[dwai]

As a personal followup to the Nonduality thread and exchanges thereof with some proponents of "Buddhism is best", I took the question back to a group of wise ones in my other home, http://www.medhajournal.com

http://medhajournal....c...&Itemid=281

The question was answered. At the end (and the reader here might concur with me in in my finding) the answer I came upon was that there is no difference. The differences are those of egos that want to see one greater than the other.

In other words, Nirguna Brahman is the same as the Buddhist Ultimate reality.

This post has been edited by dwai: 18 May 2009 - 01:20 PM

[Lucky7Strikes]

dwai, on May 18 2009, 05:20 PM, said:

As a personal followup to the Nonduality thread and exchanges thereof with some proponents of "Buddhism is best", I took the question back to a group of wise ones in my other home, http://www.medhajournal.com

http://medhajournal....c...&Itemid=281

The question was answered. At the end (and the reader here might concur with me in in my finding) the answer I came upon was that there is no difference. The differences are those of egos that want to see one greater than the other.

In other words, Nirguna Brahman is the same as the Buddhist Ultimate reality.

Both Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta have taken different forms and doctrines throughout history. So I don't think you can even say that Buddhism is better than this or that. Yet imho, there is much more focus on devotion in the ancient Advaita scriptures than the Buddha's original teachings. I'm not exactly sure which sutra it is but in it the Buddha mentions how his teachings should not be taken as absolute, but that the seeker should discriminate all teachings before accepting it to be true.

This post has been edited by Lucky7Strikes: 18 May 2009 - 01:52 PM

[goldisheavy]

Which medicine is better? Prozac or Preparation H? Depends...

There is no such thing as "the best medicine" any more than there is "the best disease". If we can have such a thing as "the best disease", then we can also have "the best medicine". However, for each disease there is effective and ineffective medicine, but it's hard to say that there is something called "best", even for a certain specific disease.

But people fight to maintain separate identity. If, after all, you say that Buddhism is the same as other teachings, it loses its own identity. That's the fear of death. That's the folly of self-delineation that Buddha talked about. Ironic, no?

This post has been edited by goldisheavy: 18 May 2009 - 01:49 PM

[xabir2005]

Not trying to imply one system is better than the other, but I've looked through the link and none of them has a good grasp of the Buddhist teachings of dependent origination and Emptiness. It's really a different teaching and to grasp the difference one must see that there is a paradigm difference in those systems. It's no good to mesh them up together as if it is the same thing.

First of all Buddhism does not posit an Ultimate Reality at all. Ultimate Reality is an ontological essence that is 'absolutely existing', which is not what Buddhism's emptiness is talking about. Rather, Emptiness is pointing out to the truth that no essence of self or phenomena can be found. This unfindability is emptiness. In Buddhism Emptiness is not talking about an essence that formless, attributeless entity which is nevertheless luminous and inherent (something like Brahman), Emptiness is just talking about this non-inherency, unfindability. Thus as you can see, it is totally different from the Brahman concept. Buddhism does not deny reality but pointed out that reality is not the way we think it is according to our dualistic and inherent sort of thinking. Just insight of this 'what is' and sees the Dependently Originated nature is Buddhism.

This article is good: Madhyamika Buddhism Vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta

Since the concept of Brahma, the truly existent (Skt. paramartha sat) is the very foundation of Hinduism (as a matter of fact some form of an eternal ultimate reality whether it is called God or Nature is the basis of all other religious systems); when Buddhism denies such an ultimate reality (Skt. paramartha satta) in any form, it cuts at the very jugular veins of Hinduism. Therefore it cannot be ontologically, epistemologically, and soteriologically said that Buddhism reforms Hinduism.

.............

To sum it up, the Vedantic Ultimate Truth is the existence of an ultimate existence or ultimate reality. Reality here is used as something which exists (Skt. satta).

However, the Buddhist Ultimate Truth is the absence of any such satta i.e. ultimately existing thing or ultimate reality. That is the significance of Shunyata - absence of any real, independent, unchanging existence (Skt. svabhava). And that fact is the Ultimate Truth of Buddhism, which is diametrically opposite to the Ultimate Truth of the Hindu Brahma. So Shunyata can never be a negative way of describing the Atman - Brahma of Hinduism as Vinoba Bhave and such scholars would have us believe. The meaning of Shunyata found in Sutra, Tantra, Dzogchen or Mahamudra is the same as the Prasangika emptiness of Chandrakirti i.e. unfindability of any true existence or simply unfindability. Some writers of DzogChen and Mahamudra or Tantra think that the emptiness of Nagarjuna is different from the emptiness found in these systems. But I would like to ask them whether their emptiness is findable or unfindable; whether or not the significance of emptiness in these systems is also not the fact of unfindability.

