What is a phenomenon?

[Vajrahridaya]

Vajrahridaya you word it better. 'flow' is good word to use to describe the impermanent nature of phenomena. phenomena changes fluidly dependent on causes and conditions. the flow of change is all that is, there is no substance or reality behind form.. no source behind form. form just is. constant change

 

Realization is as constant as the detached and accepting awareness of inconsistency.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

"my buddhism is better than your buddhism..!"

 

 

But Dwai... don't you understand? It's true! The Buddhism of Buddhas is going to be better than the Buddhism of non-Buddhas.

 

Of course there is going to be better versions of Buddhism than other forms "originating dependent" upon such multifarious complexities of conditions.

 

Some more proof of your misunderstanding of dependent origination and how deep and complex the cosmos is. Because the cosmos is not based upon some non-conceptual ground or will of all, but it's based upon how complex movement happens.

 

pratityasamutpada transcends the ideation of atman/theism/monism.

[forestofemptiness]

Well, there is more to the story. There is no self, dukkha, dependent origination, the skhandas, craving and its effects, etc. etc.

 

But even the whole story is part of the story, so what you say still applies. I think this is part of the reason Buddhism developed into many schools that negate each other. What you say is not different from what the Buddha taught, either.

 

Sometimes we have to be stubborn before we become flexible. Sometimes we have to act like idiots before we can be wise. Sometimes we have to exhaust the side paths before we see their folly.

 

I like lightbulb jokes. One says: How many Zen masters does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: None. Change must come from within.

 

Buddhism is wrong to assert that phenomena are impermanent and that's that, because that's not the whole story. Buddhists focus on the passing away aspect of phenomena, but they could have focused on constant refreshment or re-arising too, but they do not. So it's biased toward perishing.

[evZENy]

i've never asked for any of these.

 

It's not even fun to do this, but...

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?showto...ect+with+Taoism

 

Yes, I guess people, who like peace are egoists.

Fine with me - another way we see words and concepts in different ways..

[Vajrahridaya]

Dwai,

 

Certainly you must think that the Advaita Vedantin interpretation of Vedic thought is better than the Hare Krishnas who interpret you guys as Mayavids and list Krishna as the only true God that you are never able to attain oneness with and interpret the Bhagavad Gita in an entirely different way than you would.

 

One interpretation is obviously more logically clear than the other. Both are good paths that lead to higher rebirth, but one I think leads more closely to liberation from Samsara than the other one.

 

Though both are good, one Vedanta is clearly better and more clear than the other Vedanta.

[Unconditioned]

Dwai,

 

Certainly you must think that the Advaita Vedantin interpretation of Vedic thought is better than the Hare Krishnas who interpret you guys as Mayavids and list Krishna as the only true God that you are never able to attain oneness with and interpret the Bhagavad Gita in an entirely different way than you would.

 

One interpretation is obviously more logically clear than the other. Both are good paths that lead to higher rebirth, but one I think leads more closely to liberation from Samsara than the other one.

 

Though both are good, one Vedanta is clearly better and more clear than the other Vedanta.

 

"Better" always carries a metric. Red is better than Blue (if you're using a light over long distances). Blue is better than Red (if it happens to be your favorite color).

 

What astounds me is how long this thread has gotten and even more so how much closed minded it is (all over the place). I've seen it all here saying there are no absolutes.. well.. except 'my' view, that's surely absolutely the best truth.

 

Would there be an argument if there wasn't a strong sense of self? Why the need to be right? Why the need to continue making the same points and finding holes in the other side's arguments?

 

Sounds far from right speech and also far from an unconditioned Atman/Brahman.

[goldisheavy]

If one experientially understands the Heart Sutra, then yes...

 

Exactly. That's what prajna paramita is all about. It's not about getting stuck in one doctrine. You use a doctrine to wash away all the fixations such that even the doctrine you have relied on gets washed away as well. This leaves you perfectly capable of using any doctrine for any purpose, making up your own doctrines by the thousands, being creative or following, you are left with total responsibility and complete freedom. This means you can use Advaita to demonstrate anything you want to demonstrate. You can even use Buddha's doctrine to demonstrate all the opposite things of what we believe Buddha Gotama wanted to demonstrate. That's what flexibility and non-fixation is all about.

 

Shirdi Sai Baba said it well. He said that the language that mystics use to instruct a person is kind of a lie. He said it's like using a thorn to take out another thorn and when you're done, you dispose of both thorns.

