Lankavatara Sutra

[Guest guest]

And thanks to you Benjamin, for putting so much energy, courtesy and

intelligence into this inquiry.

 

 

 

 

 

Whether emptiness=consciousness according to Madhyamika or not. This has been

spoken of before here, and in many other places as well. Here's an interesting

sociological factoid about that - based on lots of reading and investigating of

my own...

 

 

 

 

 

Vedantic consciousness and Madhyamikan emptiness. Most people who equate the

two tend to

 

have studied Vedanta first. Most people who do not equate the two tend to have

studied Buddhism first!

 

 

 

 

 

Om and Amituofo,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Hi Greg,

 

I see all the 'emptiness' in your message! That did not go

unnoticed. I like these transcendental puns.

 

 

And Venkat,

 

I have something else to say about the Buddhism that you may

encounter in India. Although I have never visited India, it is quite

clear to me from reading various Indian websites that Buddhism in

present day India has a definite political message. Namely, it has

been embraced by a number of Dalits to voice their protest against

Casteism. Rightly or wrongly, casteism has become associated with

'Brahmanism' and Brahmans in general. Now, I am not so naive as to

think that Brahmans are the 'rich, bad guys'. (In fact, I realize

that most Brahmins have not been rich, and the ones who continue to

take care of temples today are often quite poor. And they now get

discriminated against in applications for schools and government

jobs, etc.) But clearly there is a lot of bad feeling, and Buddhism

is being used as a vehicle to express opposition. So beware of this

when you do not find a whole lot of sympathy for Vedanta in India

from the Buddhists there.

 

This is not the forum for a political discussion, but I do

want to point out the silver lining to this politicization of

Buddhism. They Dalits are still trying to say that they retain some

kind of spirituality and devotion to India. Otherwise, they would

choose Marxism, which is anti-spiritual and subversive of the nation.

The question of social inequality is very troubling and complicated,

and a fair and workable solution is not easy to find. But I do

believe that the Buddha would not have approved of such outright

politicization of his spiritual message.

 

Pranams

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Benjamin wrote:Again, IMHO the 'self' denied by the Buddha was none other

than the finite self, also called the ego. There can be no doubt

that Buddha rejected the ego; this is a core conviction of all

Buddhist traditions. But some may object that he also denied the

Self of the Upanishadic tradition. Not so. And here is why. It

doesn't matter what the words of different traditions may sometimes

seem to say. The fundamental fact is that Consciousness itself is

simply undeniable. And this Consciousness is what Advaitins mean by

the Self, as they clearly state. Buddha was only concerned with

denying a 'self' as any kind of object that could be grasped with the

discriminating, dualistic mind. And Advaitins would quite agree.

 

 

 

Hello Benjamin,

You started a great spate of discussion there, good on you.

 

I've come to regard Buddhism as a path not a closely argued intricately

wrought philosophy. Has not the Buddha declared that in various places to

which I am unable to give you chapter and verse. There are some strong

psychological insights too which have made it attractive to Western

European and American intelligentsia. That and Zen with its satori, haiku

and minimalism make it cool. For the intelligentsia religion is reason on

holiday. Another thing, Buddhism is easier to understand than Advaita.

Idealism was the epistemology of choice for many major thinkers and

scientists in the 19th.C. We get it.

 

What you say about the self in Buddhism Allan Watts in 'The way of Zen'

would concur with. However strong anatman is definitely part of mainstream

Buddhist Metaphysics. Also the Advaitic(of Samkhya origin) doctrine theory

of the identity of cause and effect i.e. that the cause is in the effect is

specifically denied as though they had that theory in mind.

"When firewood becomes ashes, it never returns to being firewood. But we

should not take the view that what is latterly ashes was formerly firewood.

What we should understand is that, according to the doctrine of Buddhism,

firewood stays at the position of firewood....There are former and later

stages, but these stages are clearly cut." (from Dogen's Shobogenzo)

 

Without being contrary or contentious it reminds me of the comment of the

Kerala man when I asked him about how the state gov. shared between C.P.

(Mos) and C.P. (Pek) managed. With that unique body language all he said

was "Difficulties are there".

 

Well anyway today (in Ireland) the bands will be playing that non-P.C.

marching song - We're on the one road, maybe the wrong road, the road to God

knows where.

Best Wishes, Michael

 

 

 

 

_______________

STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*

http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Michael:

 

Thanks for bringing this important point regarding the distinction

between Buddhism and Advaita. Whenever we try use simplistic language

to make conclusions on a complex subject, we get into the grey area.

