quote:

---

Originally posted by Christi

What the Buddha taught was the ending of the known. This is Buddha dharma. The word Vedanta literally means "The ending of the known". This should not come as too much of a surprise, after all, all valid spiritual paths lead to the same truth, the ultimate truth of existence.

---

quote:

---

The Buddha claimed no lineage, and taught Vedanta, the ending of knowledge.

---

quote:

---

The constant need to differentiate the methods, spiritual practices, and philosophy taught by the Buddha from all other spiritual traditions seems to be a recurring theme for you.

---

quote:

---

In truth, the differences are only apparent and with the awakening of truth, become transparent. The differences of approach of both philosophy and practical technique have more meaning in the early stages of the path.

---

quote:

---

As we progress, they become increasingly redundant as everything begins to converge in oneness.

---

quote:

---

"They don't conjure, don't yearn, don't proclaim "utter purity." Untying the tied-up knot of grasping, they don't form a desire for any thing at all in the world. The brahman gone beyond territories, has nothing that — on knowing or seeing — he's grasped. Dispassionate for passion, not impassioned for dispassion, he has nothing here that he's grasped as supreme. "

Suddhatthaka Sutta

---

quote:

---

No, he taught right knowledge, which is there's no ultimate truth of existence. Ultimate truth is a Vedant view.

---

quote:

---

All Vedant people want the Buddha's message to be the Vedant message. But it's not. If he taught Vedant, then he'd be in the Vedant lineage. The Buddha said Vedant is groundless. Vedant people are just selling their view by trying to bring Gotam into their lineage.

---

quote:

---

There are no stages. Stages is a Vedant view.

---

quote:

---

There's no awakening of truth either, unless by that you mean "truth" is completely relative to the viewer.

---

quote:

---

Oneness and all paths leading to Vedanta is another Vedanta view. The extension of this view is that all gods merge into one God, and emanate from the supreme source Brahman along with the rest of the universe. Vedant people even claimed the Buddha was an incarnation of Vishnu. Modern Vedant also hooked Shiva-Shakti and now Jesus and Mary Magdalene. (Shiva-Shatki is about sensation, Vedant nonperception). This is a mental invention and another Vedant selling technique. Vedant people want everything to be one, their one. In the Advaita Vedant view, all views lead to the Vedant view of "ultimate truth."

---

quote:

---

The Vedant view of the "end of knowledge" is about a particular fruit of meditative nonperception, grasping deep, a "deep meditation." Those who have attained this deep meditation claim knowledge of "ultimate truth." Those who don't buy it, just haven't attained it.

---

quote:

---

Christi, you have stated often that my points reflect early stages on the path. Whatever level you think you've attained and whatever stage you believe yourself to be on and whatever visions you've had are just a temporary fix, an impermanent high. Whether it's this life or millions of lives from now, you'll get over it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christi

Hi Adamant,

quote:

---

No, he taught right knowledge, which is there's no ultimate truth of existence. Ultimate truth is a Vedant view.

---

Did the Buddha ever say: "There is no ultimate truth of existence"? Or is this conjecture?

---

quote:

---

Right knowledge is one of the limbs of the eightfold path. It is means rather than end. The ending of the known, is end rather than means. It is the fruit of the Buddha's teachings and everything he was pointing to.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

All Vedant people want the Buddha's message to be the Vedant message. But it's not. If he taught Vedant, then he'd be in the Vedant lineage. The Buddha said Vedant is groundless. Vedant people are just selling their view by trying to bring Gotam into their lineage.

---

Again, did the Buddha really say: "Vedanta was groundless"? Or is this more conjecture?

---

quote:

---

The Buddha streamlined the Vedanta teachings, and brought them into the 5th centuary BCE. He dropped a lot of the conceptual structures, but retained the essence. He retained the twin paths of meditation and self-inquiry as tools for awakening. That is why he taught Vedanta, not because of the words he used, but because of the truth (Dhamma) he was constantly pointing to, and the methods he taught to realize that truth. What he did was useful for some, and less useful for others. It was what it was.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

There are no stages. Stages is a Vedant view.

---

Stream entry, once returner, non-returner, Arahant, Buddha?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

There's no awakening of truth either, unless by that you mean "truth" is completely relative to the viewer.

---

Awkening to the truth is the realization of Dhamma. The word means truth, litterally.

It is not the truth of one, or the other. It is not a relative truth, but an absolute truth.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Oneness and all paths leading to Vedanta is another Vedanta view. The extension of this view is that all gods merge into one God, and emanate from the supreme source Brahman along with the rest of the universe. Vedant people even claimed the Buddha was an incarnation of Vishnu. Modern Vedant also hooked Shiva-Shakti and now Jesus and Mary Magdalene. (Shiva-Shatki is about sensation, Vedant nonperception). This is a mental invention and another Vedant selling technique. Vedant people want everything to be one, their one. In the Advaita Vedant view, all views lead to the Vedant view of "ultimate truth."