 

Another example is like using a toothbrush. If you can pick it up enough to brush your teeth, that's good. But if you cannot put it down after brushing, you have a disease there.

 

Or like a house. If you can enter the house, that's good. But if you cannot exit the house, the house becomes useless.

 

Being able to put something down and being able to leave something behind is essential to keeping that something useful. A Buddhist doctrine becomes useless if you cannot put it down. This is also why dogmatist and people seeking prajna paramita are so far apart. Dogmatists believe there is one superior doctrine and you just use it over and over and everything else is wrong. People who prize prajna paramita see both wisdom and pitfalls in all doctrines and they can use "bad" doctrines without falling into the pitfalls, and they use "good" doctrines without entertaining the slightest idea of the extreme goodness.

 

Remember that Buddha way is the way beyond all extremes? Buddha Dharma is not extremely correct. It's just handy if you use it well. Part of the practice for Buddhist Monks is to debate against everything they believe is right. There is a reason for that. Have you ever tried to earnestly take down (philosophically) any of Buddha's teachings? It may be worthwhile to attempt it from time to time.

[Vajrahridaya]

"Better" always carries a metric. Red is better than Blue (if you're using a light over long distances). Blue is better than Red (if it happens to be your favorite color).

 

What astounds me is how long this thread has gotten and even more so how much closed minded it is (all over the place). I've seen it all here saying there are no absolutes.. well.. except 'my' view, that's surely absolutely the best truth.

 

Would there be an argument if there wasn't a strong sense of self? Why the need to be right? Why the need to continue making the same points and finding holes in the other side's arguments?

 

Sounds far from right speech and also far from an unconditioned Atman/Brahman.

 

Yeah... a lot of seems, huh?

[goldisheavy]

pratityasamutpada transcends the ideation of atman/theism/monism.

 

It even transcends pratityasamutpada and anatman as well. Amazing, isn't it? When you understand codependent arising, what will you fixate on as an ornament of your understanding?

 

Sometimes we have to be stubborn before we become flexible. Sometimes we have to act like idiots before we can be wise. Sometimes we have to exhaust the side paths before we see their folly.

 

Yes, without this it's not authentic. A person cannot just agree with someone else mindlessly. Someone who wants the perfection of wisdom (prajna paramita) needs to discover this wisdom as innate, and the only way to do so, is to use others only as support for one's own understanding instead of blindly following those others. So I don't expect too much agreement. A person has to attempt to chew the diamond before becoming familiar with its hardness.

[Vajrahridaya]

Exactly. That's what prajna paramita is all about. It's not about getting stuck in one doctrine. You use a doctrine to wash away all the fixations such that even the doctrine you have relied on gets washed away as well. This leaves you perfectly capable of using any doctrine for any purpose, making up your own doctrines by the thousands, being creative or following, you are left with total responsibility and complete freedom. This means you can use Advaita to demonstrate anything you want to demonstrate. You can even use Buddha's doctrine to demonstrate all the opposite things of what we believe Buddha Gotama wanted to demonstrate. That's what flexibility and non-fixation is all about.

 

goldisheavy... none of this really leads anyone to clarity. More New Age mumbo jumbo gumbo soup anyone?

 

Even after one has realized emptiness, one still develops capacities. Sure, bodhisattvas take birth in different traditions in order to help people unto more and more clarity according to their capacity. But, what's the use of talking about that? Why not just talk about what really is the clear path to liberation and what is actually the clear way of viewing the cosmos? What path has some real method and view, not just total clarity philosophically, but real methods of application for inner transformation and development of capacities for developing the siddhis for the sake of transmitting and revealing? Which path has real clarity in intention for bringing about the development of true compassion? Which path is really complete and can be fully utilized to develop more capacity for teaching even after one has realized Buddhahood?

 

Fixation on a non-conceptual ground of being is still a fixation that leads to ignorant re-birth, even after a thousands kalpas of blissful chillin' out with your favorite deity.

 

What path activates beings even in states of deep meditative Nirvana to take up the vow to liberate endless sentient beings and develop more capacity in order to do so?

 

goldisheavy... I used to think like what your trying to show through your metaphors. If you go on E-Sangha and check out my first posts from 2003 and on... I had lots of wonderful metaphors that revealed the same truth that your trying to display with exactly the same intent.

 

I do appreciate your creativity.

 

It even transcends pratityasamutpada and anatman as well. Amazing, isn't it? When you understand codependent arising, what will you fixate on as an ornament of your understanding?

