More nails in the Coffin of the non-existent Self

[Vajrahridaya]

Interesting V, if I'm hearing you correctly in regards to your sentence: "...It is a formless unconscious that persists due to the persistent clinging to existence as absolute and not relative"; as being one of your key interpretations of "Buddhism" then you have just attempted to refute the Buddha in his teachings of the Surangama Sutra concerning the "Absolute"... since the Absolute he points to does not exist relatively as you imply but "beyond".

 

Om

 

Your translation may be faulty? You'd have to give me some direct quotes.

 

The realization of relativity is absolute in the state of a Buddha, thus the persistence of the dharma body of a Buddha is absolute and endless, relative to the endless insight of dependent origination seeing through it directly and consciously through the insight of emptiness.

[3bob]

Your translation may be faulty? You'd have to give me some direct quotes.

 

The realization of relativity is absolute in the state of a Buddha, thus the persistence of the dharma body of a Buddha is absolute and endless, relative to the endless insight of dependent origination seeing through it directly and consciously through the insight of emptiness.

 

[Vajrahridaya]

 

So you'd rather roll your eyes than give me some quotes I can work with? I have not read the entire Shurangama Sutra in a long time but I never found in there support for some sort of ultimate self standing existence of all that is beyond relative arising.

 

Please support your statement... if you care to have a discussion that is.

 

P.S. In Buddhism, there is a beyond the beyond insight, but not a beyond the beyond essence, unless one were to call this insight the essence of Buddhahood, but this still does not mean inherent existence, as this insight arises dependently.

Edited July 31, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[xabir2005]

This doesn't make much sense. Describe the phenomena of a tissue box. And you would give me a list of descriptions, its shape, its form, it's atomic structure, its purpose, its place in culture, and so on. But none of descriptions would be the very experience of the tissue box, only representations of experiences related to "tissue box." Experience of tissue box is vastly different from context to context when it is represented via symbols, only direct experience reveals it as it is. So the tissue box can't really be described, because description creates another "tissue box" within the mind, the mind formulates a representation, which is yet another tissue box altogether. And from these false habits of thought, be believe "tissue box" as an inherently existing phenomena.

 

So is "tissue box" a phenomenon that can be found? Is a separate phenomena actually locatable?

Was just reminded of an old post by Thusness in 2005:

 

Just a point to add, (regarding) the pristine awareness "...is formless, as if nothing whatsoever, ungraspable, unborn, undying;..."

These characteristics arent attributes peculiar only to pure awareness, all phenomenon existence posses this seemingly unknowable and ungraspable nature. It simply is how reality is where pure awareness has no monopoly at all.

[3bob]

[xabir2005]

So you'd rather roll your eyes than give me some quotes I can work with? I have not read the entire Shurangama Sutra in a long time but I never found in there support for some sort of ultimate self standing existence of all that is beyond relative arising.

 

Please support your statement... if you care to have a discussion that is.

 

P.S. In Buddhism, there is a beyond the beyond insight, but not a beyond the beyond essence, unless one were to call this insight the essence of Buddhahood, but this still does not mean inherent existence, as this insight arises dependently.

Here's a more accurate translation:

 

http://www.cttbusa.org/shurangama6/shurangama6_15.asp

 

Sutra:

 

The Buddha said, "Ananda, you should know that the wonderful nature is perfect and bright, apart from all names and appearances. Basically there is no world, nor are there any living beings."

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

Umm, "as this insight arises dependently", and now you are apparently refuting the Udana sutra:

 

“There is, Oh Monks, a not-born, a not-become, a not-made, a not-compounded. Monks, if that unborn, not-become, not-made, not-compounded were not, there would be no escape from this here that is born, become, made and compounded.”

 

No where above is the Buddha saying or defining a limit to just or only, "insight arises dependently";

 

This is the insight of emptiness, not pointing to an absolute self existence. You are taking this statement out of context and subjecting it to an idealism of a Self. This is a mistaken interpretation of the statement. Because all phenomena are empty of inherent existence, and because things cannot be established, it's as if the arisen has never become. This is the insight of emptiness, not an inherent existence. This insight in deed de=limits ones awareness.

 

Indeed - he is giving an unmeasureable description of "that" but apparently you do not understand such, and that is ok just call it V's school.

 

Actually, my interpretation is standard Buddhism. There is not a single Theravadin that would agree with your interpretation of this quote from the Udana Sutta.

 

"Udana Sutta: Exclamation

translated from the Pali by

Thanissaro Bhikkhu

© 1995–2010

 

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One exclaimed this exclamation: "'It should not be, it should not occur to me;[1] it will not be, it will not occur to me':[2] a monk set on this would break the [five] lower fetters."