.............


When I am using ‘Ultimate Reality’ as a synonym for the Brahma, I am using reality to mean something that exists as per the Webster’s Dictionary. I am aware that reality also connotes ‘fact’ i.e. truth and with such a meaning could be used in Buddhism to mean Ultimate Fact/Truth. But as one of its connotations is ‘existing’, it is hazardous to use the words ‘Ultimate Reality’ in any Buddhist context and it is always safer to use the words ‘Ultimate Truth’ instead.


.............

If some of them object that their ‘Ultimate Reality’ is empty while the Hindu ‘Ultimate Reality’ is not; the Hindus can ask, “then how is it an Ultimate Reality in the sense of Ultimate Existing”? To avoid this confusion, it is safer and semantically closer to the Buddhist paradigm to use only ‘Ultimate Truth’.

This post has been edited by xabir2005: 18 May 2009 - 04:35 PM

[xabir2005]

Next there are people (expected, common mistake) who are mistaking 'Anatta' as 'no ego' which I have addressed in the comments page of Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Experience on Spiritual Enlightenment -

First I do not see Anatta as merely a freeing from personality sort of experience as you mentioned; I see it as that a self/agent, a doer, a thinker, a watcher, etc, cannot be found apart from the moment to moment flow of manifestation or as its commonly expressed as ‘the observer is the observed’; there is no self apart from arising and passing. A very important point here is that Anatta/No-Self is a Dharma Seal, it is the nature of Reality all the time -- and not merely as a state free from personality, ego or the ‘small self’ or a stage to attain. (related article: http://awakeningtore...interview.html) This means that it does not depend on the level of achievement of a practitioner to experience anatta but Reality has always been Anatta and what is important here is the intuitive insight into it as the nature, characteristic, of phenomenon (dharma seal).

To put further emphasis on the importance of this point, I would like to borrow from the Bahiya Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.irel.html) that ‘in the seeing, there is just the seen, no seer’, ‘in the hearing, there is just the heard, no hearer’ as an illustration. When a person says that I have gone beyond the experiences from ‘I hear sound’ to a stage of ‘becoming sound’, he is mistaken. When it is taken to be a stage, it is illusory. For in actual case, there is and always is only sound when hearing; never was there a hearer to begin with. Nothing attained for it is always so. This is the seal of no-self. Therefore to a non dualist, the practice is in understanding the illusionary views of the sense of self and the split. Before the awakening of prajna wisdom, there will always be an unknowing attempt to maintain a purest state of 'presence'. This purest presence is the 'how' of a dualistic mind -- its dualistic attempt to provide a solution due to its lack of clarity of the spontaneous nature of the unconditioned. It is critical to note here that both the doubts/confusions/searches and the solutions that are created for these doubts/confusions/searches actually derive from the same cause -- our karmic propensities of ever seeing things dualistically (also see my other friend Longchen’s article http://www.dreamdatu...pontaneous.html where I posted two of his articles including ‘How is nonduality like?’ in this forum)


There is also an interesting interview with a Catholic contemplative, Bernadette Roberts:

Quote

Bernadette: That occurred unexpectedly some 25 years after the transforming process. The divine center - the coin, or "true self" - suddenly disappeared, and without center or circumference there is no self, and no divine."

Quote

Initially, when I looked into Buddhism, I did not find the experience of no-self there either; yet I intuited that it had to be there. The falling away of the ego is common to both Hinduism and Buddhism. Therefore, it would not account for the fact that Buddhism became a separate religion, nor would it account for the Buddhist's insistence on no eternal Self - be it divine, individual or the two in one. I felt that the key difference between these two religions was the no-self experience, the falling away of the true Self, Atman-Brahman.