 

Sure, but one will still teach it as the ultimate teaching. Because even after transcending it, one still works and expresses through it even as a Buddha, as pratityasamutpada is how the cosmos works.

Edited June 12, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[evZENy]

Still standing on my post 86:

What is the search for, if you already know the answers!?

 

Though both are good, one Vedanta is clearly better and more clear than the other Vedanta.

From my point the same LOL can be used for the 36 schools of Buddhism that appeared the day after Buddha died. And still many sects exist today - one Buddhism must be better than the other?

 

Absolutely support Unconditioned on his view about the thread, the claims in it and the ego amounted.

Will kick some butt, Sunday, Dwai....! :-)

[Vajrahridaya]

Still standing on my post 86:

What is the search for, if you already know the answers!?

 

I'm not a fan of Krishnamurti as his view is not clear and there are no real methods for transformation. He doesn't understand co-dependent arising. He just says some enlightening things that make one's emotions float a bit. No actual practical application methods. People that read him I find have all these concepts about enlightenment that are like a house of cards.

 

Osho seemed like a nice guy with a good intellect. But again, no real method and he did not have a complete view either.

 

People who follow these guys New Age jumbo soup I find don't have real clear attainment, just mushy words. Look at Osho, getting kicked out of America for embezzlement.

 

His method... just shake yourself around and go into trance states, do what you want, follow your karmas...

 

Osho had a wonderful watch and car collection though! He also laid some hotties!! Nothing inherently wrong with that...

 

 

 

 

From my point the same LOL can be used for the 36 schools of Buddhism that appeared the day after Buddha died. And still many sects exist today - one Buddhism must be better than the other?

 

They are all at their core based on the 4 noble truths and the 8 fold noble path. They have anatta and co-dependent arising as a foundation, vipassana and jhana or samatha as well.

 

People develop over many lives and need different interpretations at times, karmas are complicated and there is no supreme will behind the cosmos so there is going to be some views that are more clear than others, some methods that work better and some teachers that are indeed more enlightened than others. This is the relative universe we live in and this is what dependent origination means on a certain level as well.

 

Take care... kick butt well?

[evZENy]

But again, no real method and he did not have a complete view either.

 

The guy created TONS of methods for the Modern Human. Lots of different Dynamic meditations.

Not to mention his contribution to the explanation of the existing methods (check "The Book of Secrets")

 

Again - not sure how this answers my question.

 

If Buddha gave you the Answer, why keep on searching? Why hanging in Taoist and other forums?

Buddha didn't advocate that to my knowledge, so logically there is a different answer, no? :-)

[dwai]

Dwai,

 

Certainly you must think that the Advaita Vedantin interpretation of Vedic thought is better than the Hare Krishnas who interpret you guys as Mayavids and list Krishna as the only true God that you are never able to attain oneness with and interpret the Bhagavad Gita in an entirely different way than you would.

 

One interpretation is obviously more logically clear than the other. Both are good paths that lead to higher rebirth, but one I think leads more closely to liberation from Samsara than the other one.

 

Though both are good, one Vedanta is clearly better and more clear than the other Vedanta.

 

No I dont. Shankara was not just an author of complex philosophy, he was also the author of compositions such as Bhavani Ashtakam, Aatma Shatakam, etc.

 

Advaita Vedanta considers all valid paths to spiritual inquiry as valid foundations for ultimate absorption/realization.

 

The Vaishnavas or Shaivas are bhaktas of Saguna Brahman. So much so that at their pinnacle they will naturally start identifying with their deity. Maybe some will understand that Saguna Brahman is simply a limited version of Nirguna Brahman.

 

Also Vaishnavas are famously Dvaitins or dualists. They reject Advaita completely. That doesn't mean that advaita doesn't consider sincere attempts at seeking the truth as invalid. They are limited. As it seems your version of Buddhism is.

 

That's why Shankara's advice to the "Moodha" scholar -- "Bhaja Govindam Moodhamate"...

 

In other words, the necessity to show "exclusivism" is a tell-tale sign of deep-rooted insecurities. I am not sure if all Buddhists are this way or is it simply the hallmark of neophytes who overcompensate for their newly-converted status.

 

The Dalai Lama sure doesn't seem that way...yet you guys do. Why?

 

Why is it so hard to see the underlying unity of ultimate truth? The truth is the same, different categorical frameworks give different results, which are limited views of the ultimate truth.

 

EvZENy,

 

I'm excited about starting the sword practice on Sunday. Hope it doesn't rain like last week!

