts into harmony with the actual state of affairs. Methods that allow one's mind to become an emptiness, provides for the dawn of the great direct experience.
Love,
TMS |
 |
|
|
themysticseeker
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Jan 12 2009 : 7:47:32 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by yogani
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
So it is -- the Buddha found reification of a Supreme Self to be a problemmatic aspect of teaching, which it can be -- it can get in the way of enlightenment. So he devised a teaching method to get around that problem, that's all. It's not true that he's talking about a different elephant though. He's talking differently about the same elephant.
Hi David and All:
Yes, and that elephant is the human nervous system, with its inherent spiritual capabilities. There is only one of those, and the destination can only be known by the experiencer.
Discussions of a destination or underlying reality are pure speculation, even when presented by the enlightened, because it will mean little to nearly everyone else. Much better we each engage in sound practices and move forward. Then we will find out what it is in daily living, and can share that in our own words, while wisely acknowledging anyone else's sharing of their experience. In that way, we can develop a profile of human enlightenment and the paths to it, without dividing up into armed camps. There is no such thing as a "one and only way." There is a one and only vehicle for spiritual experience, the human nervous system, and many approaches for enabling its full capabilities.
It is about our journey right now, and what means can facilitate our process of inner purification and opening day by day. It is about cause and effect, and our direct experience as we move forward. That is real. Intellectual presentations of the nature of reality, no matter how profound or pedigreed, are unreal.
Direct experience on the level of each individual is the final arbiter of the value of any path. It is not about debating which is the most authentic ancient knowledge. It is about what practices will work to open us in the present. It is not so difficult. We can readily see what works and what does not by optimizing causes and effects in practice.
So, what is the system of practice being proposed here? Or are there several? That is fine too. Whatever works! 
The guru is in you.
Hi Yoganiji, You can't just get in a car and drive, if you don't know where you are going. The view of ultimate reality is not pure speculation. The Buddha described it.
This discussion started with a question about the Way and turned into the View. I think this is very appropo, because there is no one and only way; there are many boats going to shore from many lands. The ocean is foggy. The shore is not visible. The middle way is like a lighthouse, hard to see, difficult to follow.
Love,
TMS |
|
|
|
themysticseeker
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Jan 12 2009 : 8:10:05 PM
|
Buddha-nature: from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelumbo_nucifera (Indian Lotus)
quote:
Researchers report that the lotus has the remarkable ability to regulate the temperature of its flowers to within a narrow range just as humans and other warmblooded animals do.[2] Dr. Roger S. Seymour and Dr. Paul Schultze-Motel, physiologists at the University of Adelaide in Australia, found that lotus flowers blooming in the Adelaide Botanic Gardens maintained a temperature of 86 to 95 degrees Fahrenheit, even when the air temperature dropped to 50 degrees. They suspect the flowers may be turning up the heat for the benefit of their coldblooded insect pollinators. The study, published in the journal Nature, is the latest discovery in the esoteric field of heat-producing plants. Very few other species have so far been found to be able to regulate their temperature, including Skunk Cabbage and a Philodendron known as Elephant Ear.
|
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Jan 12 2009 : 9:36:01 PM
|
HI TMS,
quote:
Originally posted by themysticseeker
[brIt matters in meditation. Yoga is not the field of "no mind" meditation like Taoists or Zen. Mind is part of the path to tranquility and insight. So the correct view supports clarity in the direct experience, an unobscured direct experience.
All I was meaning is that this seems like a lot of "talk" which really does nothing to help ME have personal experience. There seems like a lot more useful things to discuss to me. Like actual practices. No offence meant.
Love,
Carson |
|
|
|
yogani
USA
5242 Posts |
Posted - Jan 13 2009 : 12:46:16 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by themysticseeker
You can't just get in a car and drive, if you don't know where you are going. The view of ultimate reality is not pure speculation. The Buddha described it.
Hi TMS:
In this case it can be argued that the car (nervous system) knows better where it is going than the mind, and that the mind in all of its cleverness can become an obstacle on the journey. That is, until mind becomes committed through bhakti to effective spiritual practice.
