Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Tue Dec 23, 2014 1:17 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 184 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 10  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 4:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Posts: 1302
Location: San Francisco, CA
Malcolm wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 4:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Posts: 1302
Location: San Francisco, CA
Lotus_Bitch wrote:
The sky of unapprehending mind has no center or end.


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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 4:30 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:22 pm
Posts: 154
deepbluehum wrote:
Lotus_Bitch wrote:
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".

:smile:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 4:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
deepbluehum wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:
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

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 4:47 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:22 pm
Posts: 154
Malcolm wrote:

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?

:smile:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 4:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:24 am
Posts: 275
deepbluehum wrote:
Lotus_Bitch wrote:
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.

_________________
Many meditators know how to meditate,
But only a few know how to dismantle [mental clinging].
- Je Gyare


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 4:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
Jeff wrote:
Malcolm wrote:

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?

:smile:


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

M

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 4:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
Lotus_Bitch wrote:
... 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.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 5:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Posts: 1302
Location: San Francisco, CA
Malcolm wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:
Malcolm wrote:

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 5:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:24 am
Posts: 275
Jeff wrote:
Malcolm wrote:

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?

:smile:

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.)

_________________
Many meditators know how to meditate,
But only a few know how to dismantle [mental clinging].
- Je Gyare


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 5:07 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:22 pm
Posts: 154
Lotus_Bitch wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:
Lotus_Bitch wrote:
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).

:smile:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 5:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Posts: 1302
Location: San Francisco, CA
Lotus_Bitch wrote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 5:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:24 am
Posts: 275
Malcolm wrote:
Lotus_Bitch wrote:
... 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.)

_________________
Many meditators know how to meditate,
But only a few know how to dismantle [mental clinging].
- Je Gyare


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 5:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
deepbluehum wrote:

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.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 5:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Posts: 1302
Location: San Francisco, CA
Lotus_Bitch wrote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 5:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Posts: 1302
Location: San Francisco, CA
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?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 5:18 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:22 pm
Posts: 154
Lotus_Bitch wrote:
Jeff wrote:
Malcolm wrote:

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?

:smile:

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.

:smile:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 5:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:47 am
Posts: 1434
Location: Globe
deepbluehum wrote:
As it says in the Suttas cited in this thread. Nibbana is an eternal and radiant consciousness.

Dude, nibbana is unarisen not eternal.


Kevin

_________________
ओं मणिपद्मे हूं

http://www.dalailama.com/webcasts/post/336-je-tsongkhapas-great-stages-of-the-path
http://www.ripple.org
http://caretoclick.com/save-the-rainforests/donate-clicks-likes-and-tweets-to-fight-climate-change-and-deforestation


Last edited by Virgo on Sat Aug 18, 2012 5:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 5:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Posts: 1302
Location: San Francisco, CA
Malcolm wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 5:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:24 am
Posts: 275
deepbluehum wrote:
Lotus_Bitch wrote:
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.

_________________
Many meditators know how to meditate,
But only a few know how to dismantle [mental clinging].
- Je Gyare


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 184 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 10  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: heart, Yahoo [Bot] and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group