dwai

Can you define consciousness? Upadhi

Hmm...if it is empty of objects, it is empty. When there is objectless consciousness, does the concept of "I" even arise? If there is an I, the "I" is an object too? Upadhi...

That doesn't make sense logically. If something witnesses something else, then that something is an object that the subject (who is experiencing) is witnessing. If that is the case, then there are objects in the consciousness that is witnessing them. If that is the case, then it cannot be anything but objective consciousness (one which as objects in it). Okay, let's do it this way. You define consciousness and then I will respond. It seems we have a syntactical mismatch. Turiya -- I am not saying that it is not there in other states. Ceasing the modifications of the mind is in effect realizing that fact.

I am tempted to keeping posting, but that won't do justice to my professional duties. I will post follow-ups to my previous summary in detail later this evening. But what Advaita says is this -- Objectless consciousness is not Witnessing presence. Witnessing presence has to be objective consciousness, since there are objects in it. When modifications of the mind is completely ceased, as in there are no objects (thoughts, etc) left, that which remains is Brahman. We enter this state already in deep sleep. This is Turiya.

True...Maya is called Illusory. But that doesn't imply that they are unreal/non-existent. If you understand DO and Adhyasa correctly, Maya is a reference to the relatively real forms, shapes, sizes, thoughts, etc that are caused by superimposition. They are interdependent and are phenomenal. They are empty. Vedanta doesn't consider them non-existent. That would be a stupid thing to do, for are we not living in this samsara? You have not understood Vedantic thought. Suffering is due to ignorance, avidya. I will not comment on the "Goal" of Buddhism. I am interested in the message. And you haven't convinced me that the message is different.

How exactly were you a Hindu? By Birth? Or by association? What is your lineage? Being Hindu implies being immersed in the culture and tradition. Mine is directly traced to Sage Sandilya. I was born into a family of Santanis who have always been thus. My family tradition is Shakta. My Grandfather was an exponent of Vedanta. My maternal grand-uncle is a Sanyasi and Advaitin. Disclaimer: This is not to be construed as credentials that I want to flaunt around etc (lest I be accused of that). My purpose of posting this is to ascertain the level of "Hinduness" of Thunderheart. I have a sneaking suspicion that he is not Hindu by origin, but perhaps by association (perhaps one or both his parents were members of the New-Age movement etc)? Re-cap of what I have posted: emptiness as implied by the principle of dependent origination (meaning everything is connected to everything else and nothing can exist on it's own) establishes that all material things in this universe are empty (lacking own-nature and own-existence). Anything that has a beginning and an end (ie time-bound) is a phenomena and all phenomena (which are objects of our intellect/mind/awareness) are empty (of self-existence and self-nature). Buddist and Vedantic teachings talk about two-truths, Vyavaharika/samvritti Satya and Paramartha Satya (or Lower and Higher truths, respectively). All Material universe is in the realm of lower truth, as everything is time-bound and phenomenal. As a result, it is empty (of self-nature and self-existence). Higher Truth is non-phenomenal (or devoid of phenomena) and is not time or space bound. Being Higher Truth, Tao, Brahman and Sunyata is also emptiness, by virtue of being empty of phenomena. And since it doesn't logically make sense to consider plurality of these (since there is no objectivity to these in the phenomenal/material sense), it logically makes sense to consider these to be one and the same. There is no causal relationship between Material universe (Phenomena) and Higher Truth (or Ultimate Truth). The relationship is a result of superimposition of categorical frameworks on the Higher Truth. So phenomena are a result of superimposing various categorical frameworks on Higher Truth or Brahman/Tao/Sunyata (B/T/S). So in other words, all phenomena and the material universe is an image, a reflection, an appearance. Hence they are empty. This concept is called Maya in Vedanta. B/T/S is empty. But it is also the fount of all phenomena/objects of material universe by virtue of superimposition. The Categorical framework being applied is by the observer which is objective consciousness. Once Yoga (replace with meditation/tai chi/ba gua/tao gong/what have you) is applied to remove the modifications of the mind, what remains is objectless consciousness. Because it is objectless, it is non-phenomenal. This is called Aatman in Vedanta. This objectless consciousness being non-phenomenal is Higher Truth. Being Higher Truth, it logically makes sense to consider Aatman and Brahman to be one and the same -- Emptiness.