Indeed, for the learned, the path to true knowledge is an unlearning, a surrender into the wisdom of unknowing. Then there can be the transformation of thirst for intellectual knowledge into thirst for direct experience and the means for cultivating it. Not much can happen until this transformation in intention is occurring. Once the intellect has been surrendered to the process, it can be a great help.
There is no such thing as a sure definition of the end state. There is only the experience of it, which can be known and described only after the fact, never before. If an enlightened person (like the Buddha) describes reality or a destination after the fact, it is only valid from his/her point of view. For nearly everyone else it is a mental structure before the fact, and, while inspiring, can also be an obstacle if it becomes an intellectual obsession. What reality is for an enlightened person is speculation for everyone else who has not experienced that condition. This is the gap between teachers and students where so many have gotten stuck. We have to get past it, and that cannot be done with the intellect alone.
Sound practices transcend all this. Self-inquiry methods (including favoring witnessing) are part of it, but are only effective once the abiding witness has emerged, which is a function of meditation, not inquiry. In AYP, we call it "relational self-inquiry," released in abiding stillness, which is samyama.
There can be an overlap between meditation and inquiry. If inquiry is practiced diligently as stand-alone for a long time, it will eventually give way to meditation (transcendence of the object, leading to stillness), but this is a difficult way to go. If it were not, we would have much less talk about emptiness and much more direct experience of the thing itself in expanding radiance, which leads to a very different kind of discussion -- more along the lines of non-stop overflowing ecstatic bliss and laughter, rather than endless ideological posturing. It is pretty easy to tell the difference, yes?
I believe we are all after the same thing. It is only a matter of integrating the methods that will get the job done sooner rather than later. There is still a lot of work to be done in this area. Thanks to the great work of the ancients, open modern communications, and ongoing innovation occurring on many sides, it is gradually getting better. Bravo!
The guru is in you.
PS: So, do you think it is better to argue tooth and nail for emptiness being the absolute end state, or is it better to just practice and let it be empty? 
|
|
|
|
alwayson
Canada
288 Posts |
Posted - Jan 13 2009 : 01:18:45 AM
|
All things are empty from the beginning, including thoughts.
So emptiness is the basis of the path, not something to achieve Yogani. |
Edited by - alwayson on Jan 13 2009 01:19:34 AM |
|
|
|
yogani
USA
5242 Posts |
Posted - Jan 13 2009 : 01:38:32 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson
All things are empty from the beginning, including thoughts.
So emptiness is the basis of the path, not something to achieve Yogani.
Hi Alwayson:
I don't think we disagree on that.
However, who is experiencing emptiness as their everyday reality? For all who are not, it is only a concept. The question is, how does everyone move reliably from concept to direct experience? Without such means, the concept will become a castle in the air, an obstacle.
Sorry, but in these times conceptual proclamations (even from the enlightened) count for nothing without the means for verification by many in the present through direct experience. This is what we mean by "a path" or "a way." Much more is required. Or is it much less?
If you are going to promise that I can get from New York to Los Angeles in a few hours, then you must deliver the airplane along with the promise. Otherwise, it is false.
The guru is in you.
|
|
|
|
alwayson
Canada
288 Posts |
Posted - Jan 13 2009 : 02:13:04 AM
|
I completely agree
All conceptuality is useless and hinders enlightenment.
I just wanted to people to be aware of the teachings of dependent origination and Nagarjuna, not to become obsessed with them to the point of conceptuality.
If you practice Dzogchen right, you automatically are within the correct view in a non-conceptual way, which is the way you like it. |
|
|
|
Katrine
Norway
1813 Posts |
Posted - Jan 13 2009 : 03:30:39 AM
|
Hi Alwayson
Thank you for responding
quote:
Basically, you want to completely center yourself in the present moment
Yes
quote:
Read some of my other posts for more information.
I have read all your posts, Alwayson, but where do you describe what it is like for you to be Here/Now ? That would be very inspiring to read....
quote:
Remember, though not to analyze, like I have just here
This is brilliant advise, thank you :-)
quote:
Then once you have some experience, you can try to obtain the rainbow body (Buddhahood) through either kundalini, thogal or both.