 

When this was said, a certain monk said to the Blessed One, "In what way would a monk set on this — 'It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me' — break the [five] lower fetters?"

 

"There is the case, monk, where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

 

"He assumes feeling to be the self, or the self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in the self, or the self as in feeling. He assumes perception to be the self, or the self as possessing perception, or perception as in the self, or the self as in perception. He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self, or the self as possessing fabrications, or fabrications as in the self, or the self as in fabrications. He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.

 

"He does not discern, as it actually is, inconstant form as 'inconstant form.' He does not discern, as it actually is, inconstant feeling as 'inconstant feeling' ... inconstant perception as 'inconstant perception' ... inconstant fabrications as 'inconstant fabrications' ... inconstant consciousness as 'inconstant consciousness.'

 

"He does not discern, as it actually is, stressful form as 'stressful form' ... stressful feeling as 'stressful feeling' ... stressful perception as 'stressful perception' ... stressful fabrications as 'stressful fabrications' ... stressful consciousness as 'stressful consciousness.'

 

"He does not discern, as it actually is, not-self form as 'not-self form' ... not-self feeling as 'not-self feeling' ... not-self perception as 'not-self perception' ... not-self fabrications as 'not-self fabrications' ... not-self consciousness as 'not-self consciousness.'

 

"He does not discern, as it actually is, fabricated form as 'fabricated form' ... fabricated feeling as 'fabricated feeling' ... fabricated perception as 'fabricated perception' ... fabricated fabrications as 'fabricated fabrications' ... fabricated consciousness as 'fabricated consciousness.'

 

"He does not discern, as it actually is, that 'form will stop being' ... 'feeling will stop being' ... 'perception will stop being' ... 'fabrications will stop being' ... 'consciousness will stop being.'

 

"Now, a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for nobles ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He does not assume feeling to be the self... does not assume perception to be the self ... does not assume fabrications to be the self... He does not assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.

 

"He discerns, as it actually is, inconstant form as 'inconstant form' ... inconstant feeling as 'inconstant feeling' ... inconstant perception as 'inconstant perception' ... inconstant fabrications as 'inconstant fabrications' ... inconstant consciousness as 'inconstant consciousness.'

 

"He discerns, as it actually is, stressful form as 'stressful form' ... stressful feeling as 'stressful feeling' ... stressful perception as 'stressful perception' ... stressful fabrications as 'stressful fabrications' ... stressful consciousness as 'stressful consciousness.'

 

"He discerns, as it actually is, not-self form as 'not-self form' ... not-self feeling as 'not-self feeling' ... not-self perception as 'not-self perception' ... not-self fabrications as 'not-self fabrications' ... not-self consciousness as 'not-self consciousness.'

 

"He discerns, as it actually is, fabricated form as 'fabricated form' ... fabricated feeling as 'fabricated feeling' ... fabricated perception as 'fabricated perception' ... fabricated fabrications as 'fabricated fabrications' ... fabricated consciousness as 'fabricated consciousness.'

 

"He discerns, as it actually is, that 'form will stop being' ... 'feeling will stop being' ... 'perception will stop being' ... 'fabrications will stop being' ... 'consciousness will stop being.'

 

"From the stopping of form, from the stopping of feeling ... of perception ... of fabrications ... of consciousness, a monk set on this — 'It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me' — would break the [five] lower fetters."

 

"Lord, a monk set on this would break the [five] lower fetters. But for one knowing in what way, seeing in what way, is there the immediate ending of fermentations?"

 

"There is the case where an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person ... falls into fear over what is not grounds for fear. There is fear for an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person [who thinks], 'It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me.' But an instructed disciple of the noble ones does not fall into fear over what is not grounds for fear. There is no fear for an instructed disciple of the noble ones [who thinks], 'It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me.'

 

"Should consciousness, when standing (still), stand attached to (a physical) form, supported by form (as its object), established on form, watered with delight, it would exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation.

 

"Should consciousness, when standing (still), stand attached to feeling, supported by feeling (as its object), established on feeling, watered with delight, it would exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation.

 

"Should consciousness, when standing (still), stand attached to perception, supported by perception (as its object), established on perception, watered with delight, it would exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation.

 

"Should consciousness, when standing (still), stand attached to fabrications, supported by fabrications (as its object), established on fabrications, watered with delight, it would exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation.

 

"Were someone to say, 'I will describe a coming, a going, a passing away, an arising, a growth, an increase, or a proliferation of consciousness apart from form, from feeling, from perception, from fabrications,' that would be impossible.

