Is Guru Yoga Based on Pantheism?

[deepbluehum]

I forgot I read Harvey already. He underscores that the suttas do not really deny a Self. He points to the same clauses I did to support that.

You need to read it again. He does not state what you just said.

Check the quoted passage I just posted. "One citta." We are one.

[deepbluehum]

The sky of unapprehending mind has no center or end.

So then it doesn't end where some other person begins.

[Jeff]

The sky of unapprehending mind has no center or end.

So then it doesn't end where some other person begins.

Correct.

I also don't really see any confusion/conflict with any of the ancient texts quoted by everyone above. Each is using descriptive words to define a "state" in the framework of how to "get there". In my experience, there are two basic approaches... Dissect everything to "nothingness" or expand everything to "oneness". In the end, both are the same (two sides of the coin). Frameworks are just products of the mind to help with the removal of issues/obstructions. But, it should be understood/realized that those obstructions do not stop at the local body-mind. That is where many get stuck. For a Buddha, all existence/form is their body. As one realizes (experiences) that, one knows "no-self". Only what is being "focused on".

[Malcolm]

I forgot I read Harvey already. He underscores that the suttas do not really deny a Self. He points to the same clauses I did to support that.

You need to read it again. He does not state what you just said.

Check the quoted passage I just posted. "One citta." We are one.

No, this simply means that their invidividual continuums were freed of bounderies, not that there is only one mental continuum sharing three bodies. In other words, they have equal access to each other's mind, etc.

And it certainly does not mean that we are all just of one mind.

"eka" not only means "one" but can mean "same" in the sense of identical in feature i.e. this pot is the same as the pot, they are identical pots. See one, see all, etc.

So I think you are reading something in that passage that is not there.

M

[Jeff]

No, this simply means that their invidividual continuums were freed of bounderies, not that there is only one mental continuum sharing three bodies. In other words, they have equal access to each other's mind, etc.

And it certainly does not mean that we are all just of one mind.

"eka" not only means "one" but can mean "same" in the sense of identical in feature i.e. this pot is the same as the pot, they are identical pots. See one, see all, etc.

So I think you are reading something in that passage that is not there.

M

Maybe we have a semantics issue... In non-duality, how would "equal access to each other's mind" (body) be different?

[Lotus_Bitch]

The sky of unapprehending mind has no center or end.

So then it doesn't end where some other person begins.

Appearances arise and pass according to interdependent causation: They do not arise from or dissolve into some sort of independent, eternal, absolute consciousness/awareness, that stands behind/separate from the arising and passing of phenomena. These appearances are disjoint, each phenomena (of the 6 sense doors) arising and passing in each moment; with each moment complete in itself, yet interconnected with each passing chain of events.

Likewise, each moment is non-dual without a dichotomy of an apprehender/apprehended split. Therefore each phenomenal moment, is the totality of suchness, without separation of a Mind/body dichotomy. Hence the saying that "the three realms are Mind-only (and I'm not proposing "Mind" as something substantial. It too is dependently originated, empty and free from all extremes.)

A more skillful way of looking at that quote (in order to avoid subsuming everything as a universal consciousness, which Buddhism rejects,) is through the simile of Indra's Net from the Avatamsaka Sutra.

[Malcolm]

No, this simply means that their invidividual continuums were freed of bounderies, not that there is only one mental continuum sharing three bodies. In other words, they have equal access to each other's mind, etc.

And it certainly does not mean that we are all just of one mind.

"eka" not only means "one" but can mean "same" in the sense of identical in feature i.e. this pot is the same as the pot, they are identical pots. See one, see all, etc.

So I think you are reading something in that passage that is not there.

M

Maybe we have a semantics issue... In non-duality, how would "equal access to each other's mind" (body) be different?

Well, they do not have the same type of access to other people's minds and so on.

M

[Malcolm]

... the simile of Indra's Net from the Avatamsaka Sutra.

FYI, the origin of the Indra's net metaphor is found in the Atharva Veda.