Well, the funny thing is...that the more direct experience of Now there is......the less need is here for obtaining any body. In fact...."obtaining".....looses its validity all-together..... in the emptiness of this moment. There is a quiet joy and calmness that is precious....there is clarity ......and everything is unfolding of itself as it always has anyway.
In your experience....who exactly is it that obtains Buddhahood?
|
|
|
|
Sparkle
Ireland
1457 Posts |
Posted - Jan 13 2009 : 04:23:15 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson
I just wanted to people to be aware of the teachings of dependent origination and Nagarjuna, not to become obsessed with them to the point of conceptuality.
Hi alwayson
I appreciate your efforts to help people to become aware of Dependant Origination and Nagarjuna.
Personally I've been involved with Buddhism for a while but never gave much to studying the texts - just basically practice meditation and mindfulness.
I am seeing the importance of knowing about this stuff however. As one practices and developes innner silence it can be useful, and I think important, to be able to confirm one's experiences as valid - which is a lot of what goes on in this forum.
I've been attending a Thich Nhat Hanh sangha weekly for the past three years and have been fed a weekly dose of Thich Nhat Hanh either on CD of from a book, and I guess from reading your words and doing some further reading myself that Thich Nhat Hanh also has this approach you talk of.
I find the intellectual concepts a bit difficult at times but generally find that I have reached and expreience many of the things that are spoken of - once I get my head around what they are talking about.
So I would appreciate, as Katrine as said, that you give us your own direct experience of Dependant Origination.
I think if you can do this you will find that many people here will know exactly what you are talking about. I think people would also appreciate knowing that the experience they might have does in fact correspond with Dependant Origination, just for the record.
If you talk out of direct experience then people from all walks and paths can speak out of the same place. Then if we want to say afterwards that, in fact, that is dependant origination - so be it.
I would appreciate a discussion like that
and I also appreciate this discussion to date.
Cheers
Louis
|
Edited by - Sparkle on Jan 13 2009 04:26:52 AM |
|
|
|
themysticseeker
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Jan 13 2009 : 09:37:15 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by yogani
quote:
Originally posted by themysticseeker
You can't just get in a car and drive, if you don't know where you are going. The view of ultimate reality is not pure speculation. The Buddha described it.
Hi TMS:
In this case it can be argued that the car (nervous system) knows better where it is going than the mind, and that the mind in all of its cleverness can become an obstacle on the journey. That is, until mind becomes committed through bhakti to effective spiritual practice.
Indeed, for the learned, the path to true knowledge is an unlearning, a surrender into the wisdom of unknowing. Then there can be the transformation of thirst for intellectual knowledge into thirst for direct experience and the means for cultivating it. Not much can happen until this transformation in intention is occurring. Once the intellect has been surrendered to the process, it can be a great help.
There is no such thing as a sure definition of the end state. There is only the experience of it, which can be known and described only after the fact, never before. If an enlightened person (like the Buddha) describes reality or a destination after the fact, it is only valid from his/her point of view. For nearly everyone else it is a mental structure before the fact, and, while inspiring, can also be an obstacle if it becomes an intellectual obsession. What reality is for an enlightened person is speculation for everyone else who has not experienced that condition. This is the gap between teachers and students where so many have gotten stuck. We have to get past it, and that cannot be done with the intellect alone.
Sound practices transcend all this. Self-inquiry methods (including favoring witnessing) are part of it, but are only effective once the abiding witness has emerged, which is a function of meditation, not inquiry. In AYP, we call it "relational self-inquiry," released in abiding stillness, which is samyama.
There can be an overlap between meditation and inquiry. If inquiry is practiced diligently as stand-alone for a long time, it will eventually give way to meditation (transcendence of the object, leading to stillness), but this is a difficult way to go. If it were not, we would have much less talk about emptiness and much more direct experience of the thing itself in expanding radiance, which leads to a very different kind of discussion -- more along the lines of non-stop overflowing ecstatic bliss and laughter, rather than endless ideological posturing. It is pretty easy to tell the difference, yes?
