Superimposition of views on reality

[RongzomFan]

Gaudapada stealing verses from Nagarjuna

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=sx12hxoFVqwC&pg=PA88&dq=The+Method+of+Early+Advaita+Ved%C4%81nta+It+is+not+a+matter+for+dispute+whether&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wr8ZUZ7iGceR0QGHuID4Cw&ved=0CDMQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Method%20of%20Early%20Advaita%20Ved%C4%81nta%20It%20is%20not%20a%20matter%20for%20dispute%20whether&f=false

 

 

Scroll through entire chapter

Edited January 28, 2014 by RongzomFan

[3bob]

Simple Jack, My fanatic remark was basically meant for 'alwayson' via his "illegitimate bastard son" comment in comparison to your more "right speech" type of tact.

[3bob]

it has many more meanings and also meanings that can not be strictly circumscribed.

Edited January 28, 2014 by 3bob

[Simple_Jack]

 

Perennialism is not applicable when dealing with two conflicting modes of meditation. As much as you want to overlook the differences, as merely 'different means of pointing to the same thing', the actual principles of meditative application in these two systems, are predicated on different views which informs the outcome of practice. For [sutrayana] Buddhist meditation, this starts and ends with, the 4 noble truths and 8 fold noble path i.e. right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right attention, right concentration; which is none other than dependent origination.

 

I know this is not looked at favorably on this forum, but it is detrimental to a clear understanding and appreciation of both systems, when attempting to freely mix conflicting principles into a confused hodge-podge, for the sake of not upsetting perennialist sensibilities. Both systems should be engaged from within the context of their respective POV. I know that, you will look at this as mere conceptual baggage, but latent tendencies lie unnoticed, dormant, subtle, they are operative even in deep nonconceptual states of meditation; these latent tendencies inform both experiential and intellectual views of sensate experience, and can inevitably lead to appropriation of views on a subconscious level, even in the absence of gross conceptual thoughts.

Ironically, you've unknowingly adopted a Vedantin view and practice, even if this is only in intention and not in name. These are a direct result of latent tendencies, expressed as reifications, at work on the subconscious level.

P.S. Stating, "I have no views", is a view in itself.

 

Bump.

[RongzomFan]

Michael Comans says that Gaudapada is "identical to the understanding of Nagarjuna and other Mahayana Buddhists".

Edited January 28, 2014 by RongzomFan

[Simple_Jack]

it has many more meanings and also meanings that can not be strictly circumscribed.

 

Bodhicitta and omniscience (as a result of the path) are absent from all other Indian schools of thought.

[RongzomFan]

Why no Hinduism?

 

Ignore the gang rape stuff.

 

25% of American rapes are gang rapes. America has the highest gang rape and rape in the world.

 

Here is a recent UK gang rape:

 

http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/crime/teenagers-in-court-accused-of-gang-raping-young-girl-after-abducting-her-from-horse-fair-1-6401048

 

 

How come its not world wide news?

 

[RongzomFan]

If you google "campus gang rape" you get all sorts of western gang rapes

[3bob]

Bodhicitta and omniscience (as a result of the path) are absent from all other Indian schools of thought.

 

Now that's "funny" and you should know it... and even if one doesn't one should allow for considering that they don't.

[RongzomFan]

Now that's "funny" and you should know it... and even if one doesn't one should allow for considering that they don't.

 

Whats funny about SJ's statement?

Edited January 28, 2014 by RongzomFan

[Songtsan]

P.S. Stating, "I have no views", is a view in itself.

 

I never said I had no views....if I did (have no views that is), I wouldn't need to be searching for the viewless experience..

[Songtsan]

It has a very specific meaning: the eradication of afflictive and cognitive obscurations to omniscience; which are the wisdoms, kayas, and omniscient qualities of a samyaksambuddha.

 

I object to the use of the word 'omniscience' if used in its conventional sense. Buddha was certainly not omniscient!

[Songtsan]

...anyways, ummm..

 

argue with you guys later - its been fun!

[steve]

 

Perennialism is not applicable when dealing with two conflicting modes of meditation. As much as you want to overlook the differences, as merely 'different means of pointing to the same thing', the actual principles of meditative application in these two systems, are predicated on different views which informs the outcome of practice. For [sutrayana] Buddhist meditation, this starts and ends with, the 4 noble truths and 8 fold noble path i.e. right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right attention, right concentration; which is none other than dependent origination.

