dwai

A lot of things that would fall in the realm of "impossible" would start happening. Such as others thoughts would become evident sometimes (without actually attempting to read someone's mind). It might come as a thought, a feeling, a visual cue, etc. The other thing that will happen is that it might help the seeker cut through the BS of words and see the underlying unity of things (at an intuitive level more than direct cognition). Or that's what I think might happen...I could be completely wrong. The effect is different from person to person.

This is the only time I'll respond to you. You have no idea about Vedanta and you are only starting off learning about Buddhism. Why don't you save your "expert commentary" on Vedanta for after you have learnt something of value? If you pick any elementary history book you will realize that the major Upanishads were composed before Buddha was an itch in his daddy's pant. A few of Upanishads might have been composed after Buddha's birth. But the 11 principle Upanishads predate Buddha significantly. The dates being used is a result of severe doctoring by 19th Century European "scholars" such as Max Muller. Even with those dates, the upanishads listed above predate the Buddha. They range from around 1500 - 600 BCE. The actual dates are more likely to be betwen 2500 BCE and 1900 BCE, per internal records of the texts. Gautama Buddha dependently originated in 563 BCE and then just like a phenomenon ceased to exist in 483 BCE So how is it that the Upanishads were written "after" Buddha? Since you guys have basically eliminated every strand of Buddhism besides those that you think are "correct" from the reckoning, I guess all the Buddhist traditions that don't agree with what you say are "Faux Buddhism". Okay...I can live with that...but that says that Buddhists themselves don't agree about what Buddhism is. Or perhaps just like Vedanta and Taoism, the various schools within Buddhism too point to the same Absolute Reality. I hope you guys don't read the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, Lankavatara Sutra, Brahmajala Sutra, etc. Because they all talk about an Eternal Self.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, then it must be one... I guess at this point this has become a contest of two perspectives. They are both looking at the same thing from different vantage points. I have always insisted that Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism, (all isms and ity's) are categorical frameworks. To experience the Ultimate Truth, they have to be discarded. The entire debate was around some people denying that these categorical frameworks are based on/deal with the same thing (Absolute Reality which is noumenon). There might not be a "real" dwai or a "real Nac" but there IS a "Real Tathagatagarbha". Vedantins call it Atman/Brahman. Taoists call it Te/Tao. Buddhists call it Tathagatagarbha. To dogmatically insist that only one view is the best view or correct view is wrong...

You do realize that how illogical that entire blurb sounded right? If all views, states and identifications will come to an end, the mind is a phenomenon too, so it too must logically come to an end. So, by your definition, Nirvana is the extinction of Consciousness. I am already in the marketplace. Only that I am my own mirror. And yeah...I do smash it every time I meditate

India, US, India

I've been dealing with this as well...it is very hard. For me, it took a long time to realize that the "negative" stuff is simply crap that needs to be dealt with and resolved. Especially the emotional/psychological stuff. I pushed it under the proverbial carpet and it kept coming back with a vengeance. The trick is to be detached from it...hard to do, but can be done. It's still around, but not so much in control as it used to be. I guess it'll take time getting resolved. The problem is that we start developing these habits (samskaras as they are called in yogic terms) with even seemingly benign activities. It takes a lot of compassion and discipline to deal with them. Just my 2 cents worth... Cheers... very poignant...thanks