Any over simplications to attain definitive conclusions always bring

more complications and objections. Our problem is that we

overestimate our ability and try to explain using an inefficient

media - plain English language. As a matter of fact, even the

classical language - Sanskrit can't complete this impossible task of

making conclusions using limited knowledge on the 'unbound Truth.'

Seers such as Buddha or Sankara have their vision of the Reality

which they were forced to explain using the means of language. Though

the Ultimate Reality is the same for all, but our perceptions of the

Ultimate Reality do differ and it mostly depends on our background

and beliefs. Some find that Advaita is identical to Buddhism, some

find them very different and others compare the similarities and

differences using some objective framework of their own.

 

In Hinduism, the difficulty of comprehension is well understood and

Isvara (God) played a significant role as the rescuer. For Sankara's

theology, God was always in the background and 'His Grace' became an

integral part of Self-Realization.'

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin, "michael Reidy" <ombhurbhuva@h...>

wrote:

>...........

> For the intelligentsia religion is reason on

> holiday. Another thing, Buddhism is easier to understand than

Advaita.

> Idealism was the epistemology of choice for many major thinkers and

> scientists in the 19th.C. We get it.

>

> What you say about the self in Buddhism Allan Watts in 'The way of

Zen'

> would concur with. However strong anatman is definitely part of

mainstream

> Buddhist Metaphysics.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Michael and Ram,

 

A couple of quick comments as I sip my coffee before starting my day...

 

Sri Ram is undoubtedly right that the 'mystic vision' gets

colored by culture and background once an attempt is made to put it

into words. Still, many striking parallels between widely divergent

traditions, such as between Shankara and Meister Eckhart, have

convinced me that the 'nondual experience' transcends culture and

tradition, even if it must be expressed in the terms of a culture or

tradition.

 

Actually, the real distinction may be between the immediate

nondual realization of Shankara, Buddha, Ramana, Zen, Sufis, etc., on

the one hand, and the devotional, dualitistic experience of Dvaita,

Christianity, Islam, etc., on the other hand. I believe that the

devotional stage must eventually be transcended into the nondualistic

stage, as the consciousness evolves. It makes a kind of

'mathematical' sense to me. That is, we are ultimately the Supreme

Consciousness in our inmost nature, but we must pass through various

'conceptual' stages before we can truly realize it.

 

As for Sri Michael's comments on cause and effect... I would

have to brush up on that aspect of Hindu philosophy. However, I can

offer one word of caution. I think it makes a big difference whether

we FIRST consider the 'cause' and 'effect' to be an OBJECT distinct

from consciousness, or whether we do not. This fundamentally affects

the rest of the discussion. Material substance is a prime example of

a supposed object to which the concepts of cause and effect are

applied.

 

Briefly, if you want my own personal opinion, for what it is

worth, I think that when thinkers such as Nagarjuna and Gaudapada

deny the categories of 'cause' and 'effect' and 'birth' or

'production', they are really denying material substance. And, at

the most general level, 'matter' or 'substance' are really just words

for OBJECT, for something that is presumably other than

consciousness. And nondualism denies this. That's my 'two cents'

(or 'two rupees').

 

By the way, it's interesting to see that you are in Ireland.

The internet still amazes me. We are really spread all over the

world! Ken Knight and Dennis Waite are in England. Greg Goode is

in New York. Several of us are in Washington, D.C. Venkat is in

Mumbai. And the 'silent majority' seems to be in India. I'd love to

hear more from them! Just share some spontaneous questions or

opinions about Advaita, and don't worry whether they are

'intelligent' or not. I am sure that Sri Ram would agree that that

is irrelevant.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Benjamin:

 

Both Brahman and Internet belong to the amazing part of the "mystic

vision" invisible to the naked eye but their existence don't need any

proof!

 

You are quite right in your assertion that the members of the

advaitin list spread all over the world. The list has approximately A

650 members and tracking of the #of members is imprecise

and the reported #s change every 15 minutes or so! A sizable majority

of the members belong to India and USA no precise number is possible

due to email addresses with and hotmail.com etc.'

 

Here are some facts:

 

We have Hindus, Christians (almost all denominations), Muslims, Jews,

Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, etc. Members come from all continents and we

have members from USA (30 or more states), India (all provinces),

China, Russia, Canada, England, Ireland, Netherlands, Belgium,

Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Poland, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Kenya,

Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam,

Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Kuwait and many others.