 

I know this is not looked at favorably on this forum, but it is detrimental to a clear understanding and appreciation of both systems, when attempting to freely mix conflicting principles into a confused hodge-podge, for the sake of not upsetting perennialist sensibilities. Both systems should be engaged from within the context of their respective POV. I know that, you will look at this as mere conceptual baggage, but latent tendencies lie unnoticed, dormant, subtle, they are operative even in deep nonconceptual states of meditation; these latent tendencies inform both experiential and intellectual views of sensate experience, and can inevitably lead to appropriation of views on a subconscious level, even in the absence of gross conceptual thoughts.

 

Nope, you're mistaken - I don't look at what you're saying at all as "mere conceptual baggage."

I agree with you when looking from the relative perspective.

My point is that, from the perspective of the absolute, the inseparability of clarity and space is not dependent on the conceptual approach.

[C T]

I object to the use of the word 'omniscience' if used in its conventional sense. Buddha was certainly not omniscient!

remember the phrase you used, "the whole banquet is in the first bite"?

 

thats basically the essence of how the term 'omniscience' is applied in buddhist wisdom.

 

Take a hint from the words of the Muni himself (paraphrased) ~ "If you want to know the nature of the oceans, you dont have to drink from all the seas. Just a sip from one, and you will directly know the nature of all the rest."

 

 

In modern times, it could be useful to view omniscience as a time-saving goal, in that one need not dwell on the nature of the 10,000 things individually, which can only lead to much confusion; simply look into the mind's real nature. Gain confidence in that, and all else becomes clear. Thats basically all there is. Even though its so simple, there will be many who will not acknowledge, practice (looking, with awareness) and reach emancipation from this understanding.

[Simple_Jack]

Nope, you're mistaken - I don't look at what you're saying at all as "mere conceptual baggage."

I agree with you when looking from the relative perspective.

My point is that, from the perspective of the absolute, the inseparability of clarity and space is not dependent on the conceptual approach.

 

I wasn't referring to Dzogchen practice since the OP mentioned concepts such as anatta and neti neti. While they are conceptual approaches, by Dzogchen standards, these concepts are predicated on conflicting views which determines the mode of practice. As for Dzogchen, the 'view' is introduced by the guru, but as RongzomFan has mentioned many times, even if you recognized unfabricated presence vs. the conceptualizing mind: this is just 'Day 1' and does not officially make one a Dzogchenpa. I will add that it does not constitute the entirety of Dzogchen view and practice.

[steve]

I wasn't referring to Dzogchen practice since the OP mentioned concepts such as anatta and neti neti. While they are conceptual approaches, by Dzogchen standards, these concepts are predicated on conflicting views which determines the mode of practice. As for Dzogchen, the 'view' is introduced by the guru, but as RongzomFan has mentioned many times, even if you recognized unfabricated presence vs. the conceptualizing mind: this is just 'Day 1' and does not officially make one a Dzogchenpa. I will add that it does not constitute the entirety of Dzogchen view and practice.

 

Yup, all true stuff.

[Songtsan]

Someone with a good understanding of what their goals are, what paths lead to those goals, and what practices match those paths can select methods from different traditions according to the strengths of those traditions.

 

Mixing conflicting views, though, leads to confusion and poor results. You can't get far working from a Madhyamika view one minute and a Samkya view the next. Either there is an ontological absolute, or there isn't.

 

It's fine to use shamatha methods from both Buddhism and Raja Yoga because they're complementary, but when it comes to the end goals and insight, they conflict.

 

I think there should be a clear commitment to one system, and others can be used as 'catalysts' to shore up the primary system.

 

In my practice, I am a Buddhist with an emphasis on shamatha, but I use some things from Taoism and yoga to help with the chi side of cultivation, and accept good teachings on virtue wherever they come from.

 

I also wanted to state that my All is Mind view is based on strong empiric evidence from neurobiology and other neurosciences as well as Sensory-perception Psychology. It is a mainstream belief now in the sciences of perception, consciousness and whatnot that all of our perceptions are occurring inside the brain as opposed to in the sense organs. This includes physical sensations such as orgasm. Look up the 'homunculus' for more information on that.

 

So I am not just adopting Buddhist views...I learned about this before seriously being involved in Buddhism.

 

As far as neti, neti is concerned, it seems the flip-side of the coin - that is.....

 

to be continued....

[Simple_Jack]

I object to the use of the word 'omniscience' if used in its conventional sense. Buddha was certainly not omniscient!

