Guest guest Posted January 7, 2003 Report Share Posted January 7, 2003 Hello Group, I just joined, this is a very big and busy group! The homepage says: "In Advaita Vedanta, the highest teaching emphasizes the complete identity of the Individual Soul with the Supreme Soul. In Tibetan Buddhism, Dzogchen is considered the supreme teaching and represents the nondual focus on one's innate wakefulness." I read somewhere that Buddhism was unique in Rejecting the notion of a Supreme Soul, or Atman, or any Ultimate Ground yet the homepage makes it sound like Buddhism is no different than Vedanta. Could somebody please clarify or point me to a fuller explanation of this issue? I'm not losing sleep or anything, just curious. :-) thanks, david. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2003 Report Share Posted January 7, 2003 First I just want to say that Big Texas Bob and Big John you guys are just amazing for the depth of your understanding. When I read your posts, like the patanjali and the ribu gita stuff, its like Wow! I feel we are so lucky that you are all here. How did you find us John and I am so glad that you did! You are both very eloquent and humble Big Bob and John. All I can think is that I must have some good karma to have the company of such people. I would love to hear all of your stories. And Al, the pictures and the poetry just blow us away. Welcome back Linda! I wish I could respond to every post fully. Hope all is well with you and will get better. Wishing you all well Love to all Harsha Welcome to the group David. --- David King <david.king wrote: > Hello Group, > > I just joined, this is a very big and busy group! > > The homepage says: "In Advaita Vedanta, the highest > teaching emphasizes the complete identity of the > Individual Soul with the Supreme Soul. In Tibetan > Buddhism, Dzogchen is considered the supreme > teaching and represents the nondual focus on one's > innate wakefulness." > > I read somewhere that Buddhism was unique in > Rejecting the notion of a Supreme Soul, or Atman, or > any Ultimate Ground yet the homepage makes it sound > like Buddhism is no different than Vedanta. > > Could somebody please clarify or point me to a > fuller explanation of this issue? I'm not losing > sleep or anything, just curious. :-) > > thanks, > david. ===== /join Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2003 Report Share Posted January 8, 2003 , "David King" <david.king@p...> wrote: > Hello Group, > > I just joined, this is a very big and busy group! > > The homepage says: "In Advaita Vedanta, the highest teaching emphasizes the complete identity of the Individual Soul with the Supreme Soul. In Tibetan Buddhism, Dzogchen is considered the supreme teaching and represents the nondual focus on one's innate wakefulness." > > I read somewhere that Buddhism was unique in Rejecting the notion of a Supreme Soul, or Atman, or any Ultimate Ground yet the homepage makes it sound like Buddhism is no different than Vedanta. > > Could somebody please clarify or point me to a fuller explanation of this issue? I'm not losing sleep or anything, just curious. :-) > > thanks, > david. Namaste, Vedanta's ultimate teaching is Nirguna Brahman and this is no difference from the Buddha's Nirvana....... http://www.geocities.com/aoclery/BuddismVed.htm Om Sakti.....Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2003 Report Share Posted January 8, 2003 Thank you Gloria (and Tony and Harsha) for wonderful references; they are helpful. I did not know Dzogchen was specific to the Nyingma school; it is unfortunate that these different Buddhist schools are still engaged in political battles. Gloria (or perhaps Harsha) wrote: > I do not see the slightest distinction between the Vedantic "Self" and the > Buddhist "No Self". When there is nothing to hold on to and no one to hold > on, and when even the slightest trace of individual mental consciousness has > vanished, who remains to say "This is no self or this is Self, etc. Sure, in the absolute, who remains to say anything? In the relative world, the Atman concept (something) still seems to offer more to hold on to than the Emptiness concept (nothing). This might lead to different practices: 1. You are Atman. Find out who sees. (Student finds no-thing.) 