[deepbluehum]

You need to read it again. He does not state what you just said.

Check the quoted passage I just posted. "One citta." We are one.

No, this simply means that their invidividual continuums were freed of bounderies, not that there is only one mental continuum sharing three bodies. In other words, they have equal access to each other's mind, etc.

And it certainly does not mean that we are all just of one mind.

"eka" not only means "one" but can mean "same" in the sense of identical in feature i.e. this pot is the same as the pot, they are identical pots. See one, see all, etc.

So I think you are reading something in that passage that is not there.

M

I was being a little coy. We don't all share one conditioned mind. But the unconditioned is shared, just like the space in the pots. So it doesn't mean same features. Otherwise how could he read their minds and be of "one mind." I think you are reading more into it than is there. It's quite plainly stated.

[Lotus_Bitch]

No, this simply means that their invidividual continuums were freed of bounderies, not that there is only one mental continuum sharing three bodies. In other words, they have equal access to each other's mind, etc.

And it certainly does not mean that we are all just of one mind.

"eka" not only means "one" but can mean "same" in the sense of identical in feature i.e. this pot is the same as the pot, they are identical pots. See one, see all, etc.

So I think you are reading something in that passage that is not there.

M

Maybe we have a semantics issue... In non-duality, how would "equal access to each other's mind" (body) be different?

You must be new to Buddhism. Are you coming from an Advaita Vedanta background?

Anyways, non-duality means something very different between Hinduism and Buddhism. Non-duality according to Buddhism is the freedom from the extremes of eternalism and nihilism. The way you're describing non-duality would be classified as eternalism in Buddhism (and sounds closer to Advaita Vedanta.)

[Jeff]

The sky of unapprehending mind has no center or end.

So then it doesn't end where some other person begins.

Appearances arise and pass according to interdependent causation: They do not arise from or dissolve into some sort of independent, eternal, absolute consciousness/awareness, that stands behind/separate from the arising and passing of phenomena. These appearances are disjoint, each phenomena (of the 6 sense doors) arising and passing in each moment; with each moment complete in itself, yet interconnected with each passing chain of events.

...little removed

What do these appearances that are disjoint, appear in (or are made of)? When "you" notice an appearance, what is the act of noticing?

Also, I agree they are disjoint (or "just happen" like a movie), but would argue that they do happen (or exist).

[deepbluehum]

A more skillful way of looking at that quote (in order to avoid subsuming everything as a universal consciousness, which Buddhism rejects,) is through the simile of Indra's Net from the Avatamsaka Sutra.

Just when you think you capped it off, you opened a whole new can of worms. Indra's Net is a borrowed analogy from the Vedas. I would argue, based on all the passages mentioned in this thread, that the Buddha rejected conceptualizing a universal consciousness as mine, etc. And to ensure that his followers would actually recognize this Unconditioned consciousness in short order, he devised these ways of looking that avoid all conceptualizing, such that, the suchness can be seen directly, free from distortion.

It seem subsequent followers got into trouble conceptualizing the method/wisdom scheme the Buddha came up with. With the Abidhamma and Mahayana, you wind up with endless philosophical diatribe. It's in the way, perhaps. Maybe it's better, as the Lanka-avatara Sutra says, to believe in a Self, if you are conceptualizing non-self. For Buddha every word is a remedy to an ailment; the ailment which is preventing your direct perception of the Unconditioned eternal radiant consciousness that we all share.

[Lotus_Bitch]

... the simile of Indra's Net from the Avatamsaka Sutra.

FYI, the origin of the Indra's net metaphor is found in the Atharva Veda.

Thank you for the information.

Still, it's meaning is reworked to convey dependent origination....At least that's what I got from reading other people's commentary of the usage of that term, lol. I haven't even finished the first chapter of Thomas Cleary's translation (I think I stopped reading at like pg.125. It's an interesting sutra so far though.)

[Malcolm]

I was being a little coy. We don't all share one conditioned mind. But the unconditioned is shared, just like the space in the pots. So it doesn't mean same features. Otherwise how could he read their minds and be of "one mind." I think you are reading more into it than is there. It's quite plainly stated.

