How is this not Advaita?

[鐵觀音]

http://www.drbachinese.org/vbs/publish/ ... 40p008.pdf

Sutra:
Then he speculates, “My spiritual self, which is settled, bright, and unmoving, pervades the ten directions. All living beings are within my mind, and there they are born and die by themselves. Therefore, my mind is permanent, while those who undergo birth and death there are truly impermanent.”

Commentary:
Then he speculates, “My spiritual self, which is settled, bright, and unmoving, pervades the ten directions. My mind is in a state of unmoving suchness, replete with samadhi power and wisdom that are perfectly bright and unmoving.”
He says, “Since my mind pervades the ten directions, all living beings are contained within my mind, and there they are born and die by themselves, over and over. Therefore, my mind is permanent and not subject to birth and death, while those who undergo birth and death there are truly impermanent. The living beings in my mind are conti­ nually undergoing birth and death. Therefore, they must be impermanent in nature. My mind pervades the ten directions, permanent and unchanging. But the beings within it, undergoing birth and death, are impermanent.”

If I change the phrase "my mind" to Brahman, how is this any different? Please, I'd love clarification on this .

[muni]

Hi there,

"All living beings are within my mind, and there they are born and die by themselves. Therefore, my mind is permanent, while those who undergo birth and death there are truly impermanent.”

“We live in illusion and the appearance of things. There is a reality. We are that reality. When you understand this, you see that you are nothing, and being nothing, you are everything. That is all.” Kalu Rinpoche

The 'mirror' and its' reflections? Which is another expression?

The little thinking personal mind is a restricted form in which consciousness is locked, a temporary story-dwelling and actually prison, or suffering dream. Then none are our mind, they are all out!
Avaita what? Out.

Permanent can get some reactions, but some talk about beyond permanent and impermanent since it is not to describe. Or in a way as the endless-beginningless fundamental innate mind ( for example called clear light). Vast endless Mind, by which all are its' compassionate aspect itself. Nothing other is there.

[jmlee369]

http://www.drbachinese.org/vbs/publish/ ... 40p008.pdf

Sutra:
Then he speculates, “My spiritual self, which is settled, bright, and unmoving, pervades the ten directions. All living beings are within my mind, and there they are born and die by themselves. Therefore, my mind is permanent, while those who undergo birth and death there are truly impermanent.”

Commentary:
Then he speculates, “My spiritual self, which is settled, bright, and unmoving, pervades the ten directions. My mind is in a state of unmoving suchness, replete with samadhi power and wisdom that are perfectly bright and unmoving.”
He says, “Since my mind pervades the ten directions, all living beings are contained within my mind, and there they are born and die by themselves, over and over. Therefore, my mind is permanent and not subject to birth and death, while those who undergo birth and death there are truly impermanent. The living beings in my mind are conti­ nually undergoing birth and death. Therefore, they must be impermanent in nature. My mind pervades the ten directions, permanent and unchanging. But the beings within it, undergoing birth and death, are impermanent.”

If I change the phrase "my mind" to Brahman, how is this any different? Please, I'd love clarification on this .

Context is important. This section of the sutra is describing someone who has fallen into wrong view. The sutra text before the quoted passage reads thus:

But if he begins to speculate about self and others, he could fall into error with theories of partial impermanence and partial permanence based on four distorted views.

source
Your quote describes the first of the four distorted views.

[ItsRaining]

Because of these speculations of impermanence and permanence, he will fall into externalism and become confused about the Bodhi nature. This is the third external teaching, which postulates partial permanence.

Commentary
Because of these four wrong theories based on his speculations of impermanence and permanence, he will lose proper and pervasive knowledge, fall into externalism, and become confused about the Bodhi nature. He says, “This part is permanent and that part is impermanent.” Because he has these inverted theories and doesn’t even understand their implications himself, he adopts the ideas of external teachings and becomes confused about the actual nature of Bodhi. This is the third external teaching, which postulates partial permanence. This third inverted theory advocated by external sects maintains that things are partially permanent and partially impermanent.

Here's Master Xuan Hua's commentary on the next paragraph of this sutra which basicall states that the previous passage was describing a incorrect view.

This section of the Surangama Sutra is known as the "50 Skhanda Demons", basically views, states, that people are drawn to at different stages of practice and are genrally incorrect so the Buddha point them out, I believe ten for each Skhanda. It's quite a good guide for practice.

[DGA]

Hi there,

"All living beings are within my mind, and there they are born and die by themselves. Therefore, my mind is permanent, while those who undergo birth and death there are truly impermanent.”

“We live in illusion and the appearance of things. There is a reality. We are that reality. When you understand this, you see that you are nothing, and being nothing, you are everything. That is all.” Kalu Rinpoche

The 'mirror' and its' reflections? Which is another expression?

The little thinking personal mind is a restricted form in which consciousness is locked, a temporary story-dwelling and actually prison, or suffering dream. Then none are our mind, they are all out!
Avaita what? Out.

Permanent can get some reactions, but some talk about beyond permanent and impermanent since it is not to describe. Or in a way as the endless-beginningless fundamental innate mind ( for example called clear light). Vast endless Mind, by which all are its' compassionate aspect itself. Nothing other is there.