---

When everything is seen as Unity, it is not the Unity of one spiritual tradition, or another. It is the Unity beyond all traditions. All the spiritual traditions of the world end where Unity begins. We wake up out of them, and then leave them behind, like a boat when you reach the farther shore.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

The Vedant view of the "end of knowledge" is about a particular fruit of meditative nonperception, grasping deep, a "deep meditation." Those who have attained this deep meditation claim knowledge of "ultimate truth." Those who don't buy it, just haven't attained it.

---

The ending of knowledge doesn't have anything to do with states of meditation. It is not a mental absorption, either deep or shallow. It is the ending of identification with the movement of mind. Everything is seen as anicca, anatta; impermanent, not self. Seeing this brings the end of attachment (tanha) to that which is not real. It is the ending of attachment to the known. This is the end of knowledge, and the waking from the dream.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Christi, you have stated often that my points reflect early stages on the path. Whatever level you think you've attained and whatever stage you believe yourself to be on and whatever visions you've had are just a temporary fix, an impermanent high. Whether it's this life or millions of lives from now, you'll get over it.

---

Spiritual attainment is an illusion, just like everything else we can (and do) imagine. It is all part of the dream.

All the best.

Christi

---

quote:

---

I quote the Buddha's statement above, "there's nothing grasped as supreme." It means there's no holding of ultimate truth.

---

quote:

---

Right knowledge is not one of the limbs of the eightfold path: Right view, intention, speech, action, livelihood, effort, mindfulness and concentration.

---

quote:

---

Again, did the Buddha really say: "Vedanta was groundless"? Or is this more conjecture?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I quoted this previously as well, the Cunda Sutta. Like Socrates, he doesn't assert his own view and regards all views as ultimately compounded and therefore groundless.

---

quote:

---

He rejected the Vedant teachings.

---

quote:

---

Apart from presently observable conditionality, there's no truth he's pointing to.

---

quote:

---

Once one looks into those teachings, one will recognize there's no difference between them; they all have the exact same realization. In the earliest teachings, there's no mention of them at all. In fact, the Buddha clearly states in Kalahavivada that the moment of no more clinging is not important; there's no purity of the spirit to be accomplished. One simply recognizes dependencies at the moment. Teachings about stages are of questionable legitimacy. But if they are legitimate, represent the Buddha's skill in means in his teachings to those who are depending of stages and views.

---

quote:

---

Literally, dhamma means phenomena; it doesn't mean truth.

---

quote:

---

Phenomena have no unity, only flux of temporary interdependent conditions.

---

quote:

---

Because in the farther shore where there are no conjectures or opinions, no one can find you, not even the so-called "lord" of anything.

---

quote:

---

Right knowledge is an alternative translation sometimes given for "right view" in the noble eightfold path.

---

quote:

---

Vedanta isn't a view. It is the ending of knowledge, the transcendece of all views.

---

quote:

---

As I said above, he rejected some of the language of Vedanta, whilst keeping other parts of it. He also retained important aspects of the spiritual practice of Vedanta.

---

quote:

---

Again, as I said above, Dhamma means truth. It was everything he taught. The path, the teaching, the goal, all of it was Dhamma. In the end, he talked about nothing else.

---

quote:

---

"Phenomena" is one way in which the word is used, in certain contexts. But in the context of "Buddha dhamma" for example, it doesn't mean the phenomenon of the Buddha, it means "the truth expounded by the Buddha". It also means "religious duty" in the sense of "one's dhamma", or "spiritual path" in the sense of "following the dhamma".

---

quote:

---

Go beyond all phonomena, and realize your true nature.

---

quote:

---

You'll find yourself. Trust in that.

---

quote:

---

The key to all of this is the cultivation of abiding inner silence which arises through meditation. Without the presence of inner silence, and the development of the witness, all this talk is just mind-games going no-where. It is just speculation and idle banter. With the development of the witness, we can relate to it in a meaningful way. This is the receptivity that I talked about in a previous post.

You may find this lesson useful:

http://www.aypsite.org/380.html

Christi

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christi

Hi Adamant,

I can see why you changed your name to Adamant!

As long as you are holding on to all that, I don't think we are going to get very far are we?

I wish you all the best on your chosen path.

Christi

---

quote:

---

22

The stirring of biotic forces in the house of nothingness
Has given artificial rise to pleasures in so many ways.
Such yogis from affliction faint for they have fallen
From celestial space, inveigled into vice.

23

As a Brahman, who with rice and butter
Makes a burnt offering in blazing fire
Creating a vessel for nectar from celestial space,
Takes this through wishful thinking as the ultimate.

24

Some people who have kindled the inner heat and raised it to the fontanelle
Stroke the uvula with the tongue in a sort of coition and confuse
That which fetters with what gives release,
In pride will call themselves yogis.