2. You are Empty, no-thing. (Student commits suicide. Gloria (or perhaps Harsha) wrote: > Sri Ramana spoke plainly from his direct experience when he referred to > Buddha's teachings. Harsha wrote (in Dr. Pham's article): > If we go behind the feeling/awareness of the I AM, we can intuitively sense this. > Holding on to this intuitive sense of Emptiness which can be seen/felt in the > Present Beingness/Nowness and merging with it is a natural path for some. Part of my question involves how much we can directly See in meditation. I made some progress last year with self-inquiry and Saw, for example, that mind (that which thinks) is a concept. So this was amusing. I also could not See the Seer but there was an Isness or Suchness about it. Back in my relative cyberlife, should I label this Atman or Witness or Mind? Emptiness might be another candidate, but I'm not sure what it means: I felt awake and there was stuff (experience), not no-stuff. I've heard Emptiness defined as impermanence and selflessness (with a small "s"). Seeing selflessness seems fairly easy; Seeing impermanence, of a rock for example, is not so obvious; we know it changes over eons but that is conceptual. To summarize (?): 1. We don't (really) know if Maharshi's direct experience was identical to Buddha's; 2. Even if they were, I don't think this question (Atman or Anatman) is answerable from direct experience (i.e., Neither is directly visible in meditation); 3. What remains are relative choices we make in designing religions to help people avoid suffering. Now I am in over my head. :-) namaste, david. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2003 Report Share Posted January 9, 2003 , "David King" <david.king@p...> > To summarize (?): > > 1. We don't (really) know if Maharshi's direct experience was identical to Buddha's; > > 2. Even if they were, I don't think this question (Atman or Anatman) is answerable from direct experience (i.e., Neither is directly visible in meditation); > > 3. What remains are relative choices we make in designing religions to help people avoid suffering. > > Now I am in over my head. :-) > > namaste, > david. **************** Thanks Sister Gloria for that earlier post reference. David, I agree with most of what you said. 1. You are right that we don't know whether Sri Ramana's experience is identical to that of Buddha. However, this does not preclude Ramana Maharshi knowing exactly what Buddha was saying. 2. Your second point is a conclusion (which, you yourself imply) not based on direct experience. My experience is that anyone knowing the nature of the Self, the Heart, the Being that is at the core of existence will know it simultaneously as Sat-Chit-Ananda (a positive description) and Emptiness or No-Thingness. The common element is the absence of concepts and complete freedom from even the most subtle longings....Absolute Independence....Patanjali describes it as the Seer Resting in One's Own Nature. Buddha Nature, Self-Nature, these are all the same. There are many minor teachers and yogis and meditators in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, etc. They all cling to their religions and notions. A Self-Realized Sage in any of these traditions is a rare phenomena and easily sees the same sameness everywhere. 3. The third point is relevant to the teachings of Buddha but not as much to Ramana Maharshi. Love to all Harsha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2003 Report Share Posted January 9, 2003 , "David King" <david.king@p...> wrote: > Thank you Gloria (and Tony and Harsha) for wonderful references; they are helpful. I did not know Dzogchen was specific to the Nyingma school; it is unfortunate that these different Buddhist schools are still engaged in political battles. > > Gloria (or perhaps Harsha) wrote: > > I do not see the slightest distinction between the Vedantic "Self" and the > > Buddhist "No Self". When there is nothing to hold on to and no one to hold > > on, and when even the slightest trace of individual mental consciousness has > > vanished, who remains to say "This is no self or this is Self, etc. > > Sure, in the absolute, who remains to say anything? In the relative world, the Atman concept (something) still seems to offer more to hold on to than the Emptiness concept (nothing). This might lead to different practices: > > 1. You are Atman. Find out who sees. (Student finds no-thing.) > > 2. You are Empty, no-thing. (Student commits suicide. > > Gloria (or perhaps Harsha) wrote: > > Sri Ramana spoke plainly from his direct experience when he referred to > > Buddha's teachings. > > Harsha wrote (in Dr. Pham's article): > > If we go behind the feeling/awareness of the I AM, we can intuitively sense this. > > Holding on to this intuitive sense of Emptiness which can be seen/felt in the > > Present Beingness/Nowness and merging with it is a natural path for some. > > Part of my question involves how much we can directly See in meditation. I made some progress last year with self-inquiry and Saw, for example, that mind (that which thinks) is a concept. So this was amusing. I also could not See the Seer but there was an Isness or Suchness about it. > > Back in my relative cyberlife, should I label this Atman or Witness or Mind? Emptiness might be another candidate, but I'm not sure what it means: I felt awake and there was stuff (experience), not no- stuff. I've heard Emptiness defined as impermanence and selflessness (with a small "s"). Seeing selflessness seems fairly easy; Seeing impermanence, of a rock for example, is not so obvious; we know it changes over eons but that is conceptual. > > To summarize (?): > > 1. We don't (really) know if Maharshi's direct experience was identical to Buddha's; > > 2. Even if they were, I don't think this question (Atman or Anatman) is answerable from direct experience (i.e., Neither is directly visible in meditation); > > 3. What remains are relative choices we make in designing religions to help people avoid suffering. > > Now I am in over my head. :-) > > namaste, > david. Namaste David, The connection between Ramana and Gautama the Buddha is purification, that is 'No Experience', at all.........Om Sakti......Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2003 Report Share Posted January 9, 2003 - David King satsangh Wednesday, January 08, 2003 7:16 PM Re: Sleepy Souls? Thank you Gloria (and Tony and Harsha) for wonderful references; they are helpful. I did not know Dzogchen was specific to the Nyingma school; it is unfortunate that these different Buddhist schools are still engaged in political battles.Gloria (or perhaps Harsha) wrote: Hello David, I just forwarded the info that others wrote. Its a great timesaver when too busy to write a reply. There's a memory file in my mind for recognizing questions that have come up before and some outstanding posts others have written are in a saved file. Otherwise my memory has holes like swiss cheese. > I do not see the slightest distinction between the Vedantic "Self" and the> Buddhist "No Self". When there is nothing to hold on to and no one to hold> on, and when even the slightest trace of individual mental consciousness has> vanished, who remains to say "This is no self or this is Self, etc.Sure, in the absolute, who remains to say anything? In the relative world, the Atman concept (something) still seems to offer more to hold on to than the Emptiness concept (nothing). This might lead to different practices: Yes! Its talk about practices and concepts, not about ultimate reality. Obviously, there cannot be alternate versions of "how it is" except relatively. Absolutely, it is how it is regardless of our ideas about this. 1. You are Atman. Find out who sees. (Student finds no-thing.)2. You are Empty, no-thing. (Student commits suicide. Uh, David, emptiness can have a slightly more positive spin than this. Emptiness is what allows for change and flux, so it is ultimately freedom. To make a 'thing' of emptiness might lead to nihilism, but that is a mistaken understanding. Gloria (or perhaps Harsha) wrote:> Sri Ramana spoke plainly from his direct experience when he referred to> Buddha's teachings.Harsha wrote (in Dr. Pham's article):> If we go behind the feeling/awareness of the I AM, we can intuitively sense this.> Holding on to this intuitive sense of Emptiness which can be seen/felt in the> Present Beingness/Nowness and merging with it is a natural path for some.Part of my question involves how much we can directly See in meditation. I made some progress last year with self-inquiry and Saw, for example, that mind (that which thinks) is a concept. So this was amusing. I also could not See the Seer but there was an Isness or Suchness about it. To see the seer would make an object of it, yes? The Seer is subject, it is what is looking, not what is looked at and seen. So it makes sense you could not see it with the mind, the looking is meant to take you beyond mind. "You" are what you are looking for and what is looking, the looker, in a sense. But I prefer to use verbs like, the seeing, knowing and being instead of nouns you can hang your hat onBack in my relative cyberlife, should I label this Atman or Witness or Mind? Emptiness might be another candidate, but I'm not sure what it means: I felt awake and there was stuff (experience), not no-stuff. I've heard Emptiness defined as impermanence and selflessness (with a small "s"). Seeing selflessness seems fairly easy; Seeing impermanence, of a rock for example, is not so obvious; we know it changes over eons but that is conceptual. If you pay attention to rocks long enough, you can watch the lichen grow, or the colors change from how the light hits them. Impermanance as dependent origination is rather obvious, it takes the whole universe and million years of evolution to allow you to exist, David. You cannot exist separate from all that happening.. "to see a world in a grain of sand" ... you know, like that. Admitedly, concepts and terms are used to make language about Buddhism, yet of course, seeing is not so much literally with eyes, as it is understanding how reality really is, what is real. When a truth enters your being, this is more than a concept which can easily be dropped or an experience which can be forgotten. This knowing is being what is realized, as in not a concept about love but being loving. To summarize (?):1. We don't (really) know if Maharshi's direct experience was identical to Buddha's;2. Even if they were, I don't think this question (Atman or Anatman) is answerable from direct experience (i.e., Neither is directly visible in meditation);3. What remains are relative choices we make in designing religions to help people avoid suffering.Now I am in over my head. :-) Aren't we all? Love, Glorianamaste,david./join The Heart is the Self. The Self is the Heart. Your use of is subject to the Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2003 Report Share Posted January 9, 2003 , "Gloria Lee" <glee@c...