I believe we are all after the same thing. It is only a matter of integrating the methods that will get the job done sooner rather than later. There is still a lot of work to be done in this area. Thanks to the great work of the ancients, open modern communications, and ongoing innovation occurring on many sides, it is gradually getting better. Bravo!
The guru is in you.
PS: So, do you think it is better to argue tooth and nail for emptiness being the absolute end state, or is it better to just practice and let it be empty?
It's not about ideological posturing. It's about sharing a view that helps. Dependent arising and emptiness is something that is felt and sensed in samadhi. It's the Vedanta group that says "It's the Self." All we are saying is "not quite." The response is "it's Buddha-nature." We say, "no." So, you see, the Vedanta group is reifying a concept, and we are urging further non-conceptual insight.
If you look at a path like Mahamudra (the plane to New York), it's pretty much AYP with the added flavor of the Buddha's view. Admittedly, the Buddha's view is difficult to grasp. Which is why not grasping is the way to go. Inquiry and tranquility support one another all the way to enlightenment.
The body, the nervous system and the mind are all part of the plane. The whole cosmos is the plane. What is it going to hurt someone to look into the middle way, dependent arising and emptiness? It won't bite you. Take a look at Nagarjuna's Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way.
Love,
TMS |
|
|
|
yogani
USA
5242 Posts |
Posted - Jan 13 2009 : 10:47:30 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by themysticseeker
The body, the nervous system and the mind are all part of the plane. The whole cosmos is the plane. What is it going to hurt someone to look into the middle way, dependent arising and emptiness? It won't bite you. Take a look at Nagarjuna's Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way.
Hi TMS:
In the AYP approach to self-inquiry, the objective is a fruitful blending with all non-dual paths. Care is taken not to exclude any approach, and Nagarjuna's (or any other Buddhist) non-dual teaching is no exception.
However, in the AYP system, red flags are placed wherever there is a risk of slipping into the pitfalls of the mind, and there are quite a few such places. All of this is laid out in the little AYP Self-Inquiry book.
It boils down to cultivating at least some abiding inner silence (witness) before diving head-long into self-inquiry and non-duality. This applies to other areas of spiritual practice as well, such as samyama and karma yoga.
So, your background in meditation is serving you well, opening the door to radiant emptiness. For those of us who are having a taste of non-duality, let us be wise in sharing with others how we got to this point, so they will have the same opportunity. Fair enough?
The guru is in you.
|
|
|
|
alwayson
Canada
288 Posts |
Posted - Jan 13 2009 : 11:47:50 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Katrine
Well, the funny thing is...that the more direct experience of Now there is......the less need is here for obtaining any body. In fact...."obtaining".....looses its validity all-together..... in the emptiness of this moment. There is a quiet joy and calmness that is precious....there is clarity ......and everything is unfolding of itself as it always has anyway.
In your experience....who exactly is it that obtains Buddhahood?
Noone attains the rainbow body. You just lose the physical body, and the karma associated with it. The rainbow body is our natural state. |
|
|
|
themysticseeker
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Jan 13 2009 : 11:58:01 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by yogani
quote:
Originally posted by themysticseeker
The body, the nervous system and the mind are all part of the plane. The whole cosmos is the plane. What is it going to hurt someone to look into the middle way, dependent arising and emptiness? It won't bite you. Take a look at Nagarjuna's Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way.
Hi TMS:
In the AYP approach to self-inquiry, the objective is a fruitful blending with all non-dual paths. Care is taken not to exclude any approach, and Nagarjuna's (or any other Buddhist) non-dual teaching is no exception.
However, in the AYP system, red flags are placed wherever there is a risk of slipping into the pitfalls of the mind, and there are quite a few such places. All of this is laid out in the little AYP Self-Inquiry book.
It boils down to cultivating at least some abiding inner silence (witness) before diving head-long into self-inquiry and non-duality. This applies to other areas of spiritual practice as well, such as samyama and karma yoga.
So, your background in meditation is serving you well, opening the door to radiant emptiness. For those of us who are having a taste of non-duality, let us be wise in sharing with others how we got to this point, so they will have the same opportunity. Fair enough?
The guru is in you.