Great. Here's an article I'd written a long time back on the topic Science, Scientific method and it's limitations: The Battle between Science and Yoga Precisely my point (and Shankara's) -- Alaya Vijnana is Atman. But you just agreed with Shankara But it is mysterious. It is beyond percepts and concepts (even if we do have to name it for the sake of convenience, just as Taoists name Tao). It is non-phenomenal because it is eternal, infinite and non-dual. You do agree that Alaya Vijnana is eternal right? BTW, there is complete compatibility between Evolution and Shankara's thoughts. Because Evolution is the lower Truth realm, the realm of the material universe. All non-dual systems posit that Consciousness is the source and matter simply a creation/projection/superimposition on Consciousness (depending on which system it is). So if Non-duality is the Higher Truth, then it is beyond the laws of nature (as we know it in the general and scientific sense). I have been keeping Science out of this discussion simply because I don't want to mix the two. Science is a Categorical framework that is applied to the Infinite to come up with a limited reality. As is any religion. The Universal laws of nature are not universal beyond the view provided by the framework (Science). That's why you find a discord between Classical Physics and Quantum Physics. They are two completely different Categorical frameworks. There has never been any dichotomy there. Vedantic thought doesn't teach anything different. The ideal human being is fully committed to the workings of Samsara without being attached to anything. He works, aims for material, physical and spiritual prosperity. Gives it all up when it's appropriate and renounces to focus on the Spiritual. After (if) having realized what there is to be realized, he comes back and shares his wisdom compassionately. I see that you get my "Point" afterall. There IS no difference between what Advaita or other Vedantic systems teach and what Buddhism or Taoism teach. They are all different ways to point to the same moon. They are all mules that carry you up to the summit of the same mountain. My issue was with some friends here arguing that Buddhism is better or the best way and that it teaches something completely and diametrically opposed to what Vedanta or Taoism teach. Like I pointed out, Science is simply a Categorical Framework. The Universe is not the Absolute Reality. It is a projection. It is real but in a limited sense. The Universe therefore may not be eternal. That does not mean The Self is not eternal. Believe me, I have a very strong scientific background, am a trained electrical and computer engineer. That doesn't prevent me from seeing it's limitations and biases.

The concept of Alaya Vijnana was soundly refuted and packed away for a good millenium by Shankaracharya in India. And despite what some "Buddhists" would like to claim, he did debate and defeat some of the best Buddhist minds. Alaya Vijnana as it stands cannot explain the continuity of experience or memory. Forget about across lifetimes...even to the most casual observer, when thinking about an experience continuing in first-person across millions of discrete quanta of a chain reaction (cause and effect) is a complete logical absurdity. All this is simply a back-pedaling to try and logically disprove the existence of the self. They fail completely. As I have shown in the thread discussing the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, The Buddha himself states that Buddha-dhatu/tathagata is the Absolute Self.

Now you are being literalistic. Te surely means virtue, but it is not Virtue in the sense of regular usage. Te is the piece of Tao that all sentient beings carry with them. There is a difference between Confucian influenced Taoism and Lao Tzu's version (which I'm afraid is completely mystical in nature). This Joy is not pleasure that you will get from eating a good meal or seeing a beautiful view. The Joy of Atman is beyond description...it is only to be experienced. It is beyond ordinary emotions... What do achievements mean anything anyway? If there is No Self, nothing makes any sense...everything is hollow and empty. If there is the Absolute Self, then having existed forever, none of the little things (such as achievements of one lifetime) will hold any meaning. Worldly achievements are momentary. That doesn't mean one should not accomplish anything. That is the role we all have to play as samsarins. Wake up in the morning, take a dump, eat breakfast (or not), go to school/office (replace with your favorite daily activity), eat, sleep, wake up. Yes...there is pleasure and pain in this living...but for some this is not enough. There is a deep unrest, a sense of dissatisfaction that doesn't go away. But one cannot identify it's cause. It leads to wanting, externally focused, possessing material objects...jumping from one thing to another...one fad to another. The inward focus that meditation brings, is the most plausible solution to the outwardly cravings that we have. If you meditate, you will know what I say is true. How do you know what the brain-dead state feels like? Have you ever been brain-dead? Let us not get into polemics because we will end up feeling recriminatory and bitter once a discussion goes into polemics. If you want to discuss grammar then you only have to look into the concept of Shabda Brahman. Nothing more nuanced and refined has ever graced this planet. Read Bhratrhari. The Universe is not where you can find joy. The Universe is a projection of the Self. The nature of the Self is Joy. That's why people are so unhappy...because they haven't realized the Self. The sadness, craving, hunger, lust, they are all indicative of the limited selves lacking in Joy that is the Self. The sorrow is because they all know that there is Such a Joy...but have forgotten where to get that Joy, or how. I am more than ready to accept that Advaita is wrong if I see any difference between Buddhism, Taoism and Advaita. In my opinion and by my experience I find them to be pointing to the same truth. The difference that people see is superficial. There is a lot more in common than the surfacial differences. I hate to say this, but you will realize this as your insight deepens (without meaning it in any patronizing sense whatsoever...I don't know your background and don't know you personally...I am reading off what you write).