 

As you have rightly pointed out, the silent majority should start

responding and share their viewpoints. The notion of intelligence is

melt away and help us to witness the 'mystic vision' of the Brahman!

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

> ......

> By the way, it's interesting to see that you are in Ireland.

> The internet still amazes me. We are really spread all over the

> world! Ken Knight and Dennis Waite are in England. Greg Goode is

> in New York. Several of us are in Washington, D.C. Venkat is in

> Mumbai. And the 'silent majority' seems to be in India. I'd love

to

> hear more from them! Just share some spontaneous questions or

> opinions about Advaita, and don't worry whether they are

> 'intelligent' or not. I am sure that Sri Ram would agree that that

> is irrelevant.

>

> Hari Om!

> Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Ram Chandran wrote:

>For interested readers, here is a reference that contains extensive

>discussion on "THE UNIQUENESS AND VALIDITY OF THE BUDDHIST

>PATH." >http://www.home.earthlink.net/~pushpasri/buddhism/budh_unique.html

>The entire homepage is jointly prepared by Nanda Chandran and Vishal

>Aggarwal and they have been developing the materials for this page

>for the past several years. Their homepage true testimony for their

>excellent efforts. This homepage will serve as a ready reference for

>all spiritual seekers.

 

 

This article by Nanda Chandran and Vishal Aggarwal is indeed

most impressive, as is the entire website. Definitely something to

bookmark! Actually, I had an email conversation with Nanda a year or

so ago, which was quite stimulating. We had promised to return to

the question of 'Consciousness is All' someday, so I hope the recent

exchange on the Advaitin List was of some interest to him. I was

hoping to hear a bit from him.

 

I can't compete with these authors' erudition regarding

Indian philosophy, but since the whole topic of Buddhism vs. Vedanta

is of great interest to me, I would like to toss out a few comments,

in case anybody finds them interesting and/or useful.

 

>In contrast the Buddha ignored the self. While the rest of the

>schools characterized man as a >psycho/physical complex centered on

>an unchanging self, the Buddha's view of man is more >experiential

>in nature - he mapped an individual's identity based on the

>constituents that we >experience of ourselves - the skandhas or

>aggregates - form, feeling, perception, predispositions >and

>consciousness. He was very careful to point out that these were

>anatta or the non-'I'

 

The Upanishads and Shankara, with their 'Neti, neti' (I am

not this, not that, not the mind, not the body) also prescribe this

'medecine' to overcome identification with the impermanent.

 

As I explained in a recent post, it seems to me that there is

a TWO-STAGE process in spiritual realization. This two-stage process

is perhaps more explicit in the Advaitin tradition and more implicit

in Buddhism.

 

The first stage is the 'dualistic' state of consciousness,

which discriminates subject and object. In this state, the mind

perceives thoughts, feelings and perceptions, which it identifies as

'mine'. It then becomes 'attached' to these phenomena. It is a

notable irony that the discriminating mind must first become aware of

its thoughts, feelings and perceptions as OBJECTS, and therefore

distinct in some sense from the 'subject', before it can then reach

out and grab these supposed objects in a psychological process called

'identification'. Therefore, as I said before, one error is

compounded on another. The first error is to perceive seemingly

distinct objects in the unitary stream of consciousness, and the

second error is to then reach out and identify with what is

mistakenly presumed to be different.

 

However, the second stage transcends the distinction between

subject and any kind of objects. In this case, who is to identify

with whom or with what? Ramana and others repeatedly say that once

the false dualistic distinction between subject and object is

transcended, both witness and witnessed evaporate into pure

realization. Even the statement 'Atman is Brahman' is to some extent

misleading, as I am sure the authors of the Upanishads would agree,

the ultimate truth being ineffable.

 

So Buddha was primarily concerned with the first stage, like

a conscientious spiritual doctor. (Remember the Buddhist parable of

the person with an arrow in his flesh. Does the doctor waste time in

philosophical speculation on the nature of the arrow? No, he pulls

it out.) Once the first stage is overcome and dualistic

consciousness has been 'healed', I submit to you that the second

stage is 'automatic'. And in this case, the Self is simply a word or

label for the unitary nondualistic consciousness that remains.