Yes. Fair. We are not in disagreement. Any meditation system should begin with tranquility, or silence as you say.
Since this is the topic of "Other Systems of Spiritual Practice" let me give another shout out to www.perfectmeditation.com, an excellent non-doing passive method of settling the mind into tranquility. Very nice after glow. (I've been doing this one in the morning). I recommended it to my mom, who has severe anxiety, and she now listens habitually. She says it works.
My personal fav is mantra "OM" using the deep voice technique. It vibrates the heart chakra forcefully enough and leaves the body with that "glow" for 24-hours or so. (I do this one in the car).
All of these are non-conceptual.
Love,
TMS |
Edited by - themysticseeker on Jan 13 2009 12:12:06 PM |
|
|
|
alwayson
Canada
288 Posts |
Posted - Jan 13 2009 : 12:17:40 PM
|
TMS,
I hope you do not follow into the trap of avoiding thoughts and emotions. You need to bring those into the path, where they become self-liberated like a burglar in an empty house.
In Dzogchen, there is no such thing as meditation. There is yoga of course (including thogal), but there is no Zen-like seated meditation. Your Om meditation is fine, because that is more like a yoga.
In Dzogchen, you are mindful 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. |
Edited by - alwayson on Jan 13 2009 12:45:37 PM |
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Jan 13 2009 : 12:33:03 PM
|
Hi TMS,
quote:
Originally posted by themysticseeker
My personal fav is mantra "OM" using the deep voice technique. It vibrates the heart chakra forcefully enough and leaves the body with that "glow" for 24-hours or so. (I do this one in the car).
On a little side note, a friend of mine (who attends the Calgary Meditation Group) shattered the sunroof in his car while chanting OM and doing Kechari.
Love,
Carson |
|
|
|
emc
2072 Posts |
Posted - Jan 14 2009 : 04:31:24 AM
|
| LOL, Carson! Thanks for the laugh of the day! |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4514 Posts |
Posted - Jan 14 2009 : 04:49:55 AM
|
Hi TMS
quote:
From the Buddha's view you mustn't cling to the view of a formless Self as ultimate truth, otherwise you will be reborn in the formless realm.
Don't worry, I wouldn't dream of it.
quote:
If you investigate the meaning of dependent origination, you will find that it is not possible for a Self to persist in an uncaused state.
In Vedanta, the higher Self is beyond dependent origination. It is untouched by it.
quote:
Okay, Christi, I can see it is a waste of time debating this with you. Buddha-nature and Supreme-Self are not analogous terms. The Buddha used many terms that already existed in Yoga, i.e., karma. The view of emptiness and dependent origination is an original Buddhist view, and has no Vendanta counterpart. No one is saying that the Buddha taught annihilation. You don't understand our point. The middle way is between reification (of a Supreme Self) and nihilism. The view of emptiness is neither. Until you can comment on that, this historical discussion has no point, because we are discussing apples and oranges. Many people set out to prove their points when they have first formed the conclusion. If you believe there is a Supreme Self, then you can find some citations in the Pali Cannon to support that. But that is not honest. ..
There is only the potentiality. Buddha-nature is the potentiality of a Self, it is not the Self. Buddha-nature is described as a seed, and a Buddha is the lotus. Buddha-nature is merely a potentiality. If you want to find a historical analog, you will find a closer one in the Native American description of the "Creator" as a "Great Mystery." In fact, in the sweat lodges prayers are addressed to "Great Mystery."
You are not wrong, just incomplete in your references. Show us how dependent origination, or interdependent co-arising as neither caused nor uncaused within emptiness corresponds to earlier Vedanta.
For the record, both the Buddhist teaching on emptiness and co-dependent origination have their roots in Vedanta. This isn't surprising as Vedanta was the main influence in India at the time the Buddha was alive. The Buddha expanded upon the original Vedanta teachings, and the Buddha's teachings were further developed after his death.
