Why “Beyond consciousness” is a misunderstanding

[forestofemptiness]

On 11/28/2022 at 10:19 PM, Creation said:

but is dependently originated just like everything else.

 

This was primarily in a Vedanta context, but briefly switching gears: 

 

 Would you say the gzhi is dependently originated? If so, upon what does it depend? 

[Creation]

4 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

Would you say the gzhi is dependently originated? If so, upon what does it depend? 

Whatever ghzi is is above my pay grade. All I know is that people in trust and respect say that the tendency to make the knower into the background or substratum can be released, and doing so makes the knowingness that was formerly perceived as a background to sink back into becomes spontaneously amd effortlessly present in every atom of experience, in which case everything is spontaneously and effortlessly perceived as primordially pure and luminous. And if you want to talk about gzhi or tathagatagarbha, I think the explanation from this perspective is that it refers to this way of experiencing, rather than a substratum.

Edited December 1, 2022 by Creation

[forestofemptiness]

13 hours ago, Creation said:

And if you want to talk about gzhi or tathagatagarbha, I think the explanation from this perspective is that it refers to this way of experiencing, rather than a substratum.

 

I think this is a different point. Swami S. evidently did a paper showing that emptiness does not apply to the Vedantic Self. I'm not sure how I feel about it. He discusses it below IIRC. 

 

 

Edited December 1, 2022 by forestofemptiness

[dwai]

36 minutes ago, forestofemptiness said:

 

I think this is a different point. Swami S. evidently did a paper showing that emptiness does not apply to the Vedantic Self. I'm not sure how I feel about it. He discusses it below IIRC. 

 

 

That was not my takeaway from this talk. Towards the end of this talk, he discusses the different schools of Tibetan Buddhism and shows where Advaita Vedanta and Tibetan Buddhism converge. 

Spoiler

 

 

[Creation]

1 hour ago, forestofemptiness said:

I think this is a different point.

No, it's quite the same, from the perspective that I am attempting to represent. The view that there is a substratum behind the rest of experience, whether Consciousness, Brahman, or Buddha Nature, is exactly what is being questioned. What isn't questioned is that pure knowing consciousness is present in all experience, just its ontological status. 

 

In his interview with Andrew Holocek, Swami S said that the Shentong view is the same as Vedanta, but IIRC he admitted that the Rangtong view is not the same.  Because, of course, Shentong says that emptiness/dependent origination doesn't apply to nondual consciousness aka the perfected nature. 

 

Maybe I'll find time to watch that video if you think he says something in it that wasn't covered in the Holocek interview.

Edited December 1, 2022 by Creation

[forestofemptiness]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

That was not my takeaway from this talk.

 

He explicitly addresses Chandrakirti's 7 Arguments from 0:45 - 1:20. His conclusion is that atman "slips through Chandrakirti's net." This is notable because it isn't just an idea he's kicking around, but he presented it to Jay Garfield who is no slouch when it comes to Madhyamaka. 

 

1 hour ago, Creation said:

What isn't questioned is that pure knowing consciousness is present in all experience, just its ontological status. 

 

I'm under the impression that Michael80 is claiming there is some sort of experience or insight beyond the pure knowing consciousness, which strikes me as incoherent. 

 

The video is long, I only posted it for those interested. It is not substantially different from the Holocek interview, the main difference is the direct confrontation of Madhyamaka reasoning. Of course, it is speculated that Advaita  via Shankara via Guadapada was influenced by such things in developing their school, so it would make sense that they considered it.

Edited December 1, 2022 by forestofemptiness

[dwai]

29 minutes ago, forestofemptiness said:

 

He explicitly addresses Chandrakirti's 7 Arguments from 0:45 - 1:20. His conclusion is that atman "slips through Chandrakirti's net." This is notable because it isn't just an idea he's kicking around, but he presented it to Jay Garfield who is no slouch when it comes to Madhyamaka. 

I've had conversations with a traditionally trained Madhyamaka and Advaita Vedanta scholar (who also happened to be a Prof of both Philosophy and Physics at Ohio State). He stated that the two insights are the same; it is just different way of looking at the same truth. 

29 minutes ago, forestofemptiness said:

 

I'm under the impression that Michael80 is claiming there is some sort of experience or insight beyond the pure knowing consciousness, which strikes me as incoherent. 

It is to me as well.  I suspect it is due to the difference in semantics.  

For instance, take this translation of Nisargadatta Maharaj's teachings where there is a reference to "I am" and then Beyond "I am".  Those of us who know Advaita Vedanta know that this "I am" is not Brahman/Atman but the chidabhasa (Consciousness reflected in the mind or reflected consciousness). But I've seen many western teachers claim that this "I am" is Brahman. If we go by that definition, then what you or I call Brahman/Atman is beyond "I am" and thus "parābrahman" to them. 

Spoiler

Get stabilized in the primary concept ‘I am’ in order to lose it and be free from all concepts. In understanding the unreality of ‘I am’ you are totally free from it.