The co-dependent "Self" is the "non-Self" that Buddhism rightly highlights. But there is A Self that is not Co-dependent. That is missed in the droning of "Non-self". Non-Self is simply a tool to help identify the Self (I can of course hear angry howls from the Budda-boyz now saying how I don't understand Buddhism). But that point is clearly evident to a Vedantin. See, you are mistaking the term "Te" as Virtue. Te is Tao. Realize Te and you realize Tao. My Taiji teacher expressed it this way -- Consider Tao as a radio transceiver that works at a certain frequency. By cultivating, we are actually shedding layers of junk from our system and finally accessing Te...the transceiver that each of us have (but have forgotten due to various reasons, social conditioning being the first and foremost). This Te, operates at the same frequency as the Tao and using this we can first access Tao, and eventually realize Tao. Certain things are known intuitively (called Prajna) and become known, without going through a rational process (which doesn't diminish the value or validity of that knowledge in any way). What does Buddhism teach? What does Taoism teach? Don't they teach of Nirvana/Shunyata, Tao which they claim is not external but is not known through rational inquiry? Perhaps they don't call it a "Mystical Self", but they allude to a "Mystical State". There is nothing wrong with Mysticism...it is simply a state of Subjective absorption...a stepping out of Subject-Object duality...that's all! What is this resistance (to what I am suggesting) rising from? Is it not a deep-rooted fear of cognitive dissonance? I am aware that you could simply turn that around and ask me the same question. But I am not rejecting what you say...I accept that Buddhism teaches the Non-self and Shunyata. I am saying that Vedanta says the same thing...except that they take it one step farther. I simply object to the Buddhist's adamant insistence that his/her understanding of Vedanta is better than that of Vedantins. The locus standii of the Vedantin as posited by the Buddhist is a strawman...that is all I am saying. To see beyond mundane personal experience is a natural progression in meditation. The emptiness of the "Self" becomes evident as we realize that the "I" is not really any of the things that we initially started out thinking it is (the Jhanas per Buddhism iinm). As far as reifying a Mystical Self beyond one's body goes -- who says it is beyond the body and do we really reify it? The Body is the thing that we reify. Don't you see it? We are constantly bombarded by it. We work hard to keep this "temple" clean and strong with what we eat, exercise, etc. Even those who don't reify it by showering it with sensual pleasures all the time. You asked me why I meditate if I am "The Self". I have tried asking myself this question thousands of times. Why do I practice Taiji and Chi Gong? Why do I do Yoga and Pranayama? Why do I meditate? I don't know the answer to that...I meditate because I feel compelled to do it. I find bliss in meditation and cultivation practices. I find equanimity and peace, a joy deeper than anything any material object can give me. You might be tempted to ask (as some have on other threads) why should some one "chase bliss". I would be tempted to ask, "Why not?" Isn't all activity in human life aimed towards eliminating pain and enhancing/creating pleasure? Also, Bliss/Joy is not the same as Pleasure. Joy is the natural state of being...look at a child. The child is always joyful, completely free of guile and perfectly natural. Cries when sad, laughs when happy, without any selfish motives or malicious intentions. The Child is a reflection of The Joyful Self. As we grow older, the social conditioning (categorical frameworks) piled upon us makes us who/what we are. The prisoners of Samsara...the hostages of our intellects, sensory pleasures and pains. That's why we will find examples of the old masters such as Lao Tzu and the various mystics (from various traditions of the world) in such simple and natural states. They ARE Joy. They ARE Bliss. That is because they gone past the Duality of existence (or have the Duality in equillibrium). There are many "official" answers to the question "Why does the Self create this material universe if it does exist?" Kashmir Shavism says that The Self is in total Joy (Sat Chit Ananda) and the universe is a projection of this Joy that is overflowing. Meso-American Shamans say that "The Great Eagle, Nagual preys on the Tonal for sustenance. The awareness of the sentient beings of the Tonal is consumed by the Great Eagle (Nagual)" Advaita Vedanta says that the Universe is simply a superimposition of categorical frameworks (nama-rupa) on it (Atman/Brahman). It also says that Brahman is mysterious and inaccessible by sensory or rational means. It has to be subjectively realized (ie Atman, after realizing that the limited Self, ie Jiva is not Atman). That Brahman is silence. Taoists say that Tao cannot be talked about. Any attempts to impose a categorical framework (description) on it will result in contradiction and absurdity. Nagarjuna says the same thing in Madhyamika, with Pratityasamutpada (or Dependent Origination). He also extends this and says that things that are subject to rational, phenomenological inquiry are dependently originated and that they are empty of self-nature (Svabhava Shunya). Posits Shunyata, that is devoid of any characteristics and any attempts to superimpose a categorical framework on it will lead to absurdity and contradictions.