Unfortunately, what most Buddhist authors define as the no-self experience is actually the no-ego experience. The cessation of clinging, craving, desire, the passions, etc., and the ensuing state of imperturbable peace and joy articulates the egoless state of oneness; it does not, however, articulate the no-self experience or the dimension beyond. Unless we clearly distinguish between these two very different experiences, we only confuse them, with the inevitable result that the true no-self experience becomes lost. If we think the falling away of the ego, with its ensuing transformation and oneness, is the no-self experience, then what shall we call the much further experience when this egoless oneness falls away? In actual experience there is only one thing to call it, the "no-self experience"; it lends itself to no other possible articulation.

Initially, I gave up looking for this experience in the Buddhist literature. Four years later, however, I came across two lines attributed to Buddha describing his enlightenment experience. Referring to self as a house, he said, "All thy rafters are broken now, the ridgepole is destroyed." And there it was - the disappearance of the center, the ridgepole; without it, there can be no house, no self. When I read these lines, it was as if an arrow launched at the beginning of time had suddenly hit a bulls-eye. It was a remarkable find. These lines are not a piece of philosophy, but an experiential account, and without the experiential account we really have nothing to go on. In the same verse he says, "Again a house thou shall not build," clearly distinguishing this experience from the falling away of the ego-center, after which a new, transformed self is built around a "true center," a sturdy, balanced ridgepole.

This post has been edited by xabir2005: 18 May 2009 - 03:27 PM

[nac]

The major metaphysical difference is this: Advaita posits an all-embracing, immortal, pantheistic sentience called Brahman which is the "true self" behind all experience. This is what stays in the background, sensing all of creation. Since people, races and civilizations rise and fall before this "one mind", it's a non-dual philosophy. In Buddhism, the ultimate reality is "emptiness" or perfect neutrality. From this impenetrable void, both "seer" and the "seen" entities arise as semi-dependent phenomena, interacting with each other and causing sensation. Nothing remains permanent. Hence, Buddhists reject all labels including dualistic and non-dualistic. Pantheism is also rejected to an extent.

http://en.wikipedia....theism#Hinduism

This post has been edited by nac: 18 May 2009 - 04:21 PM

[dwai]

nac, on May 18 2009, 07:00 PM, said:

The major metaphysical difference is this: Advaita posits an all-embracing, immortal, pantheistic sentience called Brahman which is the "true self" behind all experience. This is what stays in the background, sensing all of creation. Since people, races and civilizations rise and fall before this "one mind", it's a non-dual philosophy. In Buddhism, the ultimate reality is "emptiness" or perfect neutrality. From this impenetrable void, both "seer" and the "seen" entities arise as semi-dependent phenomena, interacting with each other and causing sensation. Nothing remains permanent. Hence, Buddhists reject all labels including dualistic and non-dualistic. Pantheism is also rejected to an extent.

http://en.wikipedia....theism#Hinduism

Explain Nirguna Brahman

[dwai]

xabir2005, on May 18 2009, 06:05 PM, said:

Not trying to imply one system is better than the other, but I've looked through the link and none of them has a good grasp of the Buddhist teachings of dependent origination and Emptiness. It's really a different teaching and to grasp the difference one must see that there is a paradigm difference in those systems. It's no good to mesh them up together as if it is the same thing.

All Indic Darshanas incorporate The Principle of Dependent Origination and the Principle of Superimposition within themselves. Especially Advaita Vedanta. It is shortsighted to not see that...this is something most students of Darshana are already cognizant of.

Quote

First of all Buddhism does not posit an Ultimate Reality at all. Ultimate Reality is an ontological essence that is 'absolutely existing', which is not what Buddhism's emptiness is talking about. Rather, Emptiness is pointing out to the truth that no essence of self or phenomena can be found. This unfindability is emptiness. In Buddhism Emptiness is not talking about an essence that formless yet luminous and inherent (something like Brahman), Emptiness is just talking about this non-inherency, unfindability. Thus as you can see, it is totally different from the Brahman concept. Buddhism does not deny reality but pointed out that reality is not the way we think it is according to our dualistic and inherent sort of thinking. Just insight of this 'what is' and sees the Dependently Originated nature is Buddhism.

That is not a description of some "ultimate" reality? Are you aware of Nirguna Brahman?

Quote

This article is good: Madhyamika Buddhism Vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta

Since the concept of Brahma, the truly existent (Skt. paramartha sat) is the very foundation of Hinduism (as a matter of fact some form of an eternal ultimate reality whether it is called God or Nature is the basis of all other religious systems); when Buddhism denies such an ultimate reality (Skt. paramartha satta) in any form, it cuts at the very jugular veins of Hinduism. Therefore it cannot be ontologically, epistemologically, and soteriologically said that Buddhism reforms Hinduism.