 

"If a monk abandons passion for the property of form ...

 

"If a monk abandons passion for the property of feeling ...

 

"If a monk abandons passion for the property of perception ...

 

"If a monk abandons passion for the property of fabrications ...

 

"If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no base for consciousness. Consciousness, thus unestablished, not proliferating, not performing any function, is released. Owing to its release, it stands still. Owing to its stillness, it is contented. Owing to its contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is totally unbound right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'

 

"For one knowing in this way, seeing in this way, monk, there is the immediate ending of fermentations."

Edited July 31, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Here's a more accurate translation:

 

http://www.cttbusa.org/shurangama6/shurangama6_15.asp

 

Sutra:

 

The Buddha said, "Ananda, you should know that the wonderful nature is perfect and bright, apart from all names and appearances. Basically there is no world, nor are there any living beings."

 

Yes, but this is an insight, seeing directly the malleable nature of things, the non-establishable nature of things, one recognizes Buddha nature, which is non-other than the empty and non-establishable nature of things. This doesn't mean that there is no world, but an inherently existing background that is self made wonderfullness. That would just be identifying with concept-less samadhi as a supreme source for existence.

[xabir2005]

I think you guys cling to "Non-Self" because you haven't really experienced the Self.

If you would prefer it, I could call "Self" something else...but you guys won't buy that either. Non-Phenomenal Self stabilizes into Non-Dual realization. There is no "A consciousness", there is only Consciousness...which doesn't need an object to make one realize it, because one is already that consciousness.

Yes, I experienced Self, but experiencing Self does not mean you have to deny Anatta.

 

See http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/11/keep-experience-refine-view.html

 

"Keep the experience, Refine the view"

[xabir2005]

Yes, but this is an insight, seeing directly the malleable nature of things, the non-establishable nature of things, one recognizes Buddha nature, which is non-other than the empty and non-establishable nature of things. This doesn't mean that there is no world, but an inherently existing background that is self made wonderfullness. That would just be identifying with concept-less samadhi as a supreme source for existence.

Agree with your interpretation.

 

3bob's translation of Shurangama Sutra is a little misleading because it translates the 'wonderful nature' as 'Absolute'.

[xabir2005]

"P.S. In Buddhism, there is a beyond the beyond insight, but not a beyond the beyond essence, unless one were to call this insight the essence of Buddhahood, but this still does not mean inherent existence, as this insight arises dependently" by V.

 

Umm, "as this insight arises dependently", and now you are apparently refuting the Udana sutra:

 

“There is, Oh Monks, a not-born, a not-become, a not-made, a not-compounded. Monks, if that unborn, not-become, not-made, not-compounded were not, there would be no escape from this here that is born, become, made and compounded.”

 

No where above is the Buddha saying or defining a limit to just or only, "insight arises dependently";

 

Indeed - he is giving an unmeasureable description of "that" but apparently you do not understand such, and that is ok just call it V's school.

Here's the full sutra

 

Ud 8.3

PTS: Ud 80

Nibbana Sutta: Parinibbana (3)

translated from the Pali by

John D. Ireland

© 1998–2010

Alternate translation: Thanissaro

 

Thus have I heard. At one time the Lord was staying near Savatthi in the Jeta Wood at Anathapindika's monastery. On that occasion the Lord was instructing... the bhikkhus with a Dhamma talk connected with Nibbana, and those bhikkhus... were intent on listening to Dhamma.

 

Then, on realizing its significance, the Lord uttered on that occasion this inspired utterance:

There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned.

 

Notice that the sutta you quoted from is called 'Parinibbana', part of Udana.

 

What is Parinibbana?

 

Parinirvana/Parinibbana is the final Nirvana of an Arhant (one who is liberated).

 

The literal translation of Parinibbana is this: Utter/Final Cessation.

 

When you attain Arhantship, you do not immediately enter Parinibbana. When you realize Arhantship, you only enter 'Nirvana with Remainder' which the Buddha describes as the cessation of suffering and ignorance with the remainder of the senses. An arhant ended suffering, but he is still fully capable of perceiving and functioning with sensory awareness in this world.

 

When does he attain Parinirvana?

 

He attains Parinibbana or Nirvana without Remainder when he passes away from this world. Actually 'attain parinirvana' is not a correct way of phrasing it, it would be more accurate to say that the arhant has nibbana-ed.

 

So, the sutta you are quoting from is describing the state of an Arhant who has physically passed away and no longer returns to samsara.

 

What is it?

 

It is a sphere where an Arhant is no longer born, he is no longer brought into being (reborn), he is no longer conditioned by his afflictions into being born again in the world of suffering.