OK, how does is idea you describe of "vast endless Mind" in line with the words of the great Kalu Rinpoche? I do not see the connection.

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

“We live in illusion and the appearance of things. There is a reality. We are that reality. When you understand this, you see that you are nothing, and being nothing, you are everything. That is all.” Kalu Rinpoche

Could you source that? I'm not challenging it. It very much sounds like Kalu R. I'd just like to be able to quote it authoritatively myself.

[muni]

Hi there,

"All living beings are within my mind, and there they are born and die by themselves. Therefore, my mind is permanent, while those who undergo birth and death there are truly impermanent.”

“We live in illusion and the appearance of things. There is a reality. We are that reality. When you understand this, you see that you are nothing, and being nothing, you are everything. That is all.” Kalu Rinpoche

The 'mirror' and its' reflections? Which is another expression?

The little thinking personal mind is a restricted form in which consciousness is locked, a temporary story-dwelling and actually prison, or suffering dream. Then none are our mind, they are all out!
Avaita what? Out.

Permanent can get some reactions, but some talk about beyond permanent and impermanent since it is not to describe. Or in a way as the endless-beginningless fundamental innate mind ( for example called clear light). Vast endless Mind, by which all are its' compassionate aspect itself. Nothing other is there.

OK, how does is idea you describe of "vast endless Mind" in line with the words of the great Kalu Rinpoche? I do not see the connection.

The innate mind is endless and beginningless ( = timeless) because it is not a creation, not dual.
Kalu Rinpoche expresses the nondual nature of mind.

[muni]

“We live in illusion and the appearance of things. There is a reality. We are that reality. When you understand this, you see that you are nothing, and being nothing, you are everything. That is all.” Kalu Rinpoche

Could you source that? I'm not challenging it. It very much sounds like Kalu R. I'd just like to be able to quote it authoritatively myself.

http://quotes.justdharma.com/being-noth ... verything/

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

OK, how does is idea you describe of "vast endless Mind" in line with the words of the great Kalu Rinpoche? I do not see the connection.

The innate mind is endless and beginningless ( = timeless) because it is not a creation, not dual.
Kalu Rinpoche expresses the nondual nature of mind.

The original post in this thread I read as being a Mind Only (Cittamatra) type of view. In that view mind is real. However Kalu R. is well known to have been a Shentongpa, which takes it to the next step. In Shentong "mind" is no more real than "table", however there is an Ultimate Reality that encompasses both "mind" and "table". The analogy given is that of a mirror and the images on the mirror. The images can never be anything other than the mirror. That really is close to, if not the same as, Advaita (imho).

Some people have a problem with that, and understandably so. In days of old it was "The Big No-No", a heresy. But it doesn't bother me.

[muni]

I am actually not responding to the fact that Advaita is same as that sutra, I do not think there is a need to compare (not at all), with respect. I picked some words out of the sutra, which are interesting.

The images can never be anything other than the mirror.

Longchenpa said: all is not mind but not other neither. Or others/all are not same as mind but not different.

The moonreflection can not be other than the pond, but is not the same still not different.

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

http://quotes.justdharma.com/being-noth ... verything/

Thanks.

[鐵觀音]

Thanks to all pointing out that this was a section of the Sutra referencing wrong views, much appreciated.

[dzogchungpa]

“We live in illusion and the appearance of things. There is a reality. We are that reality. When you understand this, you see that you are nothing, and being nothing, you are everything. That is all.” Kalu Rinpoche

Could you source that? I'm not challenging it. It very much sounds like Kalu R. I'd just like to be able to quote it authoritatively myself.

http://quotes.justdharma.com/being-noth ... verything/

I would be careful with this quote. As far as I can tell, it only occurs in this form in the books of various IMS type authors, without any real source given. The nearest I can find to a sourced version of this is the following:

If you wake up to … reality,
You will know that you are nothing,
And being nothing, you are everything.

which is quoted in Walsh's "The World's Great Wisom" and Goldfield's "Training the Wisdom Body". The source given in both books is:

Kalu Rinpoche. (ca.1980). Unpublished poem. In possession of Susan Skolnick.

I find this somewhat problematic, especially since no translator's name is mentioned. If someone can provide more information, e.g. the whole poem, the translator etc. I would be interested. Anyway, I would take it with a grain of salt.

[muni]

I would be careful with this quote.

Too late. It has bitten me.

It very much depends how things and words are percieved and are whether useful or not. But for me this quote obviously describes what cannot be described and is therefore a kind of a pointing.

The opposite could be " others (and so every thing) are the biased perception of ego. As far as I remember this is Guru Rinpoche. This results then in clinging.

“A fool sees himself as another, but a wise man sees others as himself.” Dogen.

None of these quotes can be taken literary or are object for conceptual mind.

Perhaps I can also refer to the union of the "two truths".

[DGA]

It very much depends how things and words are percieved and are whether useful or not.

This is true: what a given teaching might mean to the student depends on the context, and on what use that student intends to make of it.

Is the student engaged in a long-term make-it-up-as-you-go-along, lie-to-yourself project? If so, then the student will make that kind of meaning out of it.