Edited June 12, 2009 by dwai

[Vajrahridaya]

 

If Buddha gave you the Answer, why keep on searching? Why hanging in Taoist and other forums?

Buddha didn't advocate that to my knowledge, so logically there is a different answer, no? :-)

 

Why not hang out in forums and have discussions?

[Vajrahridaya]

No I dont. Shankara was not just an author of complex philosophy, he was also the author of compositions such as Bhavani Ashtakam, Aatma Shatakam, etc.

 

Yes, I'm familiar.

 

Advaita Vedanta considers all valid paths to spiritual inquiry as valid foundations for ultimate absorption/realization.

 

Buddhism is not an absorption path, it's a cutting through path. We use absorptions to heighten capacity for insight.

 

The Vaishnavas or Shaivas are bhaktas of Saguna Brahman. So much so that at their pinnacle they will naturally start identifying with their deity. Maybe some will understand that Saguna Brahman is simply a limited version of Nirguna Brahman.

 

Also Vaishnavas are famously Dvaitins or dualists. They reject Advaita completely. That doesn't mean that advaita doesn't consider sincere attempts at seeking the truth as invalid. They are limited. As it seems your version of Buddhism is.

 

No, my version of Buddhism has not been understood by you as of yet. But you admit that the dvaitins have a limited view and so Advaita is a clearer interpretation.

 

That's why Shankara's advice to the "Moodha" scholar -- "Bhaja Govindam Moodhamate"...

 

In other words, the necessity to show "exclusivism" is a tell-tale sign of deep-rooted insecurities. I am not sure if all Buddhists are this way or is it simply the hallmark of neophytes who overcompensate for their newly-converted status.

 

It's good to be clear about the path and where it leads. Debate is good to clarify the meaning. You can ad-hom all you want though... that's fine.

 

 

The Dalai Lama sure doesn't seem that way...yet you guys do. Why?

 

Actually the Dalai Lama is quite the exclusivist, though highly tolerant. He is also a Rime scholar and practices all the different lineages of Vajrayana. But, he does not believe the absorption paths to be complete paths. He has spoken on this before that Buddhism is the only complete path. He wouldn't say this to a large group of multi-faith gatherer's. But he has in various books authored by him.

 

Why is it so hard to see the underlying unity of ultimate truth? The truth is the same, different categorical frameworks give different results, which are limited views of the ultimate truth.

 

Why is it so hard to see that there is no ultimate truth underlying everything in Buddhism, there is no substratum. You still... miss the point and superimpose your view of superimposition over co-dependent origination which shows that there is no single one non-thing that all things are dependent upon. That's not what co-dependent arising means.

 

Advaita enlightenment is not the same as Buddhahood. It's not just words...

 

EvZENy,

 

I'm excited about starting the sword practice on Sunday. Hope it doesn't rain like last week!

 

Oooo, swords, I used to practice sword fighting.

[dwai]

Yes, I'm familiar.

Buddhism is not an absorption path, it's a cutting through path. We use absorptions to heighten capacity for insight.

No, my version of Buddhism has not been understood by you as of yet. But you admit that the dvaitins have a limited view and so Advaita is a clearer interpretation.

It's good to be clear about the path and where it leads. Debate is good to clarify the meaning. You can ad-hom all you want though... that's fine.

Actually the Dalai Lama is quite the exclusivist, though highly tolerant. He is also a Rime scholar and practices all the different lineages of Vajrayana. But, he does not believe the absorption paths to be complete paths. He has spoken on this before that Buddhism is the only complete path. He wouldn't say this to a large group of multi-faith gatherer's. But he has in various books authored by him.

 

Quote some...and if he has said different things publicly vs privately, that makes him a hypocrite and dishonest.

 

Why is it so hard to see that there is no ultimate truth underlying everything in Buddhism, there is no substratum. You still... miss the point and superimpose your view of superimposition over co-dependent origination which shows that there is no single one non-thing that all things are dependent upon. That's not what co-dependent arising means.

 

No you dont see it. Dependent Origination is only valid in phenomenal realm. Brahman is non-phenomenal.

Nothing you can say or do can prove that Brahman is a phenomenon. Or Aatman for that matter.

 

 

Advaita enlightenment is not the same as Buddhahood. It's not just words...

 

They are the same and it is just words. Over-zealous buddhists just like to believe that they are not the same.

 

Oooo, swords, I used to practice sword fighting.

 

Actually we are starting off learning the Tai Chi sword forms.

[Sunya]

They are the same and it is just words. Over-zealous buddhists just like to believe that they are not the same.