 

If there were no parinirvana, there would not be an escape from the cycle of samsara. That would not have been possible. But precisely because that an Arhant who ended afflictions no longer takes birth in samsara, there is an escape from the endless cycle of birth and death.

 

And this, my friend, is what the Buddha is talking about. He was not talking about an unborn absolute, he was talking about the end of rebirth.

Edited July 31, 2010 by xabir2005

[Vajrahridaya]

He attains Parinibbana or Nirvana without Remainder when he passes away from this world.

 

So, the sutta you are quoting from is describing the state of an Arhant who has physically passed away and no longer returns to samsara.

 

What is it?

 

It is a sphere where an Arhant is no longer born, he is no longer brought into being (reborn), he is no longer conditioned by his afflictions into being born again in the world of suffering.

 

If there were no parinirvana, there would not be an escape from the cycle of samsara. That would not have been possible. But precisely because that an Arhant who ended afflictions no longer takes birth in samsara, there is an escape from the endless cycle of birth and death.

 

And this, my friend, is what the Buddha is talking about. He was not talking about an unborn absolute, he was talking about the end of rebirth.

 

It's talked about in Mahayana that one goes to a Pureland in order to teach really high up teachings to highly responsive pupils, but can still project compassionate manifestations from there into Samsara.

[xabir2005]

It's talked about in Mahayana that one goes to a Pureland in order to teach really high up teachings to highly responsive pupils, but can still project compassionate manifestations from there into Samsara.

I think that would apply more to Bodhisattvas who have vows to continue appearing in samsara.

 

The Buddha was talking to his Hinayana students in that sutta. He is telling them that an escape from the wheel of samsara is possible.

 

In Mahayana, it is said that Arhantship and the Arhant's nirvana is not final.

Edited July 31, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Something I wrote on the Actual Freedom and Buddhism document but applies to 3bob's post:

 

As there is ‘interdependent origination’ (with the arising of this, that arises…), there is also ‘interdependent cessation’ (with the cessation of this, that ceases…). And according to Buddha, with the cessation of the 12 links up to the cessation of birth, also comes the cessation of old age and death, and thus plunging into the birthless and deathless sphere/state/non-state where no future samsaric re-births and deaths will occur (as Buddha said, this sphere/state/non-state (Parinirvana) has neither ‘dying’ nor ‘reappearance’).

 

Thus as you can see, the Nirvana (cessation) of Buddhism is also not an Inherently-Existing-Absolute but ‘interdependent’/’dependent’ upon the cessation/absence of various factors due to insight into the actuality of things/the insight into Anatta and Emptiness. For example: the fire on the oil lamp blows out, due to the absence of conditions for the continuation of burning fire – but the absence and cessation of fire is not ‘inherent’ or ‘absolute’. Nevertheless: when the fire has ceased, it is simply known as ‘ceased’, and as such, is a ‘sphere/state/non-state’ no longer conditioned (by the fuel). So likewise, Nirvana is a ‘sphere/state/non-state’ that is unconditioned (by the fuels of afflictions), but at the same time, the process of cessation is set forth like an interdependent chain, and thus Nirvana is not something that inherently existed as an Absolute. It is not some ‘substance’ that is ‘inherently there’ like Hinduism’s Brahman. There is absolutely no such thing as escaping into a Transcendental Self or Absolute through Cessation. Cessation means cessation, period; it does not imply a substance. (p.s. the classic traditional view of the three dharma seals in relation to samsaric and nirvanic phenomenon are as such: samsaric phenomenon are that they are all marked by anicca [sensations change and doesn’t stay the same], dukkha [impermanent sensations cannot be a satisfactory object of clinging] and anatta [sensations do not have inherent self], whereas Nirvana is *not* anicca [not a temporary state subject to passing: no more re-appearance in samsara], *not* dukkha [no dissatisfaction present in cessation], but *still* anatta [empty of inherent self] – none of them would say that Nirvana is Atman [self])

Edited July 31, 2010 by xabir2005

[Vajrahridaya]

I think that would apply more to Bodhisattvas who have vows to continue appearing in samsara.

 

The Buddha was talking to his Hinayana students in that sutta. He is telling them that an escape from the wheel of samsara is possible.

 

In Mahayana, it is said that Arhantship and the Arhant's nirvana is not final.

 

Right.

 

 

Ok... off to work. Play nice peoples! Just discussing beliefs here... that's all.