.............

To sum it up, the Vedantic Ultimate Truth is the existence of an ultimate existence or ultimate reality. Reality here is used as something which exists (Skt. satta).

However, the Buddhist Ultimate Truth is the absence of any such satta i.e. ultimately existing thing or ultimate reality. That is the significance of Shunyata - absence of any real, independent, unchanging existence (Skt. svabhava). And that fact is the Ultimate Truth of Buddhism, which is diametrically opposite to the Ultimate Truth of the Hindu Brahma. So Shunyata can never be a negative way of describing the Atman - Brahma of Hinduism as Vinoba Bhave and such scholars would have us believe. The meaning of Shunyata found in Sutra, Tantra, Dzogchen or Mahamudra is the same as the Prasangika emptiness of Chandrakirti i.e. unfindability of any true existence or simply unfindability. Some writers of DzogChen and Mahamudra or Tantra think that the emptiness of Nagarjuna is different from the emptiness found in these systems. But I would like to ask them whether their emptiness is findable or unfindable; whether or not the significance of emptiness in these systems is also not the fact of unfindability.

.............
When I am using ‘Ultimate Reality’ as a synonym for the Brahma, I am using reality to mean something that exists as per the Webster’s Dictionary. I am aware that reality also connotes ‘fact’ i.e. truth and with such a meaning could be used in Buddhism to mean Ultimate Fact/Truth. But as one of its connotations is ‘existing’, it is hazardous to use the words ‘Ultimate Reality’ in any Buddhist context and it is always safer to use the words ‘Ultimate Truth’ instead.


.............

If some of them object that their ‘Ultimate Reality’ is empty while the Hindu ‘Ultimate Reality’ is not; the Hindus can ask, “then how is it an Ultimate Reality in the sense of Ultimate Existing”? To avoid this confusion, it is safer and semantically closer to the Buddhist paradigm to use only ‘Ultimate Truth’.

Semantics...this is simply escapism...

First we need to understand and come to an agreement vis-a-vis what phenomena are, and then we can go into the discussion of that which is not phenomenological, has own-existence and own-nature. As a result of Dependent Origination and Superimposition, no phenomenon can have own-existence and own-nature.

[xabir2005]

dwai, on May 18 2009, 04:41 PM, said:

All Indic Darshanas incorporate The Principle of Dependent Origination and the Principle of Superimposition within themselves. Especially Advaita Vedanta. It is shortsighted to not see that...this is something most students of Darshana are already cognizant of.

Dependent Origination is not even a word in the advaita 'dictionary'. It is simply not taught in advaita. Would be good if you can provide a teaching from advaita that is similar to D.O.

Furthermore, D.O. and emptiness is just not 'compatible' with Brahman. Because that would imply that Brahman itself is unreal, without substance, etc.

Quote

That is not a description of some "ultimate" reality? Are you aware of Nirguna Brahman?

No, as explained, emptiness is not an ultimate reality, it is talking about the unfindability of any essence or reality to self and phenomena.

Just updated my post a few moments before you posted.

In Buddhism Emptiness is not talking about an essence that formless, attributeless entity which is nevertheless luminous and inherent (something like Brahman), Emptiness is just talking about this non-inherency, unfindability.

There is also something relevant in http://awakeningtore...-of-amness.html :

Because the karmic propensity of perceiving subject/object duality is so strong, pristine awareness is quickly attributed to 'I', Atman, the ultimate Subject, Witness, background, eternal, formless, odorless, colorless, thoughtless and void of any attributes, and we unknowingly objectified these attributes into an ‘entity’ and make it an eternal background or an emptiness void. When this is done, it prevents us from experiencing the color, texture, fabric and manifesting nature of awareness. Suddenly thoughts are being grouped into another category and disowned. In actual case, thoughts think and sound hears. The observer has always been the observed. No watcher needed, the process itself knows and rolls as Venerable Buddhaghosa writes in the Visuddhi Magga.

In naked awareness, there is no splitting of attributes and objectification of these attributes into different groups of the same experience. So thoughts and sense perceptions are not disowned and the nature of impermanence is taken in wholeheartedly in the experience of no-self. ‘Impermanence’ is never what it seems to be, never what that is understood in conceptual thoughts. ‘Impermanence’ is not what the mind has conceptualized it to be. In non-dual experience, the true face of impermanence nature is experienced as happening without movement, change without going anywhere. This is the “what is” of impermanence. It is just so.