Said like an abject materialist. But despite it all, you cannot for once prove that I am wrong. Like I disclaimed earlier, The Self is beyond reason. It is noumenon, which cannot be captured by reason. And I claim that Tao IS The Self. Are you one of those Taoists who don't believe that Chi is Energy but is "Bio-mechanical alignment" or some baloney like that? Empirical evidence works in this field too. You only have to meditate. Hundreds of thousands before us have meditated and come to the realization that There Is A Self, but is not the limited entity that each of us are. Why do you Cultivate Chi? The ultimate goal of Chi Cultivation is to Realize Tao. No one can sit and speculate intellectually and realize Tao or go seeking Tao in measurements. That doesn't mean that Tao doesn't exist or if it does it is only an epistemological existence. Tao exists, period. Tao cannot be described because by describing it, you are limiting it within the boundaries of a categorical framework. Taoists did Chi Cultivation and meditation to gleam insights into something that is beyond perception and conception. That's why TTC says "Tao that can be spoken is not the real Tao". The same is true for Yogic meditations as well. The "Laws of Nature" are defied at will by Taoists and Yogis who know how to harness their Chi. Science is very limited in what it can understand. And this limitation it puts on itself. With it's insistence on Objectivity. When we are dealing with Non-duality, there CAN BE NO Subject or Object. It is simply Subject, that's all.

The seers and those who have reached the pinnacles of meditation do not agree. They claim that the Self continues in spite of the manifest body. Also thinking is a function of the mind. The Self (Unconditioned consciousness) is not the mind. The mind is simply a perceptive-cognitive tool like the sensory organs. The Self is beyond duality. So Yin and Yang do not affect it. Is Tao affected by Yin and Yang? Co-rising is a phenomenon as are all things that co-rise. The Self is eternal and self-existent, so it has not co-risen. It is not a phenomenon so it is not subject to the travesties of time. You are again mistaking the limited identity for the Self. I did warn that there is a syntactical discord afoot here.

hehe...that is a logical incongruity. There can be No Infinite and Non-Dual. If it is Non-Dual it means Singularity. But I agree with you about reification. However, the statement that Vedantins reify something is completely wrong. Those who have realized simply state that there can be no descriptions, etc. They never reify the state...only suggest that this state is something that is the culmination of the seeker's spiritual quest. Also, since you are familiar with The Indic traditional ways of teaching, you might want to remember that there is a concept of Adhikara or Yogyata (Potential). That's why the same teachers have taught different things to seekers of different constitutions (hence the four paths of Yoga -- Bhakti, Karma, Raja and Jnana). Like I have repeated before, they are all fingers pointing to the same moon, Vedanta, Yoga, Taoism, Buddhism. Agreed...that's what I've been saying all along. But being a "True Buddhist" you believe in No-Self right? Then by your logic, if there is no self, there can be no realization, because who realizes but the Self? The Self is beyond reason. I meditate because I feel the need to. Why? I don't know...I just do.

The Self simply is. Why would the self need to identify itself? The identification is with everything that is not self. When those identifications have been dropped, the Self simply stands in the light of it's own consciousness... It is clearly stated that one cannot rationalize or intellectually fathom the Self. Anyhow, why do you meditate if you don't want to "realize" something?

There's plenty more where that came from...but let's ponder on this for now.

Well said!

This is a reference to the "God" that is created by man...equivalent term (Hinduism) is Saguna Brahman. This God has certain properties (like He is Kind, Loving, Benevolent, etc or He is Punisher of Evil, Sinners, etc). Tao is Nirguna Brahman or that which cannot be described, intellectually grasped or ever spoken of. Tao can only be realized and walked and experienced. This passage is most likely referring to the various "Gods" that were prevalent in Chinese traditions during the time of Lao Tzu.

I'd also recommend reading Eknath Easwaran's book "The Upanishads". It's really quite good. It's a good foundation.

Ego is not the "I am". Ego is simply a premise that is built upon the Self due to ignorance and identification with the senses and physical body. The "I" is Consciousness...it is also the innate Chi that animates every living being. Though I like the Quote and it makes perfect sense. But not in the conventional sense of "ego" (as is equated to the Self by mistake by most). The "I" is Te, and therefore Tao.