Spiritual teaching is not a competition. It is not about who developed what, and who had the most original idea. It is about surrender, freedom, love, joy, peace. Those are the measures by which we can test the validity of any path. If you are attached to the view that the Buddha did not base his teaching on Vedanta philosophy, then that is an attachment which is going to bind you to suffering.
quote:
It's not about ideological posturing. It's about sharing a view that helps. Dependent arising and emptiness is something that is felt and sensed in samadhi. It's the Vedanta group that says "It's the Self." All we are saying is "not quite." The response is "it's Buddha-nature." We say, "no." So, you see, the Vedanta group is reifying a concept, and we are urging further non-conceptual insight.
Just to be fair to the Vedantins, it is the Buddhists who use the term Buddha-nature. It is a Mahayana development of the Buddha's teaching on the nature of the pure mind which is found in the Nikaya section of the Pali Cannon. Far from being a teaching for beginners, it is one of the advanced teachings from the Cannon. In the Nikaya it says that it is the pure mind alone that is able to realize nirvana.
It is true that the Buddha encouraged non-conceptualized investigation through negating ideas of the mind. Remember that "we" and "they" are also ideas of the mind, as are "Buddhists" and "Vedantins". When spiritual methods become divisive, that is a spiritual trap.
Another spiritual trap associated with the Buddha's teaching on anatta, is that practitioners develop the idea that if there is no self, and no goal, then there is no one to do any spiritual practices and nothing to practice for. Based on this conclusion they abandon the spiritual life. I have met many people who have fallen into this trap, and it can spin people out for years (if not lifetimes). It is a very dangerous trap, as it is almost impossible to argue against. Almost all the Buddhist teachings appear on the surface to support it, and without knowledge of Vedanta, and a real understanding of what the Buddha was teaching, it is hard to get out of.
Christi
|
Edited by - Christi on Jan 14 2009 11:31:23 PM |
|
|
|
alwayson
Canada
288 Posts |
Posted - Jan 14 2009 : 11:33:44 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
In Vedanta, the higher Self is beyond dependent origination. It is untouched by it.
Right but not in buddism
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
For the record, both the Buddhist teaching on emptiness and co-dependent origination have their roots in Vedanta. This isn't surprising as Vedanta was the main influence in India at the time the Buddha was alive. The Buddha expanded upon the original Vedanta teachings, and the Buddha's teachings were further developed after his death.
For the record, Advaita Vedanta did not even exist yet, at the time of Buddha, let alone Hinduism as we know today. Many of the most famous Hindu temples in India are really converted Buddist sites, like Sri Sailam, Tirapati etc.
Some of Adi Shankara's gurus and Adi Shankara himself read the works of Nagarjuna (the "second" Buddha) and combined them with certain strands of Upanishdic philiosophy to create Advaita Vedanta. I read all of Adi Shankara's important commentaries in an academic English translation, along with those of his gurus. He and his gurus were really obsessed by Nagarjuna. (By the way Adi Shankara lived more than 1,200 years after the Buddha.)
Even other forms of Vedanta did not exist at the time of the Buddha. Hinduism at the time was ritual magick (still is in modern temples).
Not to say there were not ascetic traditions around (like Shramana) from which the Buddha learned from, but they were not Vedanta. |
Edited by - alwayson on Jan 14 2009 12:06:09 PM |
|
|
|
themysticseeker
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Jan 14 2009 : 12:49:35 PM
|
Hi Christi, You are the one defending your point, now. A little bit of the pot calling the kettle black? Apparently, Shankara's "independent Brahman" is based on dependent origination. Then, we agree. To say that the Buddha borrowed or adapted an already existing theory is wrong. There's not basis for that. It's not about ego. It's just not true. You haven't cited a shred of support for your claim. Adi Shankara also spoke about "the undifferentiated ground of reality." This is a positivist attempt to express something that is not there. Perhaps people do fall into nihilism. But not because of what the Buddha said, the Buddha specifically told people to guard against nihilism by being aware of karma and samsara. The middle way is between nihilism and reification of a God. People also fall into the trap of thinking there is a God, and seek the samsara of God karma.
Enlightenment is a state where all humanity awakens to our role as creators of a vital nurturing environment on this planet, independent of any notion of God, nihilism, or concepts.