Quote

Semantics...this is simply escapism...

You're dismissing it too early. If you just dismiss things off like that, you'll miss the whole point. You won't see it even though it is so clearly stated. Read the whole article -- the difference is not semantics at all, it is in the paradigm shift.

This post has been edited by xabir2005: 18 May 2009 - 04:59 PM

[rex]

dwai, on May 18 2009, 10:20 PM, said:

In other words, Nirguna Brahman is the same as the Buddhist Ultimate reality.

Buddhists don't agree amongst themselves what the Buddhist ultimate reality is. Would a 'yes' answer be used to celebrate, acknowledge and accept the similarities of and differences between tradtions or would it be used to show one particular tradition in a better light than the other?

[nac]

rex, on May 19 2009, 06:36 AM, said:

Buddhists don't agree amongst themselves what the Buddhist ultimate reality is. Would a 'yes' answer be used to celebrate, acknowledge and accept the similarities of and differences between tradtions or would it be used to show one particular tradition in a better light than the other?

To make a long story short, Buddhists don't believe in an ultimate reality. They disagree on what this disbelief implies.

PS. Generally speaking. Yoga complicates matters. That is, Buddhism is an essentialist philosophy as opposed to existentialism.
PPS. Sorry, that was incorrect. I think Buddhist philosophy occupies the unique position of being both non-existentialist and non-essentialist at the same time.

This post has been edited by nac: 18 May 2009 - 06:14 PM

[xabir2005]

xabir2005, on May 18 2009, 03:05 PM, said:

which is nevertheless luminous

Just to clarify: Buddhism's emptiness does not deny the luminous clear vivid nature of awareness -- just that it does not make it into an Absolute or an ontological essence. In Buddhism, Buddha-Nature is as they say: luminosity and emptiness inseparable.

This post has been edited by xabir2005: 18 May 2009 - 05:38 PM

[goldisheavy]

xabir2005, on May 18 2009, 04:05 PM, said:

First of all Buddhism does not posit an Ultimate Reality at all.

I wouldn't be so sure. Again... this is a matter of taste. It's not something you should so freely assert, unless you use the rainbow tongue to assert it, then it's OK to assert it as much as you like.

http://www.accesstoi....8.01.than.html

http://www.accesstoi....8.03.than.html

This post has been edited by goldisheavy: 18 May 2009 - 06:55 PM

[goldisheavy]

xabir2005, on May 18 2009, 06:37 PM, said:

Just to clarify: Buddhism's emptiness does not deny the luminous clear vivid nature of awareness -- just that it does not make it into an Absolute or an ontological essence. In Buddhism, Buddha-Nature is as they say: luminosity and emptiness inseparable.

Yes, but what does it mean "to be made into an ontological essence?" Arguably, it means nothing. Arguably it means just what emptiness means in the Buddhist sense.

Buddhism is good at showing that there is no such thing as a stable identity, but then it behaves with regard to other doctrines as if their definitions are very well defined and understood.

Truth is, we don't know what we mean. Ask any person on the street, "What does the word IS mean?" I bet no one knows. Even philosophers will stumble. Why? This is because language comes from a deep mysterious place. We use it intuitively, only half-understanding what it is we mean. To have respect for the fluidity and for the non-uniformness of language is a good thing. Non-uniformness means that what Buddhists mean by atman, and what Advaitans mean by atman doesn't have to be the same thing. Buddhists might be assailing the straw man. Or not. I remain open.

What matters is how hearing this or that doctrine affects your condition. That's where compassion comes in.

[solxyz]

The Indic philosophical tradition is extremely rich and nuanced. To really enter into the subtleties and endless possibilities of conciliation and debate between these philosophies would take a lifetime of study. I dont even read Sanskit, and I have read only smatterings of Shankara and Nagarjuna in translation. Since I assume that most of us are in the same boat, we have to ask what we hope to figure out here.