 

As I remember Loppon Namdrol (Malcolm) explaining it, buddha's aren't omniscient 24/7, but are omniscient when their consciousness is directed towards an object i.e. having unimpeded knowledge of all phenomena. The abilities of a buddha are regarded as surpassing that of an arahant [http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html]:

 

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=10435#p160653

 

Just to add: A buddha has knowledge and abilities not shared by arahant disciples. The Paṭisambhidāmagga lists the following:

 

• knowledge of the penetration of other beings' faculties
• knowledge of other beings' biases and underlying tendancies
• knowledge of the twin miracle*
• knowledge of the attainment of great compassion
• omniscience & unobstructed knowledge

   

  *i.e. the ability to produce fire and water from various parts of the body, as well as walk amid an aura of colors while a created image of his body sits or lies down, etc.

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.012.ntbb.html

Ten Powers of a Tathagata

9. "Sariputta, the Tathagata has these ten Tathagata's powers, possessing which he claims the herd-leader's place, roars his lion's roar in the assemblies, and sets rolling the Wheel of Brahma.[5] What are the ten?

10. (1) "Here, the Tathagata understands as it actually is the possible as possible and the impossible as impossible.[6] And that [70] is a Tathagata's power that the Tathagata has, by virtue of which he claims the herd-leader's place, roars his lion's roar in the assemblies, and sets rolling the Wheel of Brahma.

11. (2) "Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is the results of actions undertaken, past, future and present, with possibilities and with causes. That too is a Tathagata's power...[7]

12. (3) "Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is the ways leading to all destinations. That too is a Tathagata's power...[8]

13. (4) "Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is the world with its many and different elements. That too is a Tathagata's power...[9]

14. (5) "Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is how beings have different inclinations. That too is a Tathagata's power...[10]

15. (6) "Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is the disposition of the faculties of other beings, other persons. That too is a Tathagata's power...[11]

16. (7) "Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is the defilement, the cleansing and the emergence in regard to the jhanas, liberations, concentrations and attainments. That too is a Tathagata's power...[12]

17. (8) "Again, the Tathagata recollects his manifold past lives, that is, one birth, two births, three births, four births, five births, ten births, twenty births, thirty births, forty births, fifty births, a hundred births, a thousand births, a hundred thousand births, many aeons of world-contraction, many aeons of world-expansion, many aeons of world-contraction and expansion: 'There I was so named, of such a clan, with such an appearance, such was my nutriment, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such my life-term; and passing away from there, I reappeared elsewhere; and there too I was so named, of such a clan, with such an appearance, such was my nutriment, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such my life-term; and passing away from there, I reappeared here.' Thus with their aspects and particulars he recollects his manifold past lives. That too is a Tathagata's power...

18. (9) "Again, with the divine eye, which is purified and surpasses the human, the Tathagata sees beings passing away and reappearing, inferior and superior, fair and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate, and he understands how beings pass on according to their actions thus: 'These worthy beings who were ill-conducted in body, speech and mind, revilers of noble ones, wrong in their views, giving effect to wrong view in their actions, on the dissolution of the body, [71] after death, have reappeared in a state of deprivation, in a bad destination, in perdition, even in hell; but these worthy beings who were well-conducted in body, speech and mind, not revilers of noble ones, right in their views, giving effect to right view in their actions, on the dissolution of the body, after death, have reappeared in a good destination, even in the heavenly world.' Thus with the divine eye, which is purified and surpasses the human, he sees beings passing away and reappearing, inferior and superior, fair and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate, and he understands how beings pass on according to their actions. That too is a Tathagata's power...

19. (10) "Again, by realizing it for himself with direct knowledge, the Tathagata here and now enters upon and abides in the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom that are taintless with the destruction of the taints. That too is a Tathagata's power that a Tathagata has, by virtue of which he claims the herd-leader's place, roars his lion's roar in the assemblies, and sets rolling the Wheel of Brahma.

20. "The Tathagata has these ten Tathagata's powers, possessing which he claims the herd-leader's place, roars his lion's roar in the assemblies, and sets rolling the Wheel of Brahma.

