I am not (intentionally) equating nirvana with a ground of being.The Dharmakaya fills that role, functionally, as I understand it.
No. Dharmakaya is emptiness. Dharmakaya does not mean a ground of being, and there is no ground of being in Buddhism. See viewtopic.php?f=39&t=4056&start=60
Regarding dharmakaya: http://www.jenchen.org.sg/vol9no3a.htm
In the Shurangama sutra excerpts in that link, I see the Buddha expressing wrong ideas about awareness - specifically, criticising those who objectify it as either an ultimate ground or property that things can 'posess'. This is not a denial of what is being suggested.
Actually I was referring to the second sutra, not Shurangama.
How can that which cannot be pointed to be this or that? I don't understand the justification for qualifying awareness.
Awareness is not a formless substance. Like the word 'weather' is simply a convention for weatherly phenomena: rain, clouds, wind, rain, etc. Awareness/consciousness is simply a convention for the six modes of consciousness that dependently originates (sense organ, objects, etc), see http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/ ... sness.html
There is actually no 'aware-ness'. There is dependently originated manifestations of cognizance in six modes relatively, which are ultimately empty and non-arising.
This post suggests that awareness arises by 'magic'. Does this explanation agree with your own reason and common sense?
That post is written by me. I own the blog (there is another co-contributor tho, 'PasserBy' who is wiser and more experienced than me).
Awareness dependently originates, and while the appearances cannot be denied, they are empty, therefore magical - appearing without true existence, like a dream.
How does self-luminosity arise from the interaction between subject and object? Is it (the self-luminosity) meaningful, or simply another phenomena to be transcended?
There is no interaction of subject and object because there is no subject or object.
You need to re-read the part I quoted to you by Archaya Mahayogi. About how Buddhism does not transcend phenomena but simply realizes its empty nature and therefore liberate from grasping at 'true existents'. Nirvana is simpy Samsara (phenomena) rightly seen. As such, we do not and cannot transcend phenomena to find a separate liberation.
Respectfully, you are mistaken. The entry defines Advaita as monism, claiming they are directly equatable. They are utterly distinct, although this misinterpretation is common, despite never being found in the original texts. It also posits the Ultimate reality in Advaita to be 'Brahma'. It is in fact 'Brahman, and this is not a minor difference. The article is a charge against monism, and has nothing whatseover to do with Advaita. But I am not defending Advaita.
I am not mistaken. I have studied Advaita. His use of the term 'Brahma' is synonymous with 'Brahman'. By the way, Archaya lives in an Advaita family and practiced Hinduism for many years before turning Buddhist. He is well aware of Advaita philosophy.
xabir wrote:Not exactly. I am trying to understand if emptiness is an ultimate unchanging awareness that is not objective, i.e., cannot be objectified as either a known object or knowing subject. This seems to me to be distinct from eternalism, where awareness is a something-or-other that has these qualities.
If this is not the case, then direct apprehension of emptiness is dualistic, because it must require awareness of emptiness. If it is dualistic, it is illusory and of no value.
Firstly, emptiness is the unfindability of an essence, it is not a cognizable object. As Namdrol says recently:
You will never see emptiness in meditation directly for emptiness is a not a thing that can be seen.
When you don't find anything, that not-finding is finding emptiness.
When you don't see anything, that not-seeing is seeing emptiness.
Secondly, there is no duality, but there is no unchanging, independent awareness. The flow of dependently originated activities are self-luminous without a perceiver. In seeing just the seen, no seer. In hearing just the heard, no hearer.