 

Sankara didn't believe they were the same, he argued incessantly against Buddhists. I guess he was wrong seeing as you know more than him.

[Vajrahridaya]

Quote some...and if he has said different things publicly vs privately, that makes him a hypocrite and dishonest.

 

He doesn't say different things, he just speaks different topics at appropriate times. He is all about inter-religious dialogue and freedom of religion. But, he doesn't think that all religions have it right. This is not something he says in public talks though. Why should he? He's a political figure and most of his public talks are not about going into the nitty gritty on Buddhist philosophy. What he talks about that is universal is the need for compassion and that most all religions talk about being kind to your neighbors, etc. Though they differ in their ideas of how the cosmos works and what liberation from Samsara means, which are topics he leaves for some of his books and transmissions to sincere Buddhist seekers. He is far from a hypocrite.

 

I'll try to find some quotes for you, but it'll take some digging...

 

Maybe Michaelz can help me a bit too. I've seen him quote some things?

 

No you dont see it. Dependent Origination is only valid in phenomenal realm. Brahman is non-phenomenal.

 

Not according to Buddhism. Dependent Origination applies to every dimension of experience, including faceless consciousness which is a state of absorption and not classified as the ultimate place of all things. Your still just projecting your Advaita ideas onto Buddhist ones thinking your right. It's kind of an imperialist thing. Just like when Hindu's equated Buddha with an incarnation of Vishnu who came to just teach people compassion and non-violence. That shows how little study was done of the actual Buddhas teachings to come up with such silliness. In Buddhism there is no faceless consciousness that we are all one with. Everything is not the play of one infinite consciousness, it is the play of intermingling beginningless infinite consciousness'. This is a fundamental Buddhist teaching from the classical Abhidharma that is completely at odd's with your conclusions and the conclusions of Advaita Vedanta.

 

This is not my version of Buddhism, this is just Buddhism.

 

 

Nothing you can say or do can prove that Brahman is a phenomenon. Or Aatman for that matter.

They are the same and it is just words. Over-zealous buddhists just like to believe that they are not the same.

Actually we are starting off learning the Tai Chi sword forms.

 

Brahman is a phenomenon because it's experiential. Advaitins just think that because the experience is powerful and that it seems to subsume everything that it's the ultimate truth, it's actually the ultimate final veil that fools the jiva into thinking everything is one ultimate person that we are all expressions of that arise, sustain for a while, then subside in that one person, which is why absorption paths are considered wrong to Buddhism. To a Buddhist this is a mistaken cognition which is why the Buddha taught that vipassana transcends jhana and that only these two hand in hand through practice does one transcend the powerful absorption states of infinite consciousness, infinite nothingness, infinite space and neither perception nor non-perception. It doesn't matter what Vedanta says is true, because Buddhism disagree's from the outset. It has nothing to do with being over-zealous, it's about clarifying the meaning and not making confused gumbo stew.

Edited June 12, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[forestofemptiness]

It seems like one is either preaching to the choir, who have had similar insights, or wasting one's breath. What do you do?

 

Shoot the arrow and pray to God that it finds an appropriate target? Perhaps the only way.

 

It's strange--- GIH, your posts have been hauntingly clear lately. It seems that one of us has realized something recently.

 

It even transcends pratityasamutpada and anatman as well. Amazing, isn't it? When you understand codependent arising, what will you fixate on as an ornament of your understanding?

Yes, without this it's not authentic. A person cannot just agree with someone else mindlessly. Someone who wants the perfection of wisdom (prajna paramita) needs to discover this wisdom as innate, and the only way to do so, is to use others only as support for one's own understanding instead of blindly following those others. So I don't expect too much agreement. A person has to attempt to chew the diamond before becoming familiar with its hardness.

[Vajrahridaya]

Shoot the arrow and pray to God that it finds an appropriate target?

 

God... what's that? The interconnecting karma of infinite mind streams? Or a mysterious will who is secretly rolling dice with our lives?

[goldisheavy]

It seems like one is either preaching to the choir, who have had similar insights, or wasting one's breath. What do you do?

 

In that case I just take a break.

[xabir2005]

Edited June 13, 2009 by xabir2005

[dwai]

Experiencing presence-awareness as formlessness, odorless, colorless, attributeless and thoughtlessness, the transcendental I AMness is just the beginning.

 

Next one must experience and realise presence-awareness AS all forms, sounds, odors, everything... without a self.

 

Then one must empty the aggregates, even the presence is empty of inherent independent existence, being inseparable from all factors and conditions.