Love,
TMS |
|
|
|
alwayson
Canada
288 Posts |
Posted - Jan 14 2009 : 1:11:22 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by themysticseeker
Apparently, Shankara's "independent Brahman" is based on dependent origination.
I do not think you can reconcile Brahman with dependent origination.
The problem is that Brahman suggests an ultimate reality apart from everything, while in Buddism there is no such thing. Because Brahman would be an extreme. You cannot even say Brahman is free from extremes, because it is an extreme, just by claiming to be a reality free from extremes.
P.S. I think the middle way was between existence and non-existence, not between nihilism and Brahman, because at the time of the Buddha, Advaita did not exist yet. |
Edited by - alwayson on Jan 14 2009 1:15:50 PM |
|
|
|
themysticseeker
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Jan 14 2009 : 1:25:04 PM
|
| Hi Alwayson, You give it good. |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Jan 14 2009 : 3:04:31 PM
|
Dependentent origination may well be a valuable concept. It doesn't make the concept of Brahman wrong though -- it may enrich it if used properly. It's a question of whether you have the competence to merge them! I'm quite serious about that! If your grasp of both is deep, you will be able to merge them.
Concepts are models. They are not reality. They are approximations.
ALL SPIRITUAL CONCEPTS ARE WRONG. ALL OF THEM.
They are wrong in the sense of not perfectly conforming to reality. The real question is whether they are good enough for today or not.
Some of you folks remind me of junior software developers. They are full of strong opinions about computer languages, 'have religion' about them, and live in a world of 'right' and 'wrong' about them. The experienced, senior software developers live in a world of advantages and disadvantages, not in a world of right and wrong. The approach is much more nuanced, complex, and credit-giving.
|
|
|
|
alwayson
Canada
288 Posts |
Posted - Jan 14 2009 : 4:15:11 PM
|
Ok, from a PRACTICAL point of view.
If you believe there is some kind of pure Self, it prevents you from bringing emotions and thoughts into the path, into such a way that thoughts and emotions become self-liberated into the dharmakaya.
Bringing thoughts and emotions into the path, after some experience with the NOW/stillness, is some of the most potent fuel toward rainbow body.
Remember the burglar in the empty house? |
Edited by - alwayson on Jan 14 2009 5:00:56 PM |
|
|
|
themysticseeker
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Jan 14 2009 : 6:04:10 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
Dependentent origination may well be a valuable concept. It doesn't make the concept of Brahman wrong though -- it may enrich it if used properly. It's a question of whether you have the competence to merge them! I'm quite serious about that! If your grasp of both is deep, you will be able to merge them.
Concepts are models. They are not reality. They are approximations.
ALL SPIRITUAL CONCEPTS ARE WRONG. ALL OF THEM.
They are wrong in the sense of not perfectly conforming to reality. The real question is whether they are good enough for today or not.
Some of you folks remind me of junior software developers. They are full of strong opinions about computer languages, 'have religion' about them, and live in a world of 'right' and 'wrong' about them. The experienced, senior software developers live in a world of advantages and disadvantages, not in a world of right and wrong. The approach is much more nuanced, complex, and credit-giving.
DO and Emptiness also allows the advanced practitioner to bring anger and lust into the path. The view allows one to see self-liberation of all states from the dharmakaya.
That's nuanced.
Saying that ALL SPIRITUAL CONCEPTS ARE WRONG, is absolutism and nihilistic.
Trying to reconcile Brahman with emptiness is what the brahmins did. It is why the caste system still exists in India and buddhism does not.
At some point, trying to say all traditions are saying the same thing is just euphemistic over-simplification.
Brahman stands for everything; it stands for God, the unborn, uncreated, deathless, the omniscient, omnipotent, it's impersonal; it's personal it's a doer and a non-doer; being and non-being. It's sense and non-sense. It's a one-size-fits-all concept. It doesn't point to anything by pointing to everything. It's a tad useless. IMHO.
But to the extent that a view like Shri Aurobindo's description of Brahman is very similar to emptiness, non-local, space-like, etc., we are in agreement.
TMS |
Edited by - themysticseeker on Jan 14 2009 6:49:50 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
The One & Only Way