Is the student trying to learn in good faith under the direction of a competent teacher? If so, then the student will make that kind of meaning out of it.

Now, define "useful" differently.

If the student intends to just make up whatever path she or he wants to, and to practice only as he or she sees fit, and further presumes to teach others that what he or she has cooked up is a nourishing stew, then--that is useless for everyone.

If the student is practicing in good faith... that is very useful for everyone.

[muni]

The object Advaita is not my concern. The sutra caught my eye.

phpBB [video]

[dzogchungpa]

I would be careful with this quote.

Too late. It has bitten me.

Ouch.

I had some time to look into the Walsh book and I see that the quote is found in Ari Goldfield's contribution "The Innate Awareness of Buddhist Wisdom", so I consider it to be reliable and I assume the translation is Goldfield's. Here is how he introduces it:

One might imagine that the realization of selflessness would be tantamount to experiencing extinction. In fact, those who claim to have realized this aspect of wisdom describe it as great liberation, because being free from thinking one’s identity is confined to a small body and ego feels wonderful, they say. In the modern Tibetan master Kalu Rinpoche’s (ca.1980) words:

I would like to see the poem actually, if anyone can get a hold of it.

[Vasana]

OK, how does is idea you describe of "vast endless Mind" in line with the words of the great Kalu Rinpoche? I do not see the connection.

The innate mind is endless and beginningless ( = timeless) because it is not a creation, not dual.
Kalu Rinpoche expresses the nondual nature of mind.

The original post in this thread I read as being a Mind Only (Cittamatra) type of view.

Jmlee clarified the context of the op already.

Context is important. This section of the sutra is describing someone who has fallen into wrong view. The sutra text before the quoted passage reads thus:

But if he begins to speculate about self and others, he could fall into error with theories of partial impermanence and partial permanence based on four distorted views.

In that view mind is real. However Kalu R. is well known to have been a Shentongpa, which takes it to the next step. In Shentong "mind" is no more real than "table", however there is an Ultimate Reality that encompasses both "mind" and "table". The analogy given is that of a mirror and the images on the mirror. The images can never be anything other than the mirror. That really is close to, if not the same as, Advaita (imho).

Some people have a problem with that, and understandably so. In days of old it was "The Big No-No", a heresy. But it doesn't bother me.

Advaita is an eternalist position and so it can't resemble any kind of Madyamika just as no nihilist position can either.

I assume your teachers are shentongpa smcj? And their's? And their's etc? The views are rafts. I'm sure you don't need reminding that the purpose of analysis is to pacify all concepts and arrive in a state free from reference points.

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

Advaita is an eternalist position and so it can't resemble any kind of Madyamika just as no nihilist position can either.

Madhyamaka belongs to the Second Turning of the Wheel of Dharma.

Shentong belongs to the Third Turning of the Wheel. It posits a Wisdom, that isn't "mind", that is true and real. It is not self-empty in the Madhyamaka sense since it cannot be taken as an object of consciousness and is therefore not subject to Nagarjuna's deconstruction. It is empty of anything other than irs own pure Buddha Nature.

That' narrative can be found on p.66 of Khenpo Tsultrim's
"Progressive Stages on the Meditation on Emptiness" 2nd edition. I think it's a different page in the 3rd edition.

Some people flip out and call that eternalist. I don't feel particularly defensive when they do.

I assume your teachers are shentongpa smcj? And their's? And their's etc?

The Karma Kagyu school has been formally so since Karmapa III. It could be argued to have been informally so since at least Gompopa, if not earlier.

[Anonymous X]

The innate mind is endless and beginningless ( = timeless) because it is not a creation, not dual.
Kalu Rinpoche expresses the nondual nature of mind.

The original post in this thread I read as being a Mind Only (Cittamatra) type of view.

Jmlee clarified the context of the op already.

Context is important. This section of the sutra is describing someone who has fallen into wrong view. The sutra text before the quoted passage reads thus:

But if he begins to speculate about self and others, he could fall into error with theories of partial impermanence and partial permanence based on four distorted views.

In that view mind is real. However Kalu R. is well known to have been a Shentongpa, which takes it to the next step. In Shentong "mind" is no more real than "table", however there is an Ultimate Reality that encompasses both "mind" and "table". The analogy given is that of a mirror and the images on the mirror. The images can never be anything other than the mirror. That really is close to, if not the same as, Advaita (imho).

Some people have a problem with that, and understandably so. In days of old it was "The Big No-No", a heresy. But it doesn't bother me.

Advaita is an eternalist position and so it can't resemble any kind of Madyamika just as no nihilist position can either.

I assume your teachers are shentongpa smcj? And their's? And their's etc? The views are rafts. I'm sure you don't need reminding that the purpose of analysis is to pacify all concepts and arrive in a state free from reference points.

Is their really a raft, and is there really someone on that raft? Where will they arrive? This kind of thinking seems to cling to further concepts about self and selflessness. Without the direct experience of emptiness, mentation still tries to find a position. The cutting through doesn't happen with analysis. Analysis is not the same as illumination. Analysis is good for intellectual clarity.