Nirguna Brahman is emptiness, it is objectless (non-dual) consciousness. There is too much emphasis on this word and that word. What about looking behind the facade of these words at the essence that they are trying to convey? Again, my intention wasn't to claim "my way is better than yours" because only a dogmatic deluded person will say that. We have to understand that all that any tradition can do is give names to concepts and ideas. They are as empty as the ideas and concepts they convey in the truest sense (in light of Higher Truth). The true efficacy of the system is in it's ability to facilitate for the seeker, the ability to transcend the framework, leave it behind and realize Higher truth. Those who understand what categorical frameworks are and understand what dependent origination implies, also understand that dependent origination is as true for the frameworks that name phenomena and objects as it is for the phenomena and objects themselves.

Bhaja Govindam Moodhamate... Actually that is not entirely correct. Yata Pinde, tata Brahmande (as in the auric egg, thus in the Cosmic egg) is a timeless saying in the Vedic/Yogic tradition.

And that is your personal opinion. I hold steadfast that Brahman and Shunyata and Tao are the same. When one transcends categorical frameworks, the absolute consciousness, which is objectless and is the Ultimate Truth doesn't change based on what the categorical framework says. It is not a matter of what one or two or two million Buddhists think. The flaw is in their understanding in such a case. This inference arises from logic and not understanding this demonstrates a lack of logic. I will venture to categorically re-iterate what it is I am saying and why I am saying it...this is (my insight) is not a unique one. I just prefer to see the similarities which transcend the differences, that's all. All said and done, like my friend pointed out, I am not a realized master. I have a feeling none of the posters here are (for those who know don't talk and those who talk don't know). I am a seeker who's trying to see beyond traditions and understand and experience Tao/Brahman. I am not saying Buddhism doesn't have it's unique insights into Truth. But that doesn't mean Buddhists can make silly claims like "My tradition is better than yours" and not expect to be challenged by it. Till now, no one has been able to logically show me that my standpoint is wrong. All you guys do is quote other guys and try and validate things referentially. The Experience part will arise when the time is right. The intellectual part has to be correct, without which we will end up becoming deluded if the experience doesn't result in complete prajna. Again how do I know this, intuitively.

You feel that they have been ignored. I have responded, you just can't see it. I don't have to repeat myself ad nauseum. Everything I said is clearly seen through the 3-pillars of Jnana Yoga. 1) Principle of Dependent Origination 2) Principle of Superimposition 3) Theory of Two-truths You are too caught up in syntax. You are missing the meaning...

I think you lack in your understanding of Advaita and what Brahman means. Advaita never claims Maya doesn't exist. All Advaita posits is that Maya is simply phenomenal reality that objective consciousness perceives via the process of superimposition, it is satya, but of a vyavaharik nature. So vyavaharik reality (by virtue of being empty) is illusory (Maya). Relation between Brahman and Maya is not one of causality. Brahman doesn't create the phenomenal reality. It is the result of adhyaasa. You are right in your understanding that different ways manifest enlightenment in different ways. But that is because these ways are limited by being Categorical frameworks. Your understanding of Hindu thought needs a refresher. You are referring to Pauranic concepts, which are not to be mistaken with those posited by Vedanta. Puranas are not a good source to understand Philosophy from. Advaita Vedanta (as has been shown earlier in this post) predates Buddha by several thousand years.

Like I have said before...all Categorical frameworks are limited in their validity. And their validity is the framework. There is no absolute truth to be learned from frameworks. Frameworks however must provide a pathway to transcend themselves. That is how one can access Higher Truths. Vajrahridaya's pronouncements (somewhat contemptuous) about "Hinduism" rings of arrogance in one's categorical framework. What I was trying to show with this thread was that they are all the same. Sunyata, Emptiness, Void, Tao, Brahman, Aatman. We can go on and on about it and not get anywhere... I will hold onto, with the basis of my logic and my understanding of Dependent Origination, Two-truths and Superimposition the understanding that Buddhism, Vedanta and Taoism all refer to the same thing. There are no differences. Anyone who insinuates that their way is better are only doing so because they are trapped in their categorical framework. Experiential understanding occurs at various levels, to different degrees. Some work off spontaneous intuition (called Prajna), while others work painstakingly, trying to cultivate prajna. We all hold a spark of this in us, so that's why we instinctively know the truth about something. My Prajna tells me that what I understand is correct. Perhaps my Sadhana will corroborate that. Or may be not...Who can say?