[dwai]

This doesn't make much sense. Describe the phenomena of a tissue box. And you would give me a list of descriptions, its shape, its form, it's atomic structure, its purpose, its place in culture, and so on. But none of descriptions would be the very experience of the tissue box, only representations of experiences related to "tissue box." Experience of tissue box is vastly different from context to context when it is represented via symbols, only direct experience reveals it as it is. So the tissue box can't really be described, because description creates another "tissue box" within the mind, the mind formulates a representation, which is yet another tissue box altogether. And from these false habits of thought, be believe "tissue box" as an inherently existing phenomena.

 

So is "tissue box" a phenomenon that can be found? Is a separate phenomena actually locatable?

 

The description of the tissue box might not be the direct experience of it, but you have experienced tissues boxes and you will know what is being referred to (say you formulate a mental image of a tissue box while reading about it). That means it is within the bounds of name and form (nama rupa). Therefore, it is a phenomenon. Consciousness is not like a tissue box. You can neither give it a form nor a description. Why don't you try? Again, Awarenss (which is a result of conscious' interaction with objects) is not the same as Consciousness.

 

Everything neither has a beginning or an end. When does spring begin and the winter end? When is childhood over and adulthood begin? Where does my body begin and end?

 

I used the examples of "hearing taste" and "smelling sound" for different uses than the reasons you use them.

 

Consciousness cannot be experienced, but is the source of experience? Can you clarify this statement? Are you saying that we cannot experience consciousness?

 

Moreover, I don't think Buddhists see consciousness as phenomena. Rather that in experience the two are inseparable. It is not a materialist teaching, as in there is only a material, phenomenal reality because then we wouldn't be conscious, unless you want to say that a piece of rock is conscious. The teaching but lies in the middle of both, so it's said "luminous-emptiness", seeing both elements in experience as one manifestation.

 

Everything in our material universe has a beginning and an end (they are temporal). Pure Consciousness (the True Self) has no beginning or end. I agree that Consciousness is Luminous Emptiness...and I also agree that in experience they are inseparable from it's objects... but that is not all. That is not what the Turiya state shows....Consciousness stands and exists in it's own light without any objects (go back to the gap between thoughts)

 

BTW, have you wondered why it is called "luminous"?

[dwai]

"P.S. In Buddhism, there is a beyond the beyond insight, but not a beyond the beyond essence, unless one were to call this insight the essence of Buddhahood, but this still does not mean inherent existence, as this insight arises dependently" by V.

 

Umm, "as this insight arises dependently", and now you are apparently refuting the Udana sutra:

 

"There is, Oh Monks, a not-born, a not-become, a not-made, a not-compounded. Monks, if that unborn, not-become, not-made, not-compounded were not, there would be no escape from this here that is born, become, made and compounded."

 

No where above is the Buddha saying or defining a limit to just or only, "insight arises dependently";

 

Indeed - he is giving an unmeasureable description of "that" but apparently you do not understand such, and that is ok just call it V's school.

 

I think you are getting to what I have realized...these BBs are too fixated on the words to understand what Madhyamika prasanga really means and what is the implication of pratityasamutpada. However, they criticize anyone who rocks their "boat" as being "fixated", "reifying", blah blah blah!

[3bob]

[Lucky7Strikes]

The description of the tissue box might not be the direct experience of it, but you have experienced tissues boxes and you will know what is being referred to (say you formulate a mental image of a tissue box while reading about it). That means it is within the bounds of name and form (nama rupa). Therefore, it is a phenomenon. Consciousness is not like a tissue box. You can neither give it a form nor a description. Why don't you try? Again, Awarenss (which is a result of conscious' interaction with objects) is not the same as Consciousness.

If you read my post again, its purpose was to show you that no phenomena such as "tissue" box can be established. That in fact when I form a mental image of it, it will not be the tissue box, but its mental image and that when I see a tissue box, it will be a vision and not the box, that if I touch it, it will be the sensation of cardboard and not tissue box, and so on. In fact, no tissue box can be found.

 

Likewise, when we return to what you said about phenomena being able to be describe, there is no such phenomena to be described at all. The description itself is already the non-dual phenomena. What you are not understanding is that there is no solidified "it" to begin with, everything is fleeting without boundary nor definition. There is only conventional usage of language, but we must understand them to be conventional symbols and not accurate indications of reality.

 

I'm not sure where I mentioned the difference between awareness and consciousness and why you brought it up. But I will answer that with what you wrote to Bob, that you are too "fixated on words to understand."

 

Everything in our material universe has a beginning and an end (they are temporal). Pure Consciousness (the True Self) has no beginning or end. I agree that Consciousness is Luminous Emptiness...and I also agree that in experience they are inseparable from it's objects... but that is not all. That is not what the Turiya state shows....Consciousness stands and exists in it's own light without any objects (go back to the gap between thoughts)

 

BTW, have you wondered why it is called "luminous"?