We simple do not understand this passage the same way. No point in discussing it further.

[deepbluehum]

You must be new to Buddhism. Are you coming from an Advaita Vedanta background?

Anyways, non-duality means something very different between Hinduism and Buddhism. Non-duality according to Buddhism is the freedom from the extremes of eternalism and nihilism. The way you're describing non-duality would be classified as eternalism in Buddhism (and sounds closer to Advaita Vedanta.)

'
You know Buddha had nothing to say about Advaita, because it wasn't around then. Actually, Advaita is a syncretic tradition of Vedanta and Buddhism begun by Shankaracharya.

As it says in the Suttas cited in this thread. Nibbana is an eternal and radiant consciousness.

[deepbluehum]

Take Dzogchen direct introduction, for example. The guru has to "get into that state," otherwise you can't. How is it possible someone can recognize the guru's state without a pervasive continuity?

[Jeff]

No, this simply means that their invidividual continuums were freed of bounderies, not that there is only one mental continuum sharing three bodies. In other words, they have equal access to each other's mind, etc.

And it certainly does not mean that we are all just of one mind.

"eka" not only means "one" but can mean "same" in the sense of identical in feature i.e. this pot is the same as the pot, they are identical pots. See one, see all, etc.

So I think you are reading something in that passage that is not there.

M

Maybe we have a semantics issue... In non-duality, how would "equal access to each other's mind" (body) be different?

You must be new to Buddhism. Are you coming from an Advaita Vedanta background?

Anyways, non-duality means something very different between Hinduism and Buddhism. Non-duality according to Buddhism is the freedom from the extremes of eternalism and nihilism. The way you're describing non-duality would be classified as eternalism in Buddhism (and sounds closer to Advaita Vedanta.)

Thanks. I am new to Buddhist definition of terms. My background would be best described as a hybrid of various paths (or experimentally making it up as I go). Not a big adavaita fan.

With your definition on non-duality... It may be more accurate to say that my concept of non-duality = Buddhist non-duality + no-self. Dependent origination can be tossed in for free.

I will try to be more careful with my terms in the future.

[Virgo]

As it says in the Suttas cited in this thread. Nibbana is an eternal and radiant consciousness.

Dude, nibbana is unarisen not eternal.


Kevin

[deepbluehum]

I was being a little coy. We don't all share one conditioned mind. But the unconditioned is shared, just like the space in the pots. So it doesn't mean same features. Otherwise how could he read their minds and be of "one mind." I think you are reading more into it than is there. It's quite plainly stated.

We simple do not understand this passage the same way. No point in discussing it further.

I don't think our two readings are mutually exclusive.

[Lotus_Bitch]

A more skillful way of looking at that quote (in order to avoid subsuming everything as a universal consciousness, which Buddhism rejects,) is through the simile of Indra's Net from the Avatamsaka Sutra.

Just when you think you capped it off, you opened a whole new can of worms. Indra's Net is a borrowed analogy from the Vedas. I would argue, based on all the passages mentioned in this thread, that the Buddha rejected conceptualizing a universal consciousness as mine, etc. And to ensure that his followers would actually recognize this Unconditioned consciousness in short order, he devised these ways of looking that avoid all conceptualizing, such that, the suchness can be seen directly, free from distortion.

It seem subsequent followers got into trouble conceptualizing the method/wisdom scheme the Buddha came up with. With the Abidhamma and Mahayana, you wind up with endless philosophical diatribe. It's in the way, perhaps. Maybe it's better, as the Lanka-avatara Sutra says, to believe in a Self, if you are conceptualizing non-self. For Buddha every word is a remedy to an ailment; the ailment which is preventing your direct perception of the Unconditioned eternal radiant consciousness that we all share.

Either way, experientially understanding anatta, is the only way to break the bonds of subsuming things into an "Awareness." Without that understanding you'll always view things in an Awareness VS Consciousness dualism.