forestofemptiness

There are no properties and attributes apart from consciousness. You still have not told me where consciousness ends, and the so-called object begins. Also, no one has described to me the redness of red, or the soundless of a bird's chirp. I could easily say that objects cannot be defined, they simply are. Obviously, objects are not consciousness, for how do we see them? Obviously, objects not separate from consciousness, since objects depend on it. Either way, you fall into error. If you say consciousness is, what are you saying? Is there consciousness that is not? Is consciousness more in an objectless state and less in a state with objects? If so, then Pure Consciousness would have a beginning (the end of objects arising) and an end (the resumption of objects). Then, by your definition, it would be phenomenon. I apologize for being unable to formulate a definition of objects or consciousness, but as you can see, I find all definitions flawed.

Yes. You can do a simple experiment yourself, if you want to. Simply listen to a sound over and over again. If your mind is clear and concentrated, you will notice that following the bare sound, there is a mental arising, a name, a label, a recognition. If you repeat this often enough, the sound will arise without the label. Sometimes, the wrong label may apply. Sometimes no label applies. In Buddhism, this is the skhanda of perception. When I was a little kid, I used to say a word over and over again until it lost its meaning. Same trick.

If you suffer from a philosophical disease, then you may need a philosophical medicine. Philosophical debate can help loosen mind based attachments that prevent us from seeing the truth.

You can create a rift, but it is an illusory one that falls away when you investigate closely enough. Creating rifts is what dualistic consciousness is all about: you are there, I am here; this is mine, that is yours. The whole trouble is confusing these rifts with reality, and believing in them. The emptiness between thoughts is phenomenon. If not, then you wouldn't be aware of it. I would also ask, what is you objectless state like? Is it light? Is it dark? Is it quiet? Is it peaceful? Also, there is a flip side to your coin. You say consciousness may exist without objects (a point we're still discussing), but you haven't shown how objects are independent of consciousness. In fact, there is no object independent of consciousness. Even assuming that there is objectless consciousness, one could easily say it is like a still pond, and objects are ripples. Again, there is no clear separation between consciousness and objects. Finally, how does one arrive at the conclusion that consciousness does not change? If you can detect changeless, have a feeling, a thought, a perception, this is an object, not consciousness. The same happens when describing phenomenon. Please tell me, what is the sound of a sound? How is red different from blue? What is sweet versus sour?

I think you can reduce space and time to phenomenon, for aren't they objects of consciousness? Definitions are hard. Words and concepts involve choices, so something is always excluded. For example: phenomenon is an object of consciousness. This may imply a difference between objects and consciousness. Has anyone ever seen an object outside of consciousness? Where does consciousness end and the object begin? So let us say that objects are consciousness. But as pointed out, object arise and pass away. (Pure) consciousness remains. If consciousness and objects were one, how would one tell the difference between the earth and the sky? Why can't we see consciousness? Where can we take a position?

Why is it we ask: what can TTB do for me? But we don't ask: what can I do for TTB? And I mean to offer without thought of getting something back, but just to offer, and forget it.

When there is no self that can be attacked Then what feels attacked cannot be the self Let go of this and be free

Nice translation. It seems that, as we get anywhere close to pure consciousness, immediately the mind seizes upon it and turns it into some thing. I think this is why Lao Tzu and the Zen masters emphasize so much letting go and dropping. One question: in Sanskrit, what the terms Pure Consciousness and Consciousness with Subject and Object?

The difference between a talker and a walker is clear. The fact that you don't seem to realize your posts are garbage show what you do and do not know about the viewless view. But then, it doesn't really matter, does it? All the world is a bodhimandala leading us to awakening, in our own time, in our own way.

Correction. Vajrahridaya states "a" Buddhist view, which others may or may not share. It may be a surprise to some, but there is no Buddhist pope! I think we can look at this thread and the Buddhism v. Advaita thread as a good learning point of what is called a "thicket of views."

What are you looking to do? Luckily, it is almost impossible to go in the wrong direction!

Upadhi?

The brilliance is in you. The people on this board are just the conditions that bring it out.

Delaying the inevitable? One may suggest that change is death. How can one create, in a compounded, impermanent body, that which never changes and/or dies?

What sees Brahman?

It seems that you don't seem to like the taste of the tea you serve to others. If you were walking by your brother, and you saw him stuffing himself with poisonous mushrooms, smiling at their taste, would you worry about your own suffering? Hopefully, you would say "Put down those mushrooms!" Trust me, you are teaching me far more than I could ever teach you. Perhaps not in the way you intend, but in a priceless way nonetheless.

Vajrahridaya, I wonder what would happen if you just put it down? Why look for diamonds in the dog crap? All your words, your theories, your posts have one taste, the taste of craving. Being a Buddhist doesn't mean you practice the dhamma, and practicing the dhamma doesn't mean you're a Buddhist. xuesheng, It is ironic, but how else can it be?

What reason does anyone have to think that something which is born, that is to say, is finite and has a beginning, will never die?

1. No, not Tao. I can see how you might make that mistake, though. In the space of a single hair, there is the difference between heaven and hell. 2. Buddha taught the end of suffering, not the beginning of transcendence. If you truly understood dependent origination, you would know that all this transcendence is suffering.

Comparing spiritual traditions is like comparing languages. When you say, which is right and wrong, you are not even asking the right question. If people spent ten percent of the time they spend on collecting, arguing, debating, and analyzing spiritual concepts on putting the path into practice, in both theory and practice, then everyone would see how silly all of this is.

Ha ha! That's not the Tao!

Vajrahridaya, When you see the Tao, which you will, then you will see what a foolish statement this is. In fact, you will see how foolish all statements are. Where do you think you are going to? Dwai, As a Buddhist, I agree with everything you say. It is true, but also false because any statement only reveals half the equation. The paths are different, but the end is the same. How can it be otherwise? One can see the Tao shitting on the toilet if the conditions are right.

The Tao includes both Advaita and Buddhism. Why all this arguing?

Hello! I have been on these forums for a few years as forestofsouls. In light of certain recent events, I feel that it is appropriate to no longer continue under my old moniker as some of what I wrote in the past is wrong. I am a Buddhist practitioner who also practices chi kung and philosophical Taoism. Good to meet you all!

If you already have an answer, then why ask the question?