Before stating that everything in the material universe has a beginning and an end, one should first investigate whether there is such thing as a material universe, and the very concept of beginning and end, and whether these ideas are conventional communicative tools or hold to reality, as in whether the symbols match the actual experience.

 

You don't agree on the usage of the word emptiness or consciousness, so agreement on the term "consciousness luminous emptiness" doesn't mean much here. .

 

Luminosity is simply the pure quality, the self-aware clarity of moment to moment arising of any experience. It points to direct experience without a line between "background" or "foreground" Just this, now.

 

The gap between thoughts is simply experiencing another experience that is without thoughts. There is nothing special about it at all. You think, then you taste, then think again. There the tasting was the gap. If you are then going to say, "no, simple pure consciousness between the aggregates, form, thoughts, etc," then it is formless consciousness as it is. And then we have another experience after that, yes? So what's so special about it? (This is kind of off topic, but I also want to metion: Didn't the world in your view come about from this so call Absolute Self? Why? Why did all this suffering come from this absolutely pure source that is eternally blissful? Does it play games with our suffering? That's kind of cruel don't you think?)

 

We love saying "beyond, beyond, beyond" but the truth must be applicable this very moment as it is in whatever state there is. That this Consciousness in beyond time, that it is beyond space, beyond description, beyond this and this and this. Xabir writes about "I Am" ness, but then you refuse to acknowledge that it can be described, and you even wrote above that it cannot be experienced. Why not see reality as it is right at this moment and let the idea of the Ultimate rest? We should be investigating our wrongly held assumptions and not creating a demi-God concept of "beyondness" over and over again as if trying to attain a godly state. Simply see each moment in its non-dual arising, it unlocatability, and be free in it. Why create more unnecessary struggle? It is the "soul"s game, the ego's play.

Edited August 1, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[3bob]

If you read my post again, its purpose was to show you that no phenomena such as "tissue" box can be established. That in fact when I form a mental image of it, it will not be the tissue box, but its mental image and that when I see a tissue box, it will be a vision and not the box, that if I touch it, it will be the sensation of cardboard and not tissue box, and so on. In fact, no tissue box can be found.

 

Likewise, when we return to what you said about phenomena being able to be describe, there is no such phenomena to be described at all. The description itself is already the non-dual phenomena. What you are not understanding is that there is no solidified "it" to begin with, everything is fleeting without boundary nor definition. There is only conventional usage of language, but we must understand them to be conventional symbols and not accurate indications of reality.

 

I'm not sure where I mentioned the difference between awareness and consciousness and why you brought it up. But I will answer that with what you wrote to Bob, that you are too "fixated on words to understand."

 

 

Before stating that everything in the material universe has a beginning and an end, one should first investigate whether there is such thing as a material universe, and the very concept of beginning and end, and whether these ideas are conventional communicative tools or hold to reality, as in whether the symbols match the actual experience.

 

You don't agree on the usage of the word emptiness or consciousness, so agreement on the term "consciousness luminous emptiness" doesn't mean much here. .

 

Luminosity is simply the pure quality, the self-aware clarity of moment to moment arising of any experience. It points to direct experience without a line between "background" or "foreground" Just this, now.

 

The gap between thoughts is simply experiencing another experience that is without thoughts. There is nothing special about it at all. You think, then you taste, then think again. There the tasting was the gap. If you are then going to say, "no, simple pure consciousness between the aggregates, form, thoughts, etc," then it is formless consciousness as it is. And then we have another experience after that, yes? So what's so special about it? (This is kind of off topic, but I also want to metion: Didn't the world in your view come about from this so call Absolute Self? Why? Why did all this suffering come from this absolutely pure source that is eternally blissful? Does it play games with our suffering? That's kind of cruel don't you think?)

 

We love saying "beyond, beyond, beyond" but the truth must be applicable this very moment as it is in whatever state there is. That this Consciousness in beyond time, that it is beyond space, beyond description, beyond this and this and this. Xabir writes about "I Am" ness, but then you refuse to acknowledge that it can be described, and you even wrote above that it cannot be experienced. Why not see reality as it is right at this moment and let the idea of the Ultimate rest? We should be investigating our wrongly held assumptions and not creating a demi-God concept of "beyondness" over and over again as if trying to attain a godly state. Simply see each moment in its non-dual arising, it unlocatability, and be free in it. Why create more unnecessary struggle? It is the "soul"s game, the ego's play.

 

"Simply see each moment in its non-dual arising..." by LS

 

A moment is a moment in the flows of time and space, simply stop all time and all space and stand in absolute stillness that is absolutely fast, thus without an arising or a falling; that my friend is along the lines of the inherent, non-dual eternal.