That said, when we are looking at these philosophies I think we should keep in mind two possibly distinct issues: 1) what the various philosophers were trying to say/ point to and 2) what they actually managed to say. With #1 we ask: were the various philosophers attesting to different levels of realization? I think the answer to this question is clear. There have undoubtedly been a range of levels of realization on both sides of the Advaita/Buddhist split, and people of many levels of realization have expressed themselves in philosophy. Also it is clear to me that there have been fully realized people on both sides of this split. Therefore in the mouths of the best, these two philosophies refer to the same. They are attempts to refer to enlightened experience / awakened reality. Once again there is a great deal of subtlety in this philosophy. To really understand what a person is communicating one has to be able to listen to that persons particular use of words, and the way these words might point past limitations of any particular stance. If you dont do this, then you are lacking the sympathy to an ability to enter into anothers mode of expression. But since this is not a Sanskrit forum, I dont know how far we can really go in this direction.

As for #2 we ask whether either philosophy is actually a better description of awakened reality. Once again I think we have to be mindful of the subtlties of the actual philosophies before jumping to any conclusions here. But here is my crude observation. Everyone is making an Absolute denial.

Advaita phrases this denial in terms of ontology. It speaks of an ontological Absolute and denies that it has any form, etc, etc. The philosophy xabir is presenting simply switches to an epistemological question and then makes its denial, saying "no essence of self or phenomena can be found." This may seem to be a more complete denial, but I think there will prove to be an infinite regress of possible questions and levels at which to deny absolutely. Here I will take the next step up and deny that any explicit position can ever be a full and final description of awakened reality.
Once we agree on that, question #2 evaporates and we are left only with our answer to question #1.

[Pero]

dwai, on May 19 2009, 02:29 AM, said:

Explain Nirguna Brahman

What is Nirguna Brahman?

Could you please explain dependant origination according to Advaita.

[xabir2005]

goldisheavy, on May 18 2009, 07:00 PM, said:

Truth is, we don't know what we mean. Ask any person on the street, "What does the word IS mean?" I bet no one knows. Even philosophers will stumble. Why? This is because language comes from a deep mysterious place. We use it intuitively, only half-understanding what it is we mean. To have respect for the fluidity and for the non-uniformness of language is a good thing. Non-uniformness means that what Buddhists mean by atman, and what Advaitans mean by atman doesn't have to be the same thing. Buddhists might be assailing the straw man. Or not. I remain open.

I'm talking about the generally accepted and recognised definition of those terms. It is still important to, as mikael quoted here:

"Let us make distinctions, and call things by their right names."
-- Henry David Thoreau, Wild Fruits.

With the lack of such distinctions, many people get wrong understandings of what 'emptiness', 'anatta', etc in Buddhism means.


p.s. atman just means 'self', this is a universal sanskrit term. What the 'atman' is, is another issue. Advaita posits a 'self' that is transcendent. In buddhism we do not posit an atman, whether within nor outside the 5 skandhas.

This post has been edited by xabir2005: 19 May 2009 - 12:48 AM

[xabir2005]

solxyz, on May 18 2009, 07:26 PM, said:

Advaita phrases this denial in terms of ontology. It speaks of an ontological Absolute and denies that it has any form, etc, etc. The philosophy xabir is presenting simply switches to an epistemological question and then makes its denial, saying "no essence of self or phenomena can be found." This may seem to be a more complete denial, but I think there will prove to be an infinite regress of possible questions and levels at which to deny absolutely. Here I will take the next step up and deny that any explicit position can ever be a full and final description of awakened reality.
Once we agree on that, question #2 evaporates and we are left only with our answer to question #1.

Yes there is no position to be taken up. The four extremes (i.e. existence, non-existence, both, neither) are positions. Emptiness is freedom from all extremes, i.e. all positions.

It is ultimately a 'viewless view':

Quote

Emptiness as Viewless View and Embracing the Transience

Thusness:

...Let's start from the viewless view aspect of Emptiness.

"In other words, right view is the beginning of the noble path. It is
certainly the case that dependent origination is "correct view"; when one analyzes a bit deeper, one discovers that in the case "view" means being free from views. The teaching of dependent origination is what permits this freedom from views."