 

But JK is very clear about no-self and non-dual, experientially. He also does not speak about atman-brahman. U.G. Krishnamurti is similar though he doesn't like JK.

 

Just not emptiness/D.O. yet.

 

The method of JK is to pay attention like in Vipassana. Studies have been made to parallel J Krishnamurt's teachings with Buddhism and Vipassana. It's interesting that JK himself remembered being Buddha's student (a monk in his sangha) in his past life.

 

See http://www.buddhanet.net/bvk_study/bvk002.htm

 

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

 

Everything about us, within as well as without-our relationships, our thoughts, our feelings-is impermanent in a constant state of flux. Being aware of this, the mind craves permanency, a perpetual state of peace, of love, of goodness, a security that neither time nor events can destroy; therefore it creates the soul, the Atman, and the visions of a permanent paradise. But this permanency is born of impermanency, and so it has within it the seeds of the impermanent. There is only one fact impermanence.

 

-Commentaries on Living (Third Series) p.253

 

Thought creates the thinker. Thought is always seeking a permanent state seeing its own state of transition or flux or impermanence, thought creates an entity which it calls the thinker, the atman, Paramatman, the soul-a higher and higher security. That is thought creates an entity which it calls the observer, the experiencer, the permanent thinker as distinct from the impermanent thought and the wide distance between two creates the conflict in time.

 

-KFT CD-ROM

 

So we are asking is there a holistic awareness of all the senses, therefore there is never asking for the 'more'. I wonder if you follow all this ?. Are we together in this even partially? And where there is this total - fully aware - of all the senses, awareness of it - not you are aware of it.... the awareness of the senses in themselves - then there is no centre - in which there is awareness of the wholeness. If you consider it, you will see that to suppress the senses... is contradictory, conflicting, sorrowful.... To understand the truth you must have complete sensitivity. Do you understand Sirs? Reality demands your whole being; you must come to it with your body, mind, and heart as a total human being..... Insight is complete total attention....

When this is a fact not an idea, then dualism and division between observer and observed comes to an end. The observer is the observed - they are not separate states. The observer and the observed are a joint phenomenon and when you experience that directly then you will find that the thing which you have dreaded as emptiness which makes you seek escape into various forms of sensation including religion - ceases and you are able to face it and be it.

 

- Collection of K teachings from the KFT CDROM

 

Watch what is happening inside you, do not think, but just watch, do not move your eye-balls, just keep them very, very quiet, because there is nothing to see now, you have seen all the things around you, now you are seeing what is happening inside your mind, and to see what is happening inside your mind, you have to be very quiet inside. And when you do this, do you know what happens to you? You become very sensitive, you become very alert to things outside and inside. Then you find out that the outside is the inside, then you find out that the observer is the observed.

 

- Pg 36, K on education

 

As long as there is the thinker and the thought, there must be duality. As long as there is a seeker who is seeking, there must be duality. As long as there is an experiencer and the thing to be experienced, there must be duality. So duality exists when there is the observer and the observed. That is, as long as there is a centre, the censor, the observer, the thinker, the seeker, the experiencer as the centre, there must be the opposite.

 

- Talks by Krishnamurty in India 1966 p.72

 

You look at this magnificent tree and you wonder who is watching whom and presently there is no watcher at all. Everything is so intensely alive and there is only life, and the watcher is as dead as that leaf... Utterly still... listening without a moment of action, without recording, without experiencing, only seeing and listening... really the outside is the inside and the inside is the outside, and it is difficult, almost impossible to separate them. (p. 214)

 

- Krishnamurti (1976)

 

that's why Brahman is silence.

[Vajrahridaya]

that's why Brahman is silence.

 

Your identifying everything with a single presence, but to Buddhism, does not inherently exist in and of itself. Your still thinking that there is only one mind.

 

The realization is still individual realizing of non-dual non-self flow of every self flow...

 

It's so subtle.

 

Yet, still, there is work to be done and Mahayana talks about the work, while Advaita just subsumes it with a singularity, but Buddhism say's it's more complicated than "that".

 

Edit... let me clarify; there is the single presence of realizing the true nature of all things, but it's an individual Buddhas realization based upon knowing directly the interconnection of inherently empty things and so called non-things (brahmanic realizers) which are things to Buddhism so much as it's experiential. It's not a single consciousness or will, it's seeing through the "infinite will's" as play here, that connect within an infinite paradigm of seeing directly how all things are connected endlessly. No beginning.

Edited June 13, 2009 by Vajrahridaya