 

Om

Edited August 1, 2010 by 3bob

[Vajrahridaya]

I think you are getting to what I have realized...these BBs are too fixated on the words to understand what Madhyamika prasanga really means and what is the implication of pratityasamutpada. However, they criticize anyone who rocks their "boat" as being "fixated", "reifying", blah blah blah!

 

Actually, if you really study Nagarjuna, he criticizes all forms of Hinduism and any theism for that matter.

 

You continuously say that Buddhists don't understand Buddhism, but it's quite clear that anyone reading Buddhist tenets under the definition of Theist re-defining, will not get a clear interpretation of what they are reading. You have to suspend your own system of belief and interpreting and read exactly what is being spoken by Nagarjuna from it's own side. It seems to me that you are only reading Hindu interpretations of his teachings, and therefore you must be reading mis-translations and out of context interpretations of his teachings. At least it seems that way when you have put up links here connecting to readings of his teachings from Hindu scholars. You have to read his teachings as they are, not how Hindus or Theists for that matter want them to be.

 

I'm not trying to get you mad, but this is merely the fact. Nagarjuna was born a Brahmin in the Hindu caste system, but completely rejected the entire corpus of Hindu interpretation of reality and spiritual experience and became a Buddhist genius and expanded with very clear connecting to the Pali Suttas, the true insight of pratityasamutpada (inter-dependent origination) and Shunyata (emptiness). There is no way one can truly read his teachings directly without commentary and come to the conclusion that his teachings lead to the same insight as the Upanishads reveal. He was very much an Atheist and you are very much a Theist. Your lineage of interpreting spiritual experience leads to an entirely different idea of what Moksha or Nirvana is from a Buddhist interpretation. This is not merely conceptual as the seed of ignorance transcends concepts deep within the formless unconscious of an individual mindstream. This is why the Buddha taught that even the deep and formless samadhis of infinite space, infinite consciousness, infinite nothingness and neither perception nor non-perception do not necessarily lead to insight without the right view of pratityasamutpada (inter-dependent origination). Neither the Buddha, nor Nagarjuna, nor "The Six Scholarly Ornaments," a group that also includes Aryadeva, Asanga, Vasubandhu, Dignaga, and Dharmakirti, believed in the cosmology of independent origination which all schools based upon the subjective idealization of a supreme subject or Self of all stand upon.

 

 

A link to a text below.

NAGARJUNA (2nd Century AD) THE FUNDAMENTALS OF THE MIDDLE WAY (Mulamadhyamaka-Karika)

Edited August 1, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[xabir2005]

I don't know about all of that Xabir...

But to me all of the 8 jhanas are connected and the 8th is also connected to the "beyond of the beyond",

The 8 jhanas are not required for cessation.

 

Sotapannas, sakadagamis (stream enterers and once returners) have experienced the fruition, the blip out of reality, the momentary cessation, that marks their entry into the level of stream entry and once returning. They do not have to cultivate 8 jhanas. For example you can attain 0 jhanas and yet still gain stream entry and have a glimpse of Nirvana.

 

It is particularly the experience of Nirodha Samapatti, only attainable by Anagami (non returner) and above, that requires passing through the formless jhanas. However passing through the formless jhanas does not mean you can attain to Nirodha Samapatti: you have to become enlightened to a high degree, that of an Anagami, before you can attain to Nirodha Samapatti. Non aryas and aryas before Anagami will not be able to attain to this state even if they can pass through the 8 jhanas.

 

Also: theoretically, if you are an Arhant who does not cultivate jhanas (this is possible) and does not experience Nirodha Samapatti, nevertheless when you pass away physically, you will still enter into Parinirvana - hence that particular experience of Nirodha Samapatti is not 'necessary' but it is a high form of attainment. The reason I said 'theoretically' is because although the standard texts say you need to pass through the 8 jhanas to reach Nirodha Samapatti, Daniel M. Ingram says "It is said that Nirodha can only be attained by anagamis and arahats (those of 3rd and 4th path) who have some mastery of the formless realms. However, as Bill Hamilton once said, if you are an anagami or arahat, you are bound to run into Nirodha Samapatti eventually."

 

A short note here: you do not have to cultivate jhanas to attain enlightenment. Cultivating (samatha) jhanas simply serve as a strong concentration foundation for insight practice but in itself is not required. Jhanas by itself does not lead to enlightenment.

 

How is Nirodha Samapatti attained?