I like the comment by Namdrol. He brings out the "viewless" aspect of Dependent Origination. Like Namdrol, I see Dependent Origination as a viewless view that neutralizes all our misconceptions that arise out of the deeply rooted tendency of seeing things 'inherently and dualistically' and eventually gets itself dissolved in the end process. However it must also be understood that "freeing from views" by realizing dependent origination is no ordinary way of negation and is different from the Advaita Vedanta way of negation -- "neti neti". It is not a mere act of rejection but involves a deep realization that 'true freedom' lies in thoroughly seeing through the “non-dual and non-inherent” aspect of whatever arises. It does not deny the conventional; contrary there is the full acknowledgement and total embracement of the conventional. This is very difficult to express. Experientially when one truly sees dependent origination, one sees the essence-less, attribute-less, trait-less, center-less and connectedness and at the same time, sees the full vividness and luminous presence of appearances. In other words, “Emptiness” is 'the wisdom' to see the Absolute in the Relative without the need to 'abstract' the Absolute from the Relative and seeing Reality as one seamless functioning. In fact any attempt to separate is due to our lack of understanding of dependent origination. This is the explicit message I wish to convey through my post to Gozen...

Quote

Loppon Namdrol:

Dependent origination is not a view.

Dependent origination is the pacification of views, as stated by the Buddha in many places, and as reinforced by Nagarjuna.

Quote

Buddha:

"Bhikkhus, as purified and bright as this view (of Dependent Origination) is, if you covet, cherish, treasure and take pride in it, do you understand this Dhamma as comparable to a raft, taught for the purpose of giving up [i.e. crossing over] and not for the purpose of grasping?" "No, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, as purified and bright as this view is, if you do not covet, cherish, treasure and take pride in it, would you then know this Dhamma as comparable to a raft, taught for the purpose of giving up [i.e. crossing over] and not for the purpose of grasping?" "Yes, venerable sir."

This post has been edited by xabir2005: 19 May 2009 - 02:08 AM

[Lucky7Strikes]

goldisheavy, on May 18 2009, 11:00 PM, said:

Yes, but what does it mean "to be made into an ontological essence?" Arguably, it means nothing. Arguably it means just what emptiness means in the Buddhist sense.

Buddhism is good at showing that there is no such thing as a stable identity, but then it behaves with regard to other doctrines as if their definitions are very well defined and understood.

Truth is, we don't know what we mean. Ask any person on the street, "What does the word IS mean?" I bet no one knows. Even philosophers will stumble. Why? This is because language comes from a deep mysterious place. We use it intuitively, only half-understanding what it is we mean. To have respect for the fluidity and for the non-uniformness of language is a good thing. Non-uniformness means that what Buddhists mean by atman, and what Advaitans mean by atman doesn't have to be the same thing. Buddhists might be assailing the straw man. Or not. I remain open.

What matters is how hearing this or that doctrine affects your condition. That's where compassion comes in.

You must have a rainbow tongue...whatever that is

[xabir2005]

goldisheavy, on May 18 2009, 06:49 PM, said:

I wouldn't be so sure. Again... this is a matter of taste. It's not something you should so freely assert, unless you use the rainbow tongue to assert it, then it's OK to assert it as much as you like.

http://www.accesstoi....8.01.than.html

http://www.accesstoi....8.03.than.html

Buddha is not talking about an 'absolute', he's talking about total cessation and relinquishing all grasping, where consciousness does not land on a single thing as Buddha puts it. This is the result of dispassion, which is the result of direct insight into emptiness.

"This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Nibbana."

— AN 3.32

It is not talking about an absolute ground of being where all phenomena arise from and subside to.

Buddha in Mulapariyaya Sutta :

"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because he has comprehended it, I tell you.

Hence, Buddha having perfect wisdom of emptiness certainly did not conceive the unbinding and unconditioned as an absolute, an ontological essence, etc.

Thanissaro Bhikkhu's comments on the sutra:

Although at present we rarely think in the same terms as the Samkhya philosophers, there has long been — and still is — a common tendency to create a "Buddhist" metaphysics in which the experience of emptiness, the Unconditioned, the Dharma-body, Buddha-nature, rigpa, etc., is said to function as the ground of being from which the "All" — the entirety of our sensory & mental experience — is said to spring and to which we return when we meditate. Some people think that these theories are the inventions of scholars without any direct meditative experience, but actually they have most often originated among meditators, who label (or in the words of the discourse, "perceive") a particular meditative experience as the ultimate goal, identify with it in a subtle way (as when we are told that "we are the knowing"), and then view that level of experience as the ground of being out of which all other experience comes.

Any teaching that follows these lines would be subject to the same criticism that the Buddha directed against the monks who first heard this discourse.

This post has been edited by xabir2005: 19 May 2009 - 03:07 AM