Apply your mind, go back in time and try to recollect the moment when for the first time it dawned on you that ‘you are’ or ‘I am’. This nascent ‘I am’ is without words or non-verbal. By meditating on the knowledge ‘I am’ it gradually settles doom at its source and disappears, then you are the Absolute.

29 minutes ago, forestofemptiness said:

The video is long, I only posted it for those interested. It is not substantially different from the Holocek interview, the main difference is the direct confrontation of Madhyamaka reasoning. Of course, it is speculated that Advaita  via Shankara via Guadapada was influenced by such things in developing their school, so it would make sense that they considered it.

Sure. 

[Cobie]

 

On 29/11/2022 at 7:41 AM, Lairg said:

Is it presumptuous to discuss the nature of consciousness while being confined to the mental and emotional planes?

 

imo, definitely futile

 

Quote

Perhaps an experience beyond consciousness might assist.  Consider the experience of intuition - as compared to instinct.  

imo, excellent advice  

 

 

Edited December 1, 2022 by Cobie

[Creation]

Some timely videos on this matter:

 

A chat between my main two non-duality teachers, where one very clearly describes the first shift into pure consciousness starting at 16:49, and then goes on to describe the shift into beyond consciousness from 22:34-27:16.  Check it out if you 10 minutes and the interest:

 

Noteworthy is that he describes the first shift as "what everyone wants" and the second as "not something anyone would want".

 

And another video where he and his partner talk about a further shift (in Buddhist terms, it is the shift from no-self to twofold emptiness):

 

Almost everyone who even talks about these kinds of subtleties is doing so in an intellectual and philosophical way, Chandrakirti's reasoning and if something can escape it etc., but here is a clear description of different phases of actually experiencing it.  To me, that is very precious. 

[silent thunder]

"How could anyone want this?  Nobody would want this..."

 

"It's like a death experience, but the body continues..."

"Everything was dead and alive at the same time..."

"There's nothing special about this body versus the sidewalk or the trees..."

"That death is looking through these eyes..."

"It was beyond enjoyable, it was beyond human experience."

 

Some of his descriptions reflect succinctly the last 3 years of awareness as experienced here where the illusion of I am resides.

[dwai]

On 12/5/2022 at 2:01 PM, silent thunder said:

"How could anyone want this?  Nobody would want this..."

 

"It's like a death experience, but the body continues..."

"Everything was dead and alive at the same time..."

"There's nothing special about this body versus the sidewalk or the trees..."

"That death is looking through these eyes..."

"It was beyond enjoyable, it was beyond human experience."

 

Some of his descriptions reflect succinctly the last 3 years of awareness as experienced here where the illusion of I am resides.

@silent thunder, I appreciate your comment here. Disclaimer - I'm not disregarding anything that has been shared up to this point.

 

However, to keep this discussion aligned with the OP,  we keep coming back to what I outlined in the OP. Not having a label to describe something doesn't mean it is beyond consciousness. It simply means there is no description for it. For example, "It is like nothing else" doesn't mean "It" is not experienced/known. Only there is nothing else in one's experience to correlate it with. 

 

From an Advaita Vedanta perspective, anything that can be experienced is not Brahman/Atman. In other words, "Brahman/Atman is not a thing "- hence it cannot be experienced. It is that which makes experience possible. So it is simply NOT possible to go beyond Brahman.

Edited December 6, 2022 by dwai

[old3bob]

 

SatGuru says, the Self knows the Self by the Self.

[Brad M]

On 1.12.2022 at 7:51 PM, dwai said:

That was not my takeaway from this talk. Towards the end of this talk, he discusses the different schools of Tibetan Buddhism and shows where Advaita Vedanta and Tibetan Buddhism converge. 

 

Might check out Infinite Jewels sutra for some similar thinking as OP, getting to the converging  views discussed above:  https://read.84000.co/translation/Toh118.html 

[forestofemptiness]

Well, that's not necessarily true, but more how things are presented publicly or exoterically. Usually such discussions are reserved for private discussions with one's teacher who, hopefully, knows how to steer one down the proper path. There are many good reasons for this.

 

What I think is interesting about many of these people is that when they have a meditation experience or insight, they seldom if ever take it to their teacher for guidance and often reject traditional authentication outright. This is important because trying to lead oneself out of one's own ignorance can be a bit of a fool's errand. In addition, the teacher has the entire lineage to draw on. One difference is my own experience is that non-traditionalists tend to affirm what traditional teachers often deny. 

 

But I'm not the dharma police, so people can and should pursue teachings they find helpful.

 

On 12/4/2022 at 8:00 AM, Creation said:

Almost everyone who even talks about these kinds of subtleties is doing so in an intellectual and philosophical way, Chandrakirti's reasoning and if something can escape it etc., but here is a clear description of different phases of actually experiencing it.  To me, that is very precious.