 

Daniel M. Ingram speaks from experience:

 

...One attains Nirodha by fusing insight practices and concentration practices in a fairly gentle way that is much less focused and precise than one would do if one wanted to attain Fruition. I find it easiest to attain when reclining, but the first time I attained it I was sitting. There is nothing that can really be said about this attainment, except for mentioning things about the entrance, exit, and the consequences of the attainment. One rises through the samatha jhanas in a very low-key fashion with some weak awareness of their true nature (the Three Characteristics), enters the eighth jhana (neither perception nor yet non-perception), and then emerges from that state. Sometime shortly thereafter, and without warning or very recent premeditation, one may suddenly enter the cessation of perception and feeling. It must be noted that previous interest in attaining this during the preceding days or weeks tends to increase the chances of this attainment showing up. As one gets better at attaining this, one can slip in the inclination (resolution) to attain it after emerging from the 8th jhana and then forget about it before dropping in...

 

...The texts rightly say that, on the entrance to Nirodha, verbal formations cease first, then bodily sensations, then the whole of mental functioning ceases when the attainment is finally entered. This is traditionally explained as correlating to the first jhana, fourth jhana and then the entrance into Nirodha respectively. However, it may be noticed that in the three moments before cessation of perception sets in (during the complete power failure-like entrance) the verbal formations, bodily formations and mental formations cease in that order also in three consecutive and definable moments, with the whole thing taking about 1/3 of a second. Thus, the texts may have a double meaning, or were misinterpreted by scholars who had not ever attained Nirodha Samapatti. I say this because it is still possible for many bodily and verbal (mental) formations to arise between the eighth jhana the entrance to Nirodha, and thus the traditional interpretation does not quite hold up...

 

~ http://web.mac.com/danielmingram/iWeb/Daniel%20Ingram%27s%20Dharma%20Blog/The%20Blook/2CECD5EA-6058-4428-8DDD-002856C2E28A.html

thus total cessation per-se is not possible because those connections absolutely can not be broken,

The process of cessation is interdependent, but when all is ceased, there is no connections left.

 

"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of concoctions.

From the cessation of concoctions comes the cessation of consciousness.

From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of mind & body.

From the cessation of mind & body comes the cessation of the six sense bases.

From the cessation of the six sense bases comes the cessation of contact.

From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of vedana.

From the cessation of vedana comes the cessation of craving.

From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging.

From the cessation of clinging comes the cessation of becoming.

From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth.

From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease.

Such is the cessation of this entire mass of Dukkha."

 

~ http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html

 

yet the "beyond of the beyond" has ceased with the great sorrow even though those connections exist.

The process of cessation is interdependent, but the state of cessation is not conditioned - I'll give you a simple analogy.

 

A fire is burning on the candle. How do you make the fire stop burning? Does it just happen by itself without conditions? No, you have to do something. You blow it hard. Or you can remove the oil of an oil lamp.

 

Now the fire stops burning. It simply ceased. Is there anything left that is conditioned by anything? No, cessation means cessation, the fire is no longer here, there is no more fire to be conditioned by the 'fuel' to continue burning, or rather there is no more fuel to condition the birth of the fire (if it is an oil lamp). In other words, this is a state unconditioned by the afflictions for continued birth.

 

Going back to the question of Nirodha Samapatti - yes, there is a process of entering Nirodha Samapatti, yet when you enter Nirodha Sampatti, it is a state that is totally ceased and you cannot say that there is any conditions (there is no conditioned arising phenomena) in that state. You cannot say there is a connection in the state of Nirodha Samapatti nor Parinirvana - because what is there to be connected to what? There is literally nothing there in cessation.

Apparently some see the answer in "Suchness":

"In this world of Suchness there is neither self nor other-than-self. To come directly into harmony with this reality just simply say when doubts arise, "Not two." In this "not two" nothing is separate, nothing is excluded. No matter when or where, enlightenment means entering this truth. And this truth is beyond extension or diminution in time or space; in it a single thought is then a thousand years." Sosan

 

Om

This is a description about the non-dual, no subject-object nature of reality, but it is not talking about (and not contradictory to) Nirvana/the state of cessation. Edited August 1, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

[Marblehead]

... as being "fixated", "reifying", blah blah blah!

 

Well, I like reifying the Manifest aspect of Tao so I will always be a pain in the rear for them.

 

And that's the way The Way is.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

"Simply see each moment in its non-dual arising..." by LS

 

A moment is a moment in the flows of time and space, simply stop all time and all space and stand in absolute stillness that is absolutely fast, thus without an arising or a falling; that my friend is along the lines of the inherent, non-dual eternal.

 

Om

 

I think I really like this but my mind is still digesting it.

 

Peace & Love!