> wrote: > > - > David King > satsangh > Wednesday, January 08, 2003 7:16 PM > Re: Sleepy Souls? > > > Thank you Gloria (and Tony and Harsha) for wonderful references; Namaste, There is a big difference between the Buddhist no-self and the vedantic Self!!!! The prior is Nirguna the latter Saguna.....Om Sakti....Tony. IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2003 Report Share Posted January 9, 2003 Let us not waste time on the discussion that has has been going on for hundreds of years. Here are some words from Ramana, Forty Verses on Reality: Under whatever name and form one may worship the Absolute Reality, it is only a means for realizing It without name and form. That alone is true realization, wherein one knows oneself in relation to that Reality, attains peace and realizes one's identity with It. - ">saktidasa <saktidasa > Thursday, January 09, 2003 9:03 PM Re: Sleepy Souls? , "Gloria Lee" <glee@c...> wrote:> > - > David King > To: satsangh > Wednesday, January 08, 2003 7:16 PM> Re: Sleepy Souls?> > > Thank you Gloria (and Tony and Harsha) for wonderful references; Namaste,There is a big difference between the Buddhist no-self and the vedantic Self!!!! The prior is Nirguna the latter Saguna.....Om Sakti....Tony. IMO./join The Heart is the Self. The Self is the Heart. Your use of is subject to the Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2003 Report Share Posted January 9, 2003 , "Al Larus" <alarus@o...> wrote: > Let us not waste time on the discussion that has has been going on for hundreds of years. > Here are some words from Ramana, Forty Verses on Reality: > Under whatever name and form one may worship the Absolute Reality, it is only a means for realizing It without name and form. That alone is true realization, wherein one knows oneself in relation to that Reality, attains peace and realizes one's identity with It. > > > > - > saktidasa <saktidasa> > > Thursday, January 09, 2003 9:03 PM > Re: Sleepy Souls? > > > , "Gloria Lee" <glee@c...> wrote: > > > > - > > David King > > satsangh > > Wednesday, January 08, 2003 7:16 PM > > Re: Sleepy Souls? > > > > > > Thank you Gloria (and Tony and Harsha) for wonderful references; > > Namaste, > > There is a big difference between the Buddhist no-self and the > vedantic Self!!!! The prior is Nirguna the latter Saguna.....Om > Sakti....Tony. IMO. Namaste. >Under whatever name and form one may worship the Absolute Reality, it is only a means for realizing It without name and form.< Yes but there are subtle and important differences. To many people the Self is the Universal, Sat-Chit-Ananda, etc. However these are attributes and therefore they constitute a subtle 'form'. This is the Saguna Brahman, Sakti or Self. Nirguna is beyond all these forms energy or whatever. That is the truth of Ramana and the Buddha.....Om Sakti...(Many people have not reached a state of awareness where they can even conceive of a Self being completely attributeless.)..Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2003 Report Share Posted January 9, 2003 Hi Harsha, Thanks for your thoughtful comments and let me begin by saying I'm in almost complete agreement with you. My questions are mostly irrelevant to an individual's achieving Realization, more of an academic interest in comparitive religion and maybe of practical interest in saving the planet (aka Mahayana). Having said that, more comments are below. > Message: 12 > Thu, 09 Jan 2003 13:39:22 -0000 > "harshaimtm <harshaimtm" <harshaimtm > Re: Sleepy Souls? > > , "David King" <david.king@p...> > > > > 1. We don't (really) know if Maharshi's direct experience was > identical to Buddha's; > > > > 2. Even if they were, I don't think this question (Atman or > Anatman) is answerable from direct experience (i.e., Neither is > directly visible in meditation); > > > > 3. What remains are relative choices we make in designing > religions to help people avoid suffering. > > > **************** > Thanks Sister Gloria for that earlier post reference. David, I agree > with most of what you said. > > 1. You are right that we don't know whether Sri Ramana's experience > is identical to that of Buddha. However, this does not preclude > Ramana Maharshi knowing exactly what Buddha was saying. How can Maharshi know exactly what Buddha meant if he had a different experience? (I won't belabor this issue if you won't -- it can open a can of worms if everyone has a different experience of What Is.) > 2. Your second point is a conclusion (which, you yourself imply) not > based on direct experience. I think even Maharshi would agree with (2): "My Master, Ramana Maharishi, said to me, 'God is not an object to be seen, He is the subject. He cannot be seen, He is the Seer, find this Seer.' My Heart was opened. 