21. "Sariputta, when I know and see thus, should anyone say of me: 'The recluse Gotama does not have any superhuman states, any distinction in knowledge and vision worthy of the noble ones. The recluse Gotama teaches a Dhamma (merely) hammered out by reasoning, following his own line of inquiry as it occurs to him' — unless he abandons that assertion and that state of mind and relinquishes that view, then as (surely as if he had been) carried off and put there he will wind up in hell.[13] Just as a bhikkhu possessed of virtue, concentration and wisdom would here and now enjoy final knowledge, so it will happen in this case, I say, that unless he abandons that assertion and that state of mind and relinquishes that view, then as (surely as if he had been) carried off and put there he will wind up in hell."

 

Of course, this is all just conjecture, interesting, but conjecture nonetheless. The above does not have any bearing on an ordinary individual's practice or on whether someone can derive benefit from Buddhist teachings.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

I also wanted to state that my All is Mind view is based on strong empiric evidence from neurobiology and other neurosciences as well as Sensory-perception Psychology. It is a mainstream belief now in the sciences of perception, consciousness and whatnot that all of our perceptions are occurring inside the brain as opposed to in the sense organs. This includes physical sensations such as orgasm. Look up the 'homunculus' for more information on that.

 

This is just physicalism.

[Songtsan]

As far as neti, neti is concerned, it seems the flip-side of the coin - that is.....

 

to be continued....

 

continued...

 

the way to view 'my system' is thusly:...

 

 

 

All is Mind is a view used in looking at a single moment of reality, moment from moment. It simply states that in this moment, you are that, which is that moment and wherever you are with it. As everything experienced is a perception, and the mind is the mirror upon which the game of perception plays out, you are that awareness of Mind which is inclusive of all reality present in that which you perceive.

 

Neti neti is a view which is used to look at chained moments of time, which form patterns which become labeled.as identities, things, etc. - so it applies to the fabrications. It is used to break attachment to views of identity, permanence, absolutist ideals and so on

 

 

So to me, All is Mind is used to be aware that time doesn't exist, just the eternal moment, and that that moment is what I am then. It is more based on inclusion of all percepts as self when reality is viewed as only existent in the present.

 

Neti neti is used to defuse delusions of permanence, delusions of non-momentary existence (i.e. past/future ideations/plans), and various ego constructs - it is used 'in time' - i.e. in views which take place in chained events.

[Seeker of Wisdom]

...I also wanted to state that my All is Mind view is based on strong empiric evidence from neurobiology and other neurosciences as well as Sensory-perception Psychology. It is a mainstream belief now in the sciences of perception, consciousness and whatnot that all of our perceptions are occurring inside the brain as opposed to in the sense organs...

It's also a mainstream Buddhist view that experience occurs in the mind. Of course the eye doesn't see.

 

However, there are still actually objects out there, and perception of them is contingent on light entering the eye, so it doesn't mean that only mind exists or that awareness is an absolute.

[C T]

until there is perfect and complete enlightenment, its really not helpful discussing omniscience in the most elaborate sense. Relatively speaking, knowing one taste/attaining equanimity is the fundamental method and realization leading to the first stages of omniscience. Ask any Rinpoche.

[3bob]

another map:

 

"Saiva Siddhanta believes that there is a chasm between Pure Consciousness of Siva on one hand and Maya, Purusa, Tattvas, and matter on the other hand. This chasm can be traversed by Sakti; there is no physical connection between Siva and matter; all apparent connections are through the intermediation of Sakti. Yes, He is Water, Air, Fire, Ether and Sky. Let me explain this apparent contradiction. Siva has three levels of perfection: Supreme Siva¹, Parasakti² and Parameshvara³. Parameshvara³ has connection with matter through Sakti. Supreme Siva¹ is Atattva (Not THAT, not matter). (3bob's insert: or Neti, Neti) Atattva is NOT mutable, while Tattvas (matter) are mutable".

 

(and ultimately "Jiva is Siva")

Edited January 29, 2014 by 3bob

[Songtsan]

It's also a mainstream Buddhist view that experience occurs in the mind. Of course the eye doesn't see.

 

However, there are still actually objects out there, and perception of them is contingent on light entering the eye, so it doesn't mean that only mind exists or that awareness is an absolute.

 

true and this is why duality will always remain true even as nondualism is also true - but that reality which is 'out there' will forever be untouchable by mind...we see a translation.

 

As far as awareness as an absolute I have no idea, but I am willing to accept everything from nihilism to the Supersoul.

 

I state things such as 'It's the nature of awareness to be ultimately pure and untouchable by the perturbations' but I honestly don't know this for sure...but that's what everyone says! I believe that it can be emptied of patternings or skandhas, but have not seen it happen yet.