25

As higher awareness they teach what they experience
Within. What fetters them they will call liberation.
A glass trinket colored green to them is a priceless emerald;
Deluded, they know not a gem from what they think it should be.

26

They take copper to be gold. Bound by discursive thought
They think these thoughts to be ultimate reality.
They long for the pleasures experienced in dreams. They call
The perishable body-mind eternal bliss supreme.

-Royal song of Saraha
http://www.american-buddha.com/royal.song.htm

---

quote:

---

Hi Christi, Why were you trying to take me somewhere? Turn it around, "There's no getting anywhere." Who would you be?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christi

This is one of the aspects of right view. When there is clear perception it is seen that there is no Buddha Darma, and no Vedanta. The Upanishads were never composed or written. The Buddha never lived.

---

quote:

---

It is clearly seen that this too was all part of the dream, as clearly as the sun is seen with open eyes.

---

quote:

---

In this state there is no going anywhere. No movement, and yet, stillness moves.

---

quote:

---

But it is good not to get the cart in front of the horse. When issues are still clearly present, and there is confusion around the seemingly conflicting ideas of Buddha Dharma and Vedanta, then it is inner silence which helps bring clarity. This is cultivated through meditation practice.

---

quote:

---

With the rising of inner silence, the clouds of delusion begin to part and these issues loose their grasp on the mind.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Christi

This is one of the aspects of right view. When there is clear perception it is seen that there is no Buddha Darma, and no Vedanta. The Upanishads were never composed or written. The Buddha never lived.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is another Vedant view: nothing known or knowable. The dhamma is awake to the way it is.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this state there is no going anywhere. No movement, and yet, stillness moves.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And apparently, not making sense makes sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by adamantclearlight

quote:

---

In this state there is no going anywhere. No movement, and yet, stillness moves.

---

And apparently, not making sense makes sense.

Adamant

---

quote:

---

That is the way it is. That is the Dhamma.

---

quote:

---

A divine paradox. It cannot be understood with the mind but is revealed in silence.

Christi

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alwayson2

why not just focus on the clarity and vividness of the present moment rather than the monkey mind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by brother neil

quote:

---

Originally posted by adamantclearlight

quote:

---

In this state there is no going anywhere. No movement, and yet, stillness moves.

---

And apparently, not making sense makes sense.

Adamant

---

sometimes it does, I see it this way, you could be hurrying through your day physically, but mentally the mind is not. Or you could be going physically slow through your day, or doing "nothing" at all, and the mind is a million miles an hour.

The blood flows, the lungs breath, the hair grows, yet I am not thinking about it. Often times I watch myself walk, watching the feet, arms, body, while observing there is no thinking. just a few examples of stillness in action, as I see it.
best to all,
brother Neil

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Parallax


What happened to "neither accepting nor rejecting"?

---

quote:

---

What if you could be Buddhadarm and Vendant at the same time? Turn it around. Who would you be?

---

quote:

---

What if Stillness and Silence are important and observing is not? Turn it around. Who would you be?

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A divine paradox. It cannot be understood with the mind but is revealed in silence.

Christi

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



I guess a paradox is why your silence is speaking, while not saying anything meaningful.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What if you could be Buddhadarm and Vendant at the same time? Turn it around. Who would you be?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



One with no opinion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christi
The meaning arises in silence with the knowing of the Dhamma. Knowing the unknown.

---

quote:

---

The Buddha never spoke like this. Knowing the unknown is the work of the maharishi in pursuit of Vedant. The Buddha spoke in terms of suffering not in terms of ontology or epistemology. His concern was part empirical and part psychological.

"Knowing the unknown" stands in contrast to "knowing the end of suffering." Knowing the unknown poses one theory and seeks to realize it from certain acts. Knowing the end of suffering poses a different theory and seeks to realize it from different acts.

---

quote:

---

Of course, what really matters to people is happiness not history. So we have a theory about happiness: the cause of happiness is impartiality, because all phenomena are transient. Then, we have a method to go about an attempt to falsify whether impartiality causes happiness: Try being partial and articulate if the happiness is nontransient; or try to find one nontransient phenomenon and articulate if that causes happiness. If cannot discover one instance where being inclined toward a transient experience causes happiness and also cannot find one permanent phenomenon that causes nontransient happiness, then the theory is not disproven.

So I pose the same challenge: Point me to one instance where attachment causes nontransient happiness; or point out one nontransient phenomenon where happiness cannot terminate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christi

As we go deeply into the unknown, in silence, we come upon that which is unborn, unconditioned, undying, uncreated. The unknown is the gateway to the ending of suffering. This is the true Dhamma.

---

quote:

---

Let go of all theories and challenges and find peace in your own heart.

Wishing you all the best,

Christi

---