That seems to be quite a departure from Nagarjuna. Because all Dependent Origination does is show that Phenomena are interdependent and that they are as a result empty. If Buddhism accepts Paramartha Satya, then all phenomena (in their emptiness) become Samvritti/vyavaharik satya. Advaita doesn't claim that Brahman is not emptiness. In fact, Brahman is Sunyata, by virtue of being empty of all phenomena (since Brahman is non-phenomenal). And when objectless consciousness remains, it IS Brahman and Sunyata. The Vedantic concepts of Atman and Brahman are the Same as Sunyata. Atman is objectless consciousness, which is nonphenomenal and therefore emptiness. So Atman and Brahman are one and the same. I don't understand why this concept is so difficult for Buddhists to accept? The syntax is different, the import is the same.

Read through the posts

Does Buddhism recognize the Two-truths or not?

Why would Advaita claim that Brahman is the "cause" of all phenomena. I guess you are holding on to the misunderstanding that Advaita Vedanta claims "such and such a thing" while in reality no such claim is made. To say in one breath that phenomena are empty and Brahman is non-phenomenal and then claim that Brahman is the "Cause" of all phenomena is self-contradictory and absurd (prasanga wasn't invented by nagarjuna you see). The Brahman transcends the entire realm of phenomena and causality. And causality is limited to the realm of phenomena. The relation between Brahman and phenomena is that of Superimposition. The inquirer will perceive things as is conditioned by his/her categorical framework. To understand this, one has to understand the Principle of Superimposition. The Sunyata/Brahman/Non-dual Reality is emptiness because it is empty of all phenomena. These phenomena are the products of the activity of Superimposition. Therefore, Brahman/Sunyata/Advaita is not a thing, nor is it nothing (or Blank). It is a no-thing, since in order to be a thing, is to have a temporal location. Brahman is non-spatial and non-temporal. It is Void and Empty as it is not comprised of things nor is it by itself a "thing". But this Void is also Fullness of all existence in it's inexhaustible variety and multiplicity. Brahman is not the cause of all phenomena but all phenomena arise as a result of superimposition on Brahman by the inquirer/experiencer.

the problem with language is that they only really express concepts. The import of the teaching needs a good teacher (in order to be elucidated) what makes you think Advaita recommends "destroying the ego"? the need is to remove avidya or ignorance. ignorance happens as a result of maya (identification with lower truth/reality or phenomena). as to how this ignorance is removed varies. one could employ everything from chanting mantras , standing on ones head to sitting with the eyes crossed. the point is to occupy the mind on a task such that the underlying consciousness shines forth. There is no dichotomy here...at least not in my mind. But until we get to that stage where we can experientially verify these things, it must remain an open-minded exercise of the intellectual faculties. Thanks for an engaging discussion.

When there is nothing but Brahman, What is static? What is single? What is pure? What is being? Void of any description, characteristics and properties, does it have any value in ascribing descriptions/properties to it? Advaita Vedanta's position is that Brahman is non-phenomenal. It is not subject to the rules and categorical frameworks that are applied on Phenomena. It is (realization that everything is Brahman) is reached by transcending the categorical framework of names and descriptions. This is very simple. What is the point in making things so complicated by laying on layer after layer of the proverbial onion? Or since you have been in India and Varanasi, you surely must have eaten the Jalebi. We are going round and round in circles like the convolutions of the jalebi. Vedanta says the same thing with Brahman. Glad you haved realized it. I on the other hand am like the billions of people who are part of this samsara and will have to strive to break out of the egoic "I" before the fact that "I am Brahman" is evident. One thing that is very pertinent in this discussion, now that I think about it is this -- Buddhists (at least those on this forum) don't understand what Brahman is. Take all your posts, search and replace Sunyata with Brahman. Then see what you have.

Again...The Theory of Two-truths. Lower Truth/Reality and Higher Truth/Reality. Phenomena are not real and empty when contrasted with Brahman. They are real in the Vyavaharika realm. Guys this could go on and on. I think we are running around each other in circles... http://www.thaiexotictreasures.com/atman_o...he_sunyata.html

But phenomena are empty, not real. That is a problem with Buddhist understanding/interpretation of the "I" that is being referred to. It is not the Egoic "I". This "I" is after dissolving all ego-related things. For all it matters, the "I" can be "Blah". It is called I because of the subjective nature of the experience.

And when have I contradicted myself?

Not the sense that it is a material ground. If there is nothing but Brahman, then where is the ground, or the phenomenon and rising and falling?

This started with Mikaelz claiming that Brahman is considered ground of all phenomena (see Nondualism thread). It evidently is not. Question asked by evZENy is very pertinent -- "How can you compare two emptinesses"? Nirguna means without any properties. What is without any properties? Use logic and not blind adherence to what someone wrote about someone else's idea of someone else's idea