'Find the Seer,' this is the Teaching." - Papaji So Atman, the mother of all subjects, is not an object, and cannot be seen. A knife cannot cut itself. Etc. As for Anatman, we cannot directly experience the lack of something (but our inability to See Atman might be regarded as a direct experience of Anatman). Interestingly, we see no mind (that which thinks) and are happy to say there is no mind, but we see no Self and continue to state its existence (in Hinduism). > My experience is that anyone Danger Will Robinson! This person knows your experience exactly! ;-) > knowing the > nature of the Self, the Heart, the Being that is at the core of > existence will know it simultaneously as Sat-Chit-Ananda (a positive > description) and Emptiness or No-Thingness. The common element is the > absence of concepts and complete freedom from even the most subtle > longings....Absolute Independence.... Yes, exactly, and there's the rub. We are talking about descriptions of the complete absense of concepts. Relative conceptualizations of absolute nonconceptual ineffable experiences. Maybe that's my main point here, is that all these words we use to describe absolutes (Self, Emptiness, etc.) are chosen in our relative cultural mindset, not discovered in meditation. > Patanjali describes it as the > Seer Resting in One's Own Nature. Buddha Nature, Self-Nature, these > are all the same. There are many minor teachers and yogis and > meditators in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, etc. They all cling to > their religions and notions. A Self-Realized Sage in any of these > traditions is a rare phenomena and easily sees the same sameness > everywhere. This is tricky, Harsha. What if a Self-Realized Sage said that a certain view was incorrect? That all views were not the same? Would he / she automatically be labeled a false guru? I mean, there is presently a (apparently senior, realized, super-duper) group of Gelugpa Buddhists aggressively trying to prove the Nyingmas are "wrong." > 3. The third point is relevant to the teachings of Buddha but not as > much to Ramana Maharshi. I don't think Maharshi made up everything. He studied Hinduism for many years and his teachings are pretty much in line with what Shankara wrote. So Hinduism teaches Atman, and Buddhism (traditionally at least) teaches No-Atman, and these two views are probably equivalent in the absolute, as you have so eloquently stated, but their relative ramifications may have important differences for how we practice and create our worldview and teach others. namaste, david. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2003 Report Share Posted January 9, 2003 Hi Gloria, Your comments are as excellent as your quotes. :-) , "Gloria Lee" <glee@c...> wrote: > > Otherwise my memory has holes like swiss cheese. Me too. Still, your references are spot on. > Sure, in the absolute, who remains to say anything? In the relative world, the Atman concept (something) still seems to offer more to hold on to than the Emptiness concept (nothing). This might lead to different practices: > > Yes! Its talk about practices and concepts, not about ultimate reality. Obviously, there cannot be alternate versions of "how it is" except relatively. > Absolutely, it is how it is regardless of our ideas about this. Obviously? Actually, I'm questioning this (just to be a pain in the neck), because even "Absolute" is a relative concept and we cannot read each others' minds. But this is an ancillary thing that will lead us into Moria if we are not careful. > If you pay attention to rocks long enough, you can watch the lichen grow, or the colors change from how the light hits them. I'm watching. See you next year. > Impermanance > as dependent origination is rather obvious, it takes the whole universe and million years of evolution to allow you to exist, David. You cannot exist > separate from all that happening.. "to see a world in a grain of sand" .... you know, like that. > Admitedly, concepts and terms are used to make language about Buddhism, yet of course, seeing is not so much literally with eyes, > as it is understanding how reality really is, what is real. When a truth enters your being, this is more than a concept which can easily be dropped > or an experience which can be forgotten. This knowing is being what is realized, as in not a concept about love but being loving. Very nice, thanks. I guess my experiences haven't entered my being yet. I'll keep at it. namaste, dave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.