'Emptiness' is an equally good label. This basic consciousness is

simply undeniable, as I have said many times. Not even the Buddha

can deny the statement 'I am' at the deepest, most nondualistic

level. To deny it is self-refuting. Indeed, one may speculate that

Buddha's refusal to use a word such as 'Self' to describe this state

may in fact be a confirmation that he has transcended the dualistic

consciousness that relies so much on words and labels. All Vedantins

agree that the ultimate truth is ineffable, as Nanda says, so even a

word like 'Self' is but an empty sound to denote a state of

realization.

 

Now, as for the above authors' claim that the Buddhists were

involved in some kind of semantic duplicity, I find that intriguing

and amusing. I am certainly not nearly enough of a scholar to

ascertain the validity of this, but I would like to suggest the

following. It seems to me that too much emphasis has been placed on

Nagarjuna as the ultimate spokesman of Madhyamika philosophy and

perhaps even of Mahayana philosophy in general. Remember my warning

that scholars are often obsessed with categories and debates and may

thereby not always be the most authentic mystics. Nagarjuna came

after the Prajnaparamita literature, which is the wellspring of

Mahdhyamika inspiration. Those ecstatic utterances do not seem at

all concerned with refuting 'Vedantins', just as the Upanishads are

arguing with no one. I strongly recommend the book by Lex Hixon

called 'Mother of the Buddhas, Meditation on the Prajnaparamita

Sutra'. It is a beautiful if somewhat free translation, by a serious

scholar and mystic practitioner. Advaitins will feel that they are

in familiar territory.

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Hi Greg,

 

Thank you for your comments, which do conform to the way that

many knowledgeable people talk about these things. I would like to

respond, not for the thrill of debate, but because I care very much

about reconciling the spiritual visions of Advaita and Mahayana,

which I am sure can and must be done.

 

You said:

>One thing about this approach that is very different

>is what Madhyamika sees as consciousness. Every sensory,

>perceptual, or mental appearance is a separate object,

>existing apart from the consciousness to which it appears.

>The consciousness that feels a pinprick is different from

>the consciousness that hears a car horn. Every object appears

>to a different consciousness, even within the same person.

 

This radical dualism, in which reality explodes into a spray

of distinct infinitesimal points, seems to me more in line with the

Theravada view of things, which reached an excess in the Abhidharma,

to which Mahayana reacted.

 

As support for the wholeheartedly nondual spirit of the

Prajanaparamita, I would like to quote from the translation by Lex

Hixon that I mentioned earlier, called 'Mother of the Buddhas':

>Buddha, bodhisattva, prajnaparamita - these are merely abstract terms,

>composed of certain sounds and letters, correlated with certain conventional

>perceptions and concepts. What they point at has never substantially come

>into being. What they indicate is an uncreated and, hence, ungraspable and

>unthinkable presence. The same is true of the terms self and

>universe. ... That

>all structures and processes have never been created simply means that they

>appear vividly and function coherently without possessing any independent

>essence that can be isolated, grasped or formulated in anyway.

 

Or again:

>The awakened bodhisattva does not indulge in analyzing and constantly

>reviewing the skandhas, or structural processes of personality, nor even

>in contemplating the advanced notions that the skandhas themselves are

>mere signs. Much less does the bodhisattva observe any apparent arising,

>diminishing or destruction of the skandhas. ...

>

>Why? Because all beings and events, by their very nature are inconceivable

>and therefore unapproachable, ungraspable, unfindable, unrepresentable.

>Thus the awakened bodhisattva manifests spontaneously the transcendent

>insight known as not grasping any separate thing - the omniscient insight

>which is limitless, unwavering, sublime. This panoramic awakeness transcends

>even the widest vision of any contemplative practitioner who remains subtly

>self-conscious and self-involved.

 

Clearly, the Prajnaparamita Sutras are concerned with rising

above all dualistic words and concepts which discriminate and

distinguish the immediate pure consciousness into any kind of

multiplicity of self-existing entities, whether 'subject' and

'object' or different 'events' or 'skandhas' within the stream of

consciousness. That was the mistake of certain Theravadins.

 

Indeed, I interpret words such as 'Much less does the

bodhisattva observe any apparent arising, diminishing or destruction

of the skandhas. ... ' as equivalent to my denial of matter or any

kind of object. This is the same as Gaudapada's 'ajata' doctrine,

viz. the non-arising of anything, that was being discussed earlier.

(And as I have said, 'matter' in its most general sense means any

kind of object perceived as different from subject.) All that is

left, then, is the pure, unitary, non-dual, altogether 'Advaitin'

Consciousness, also called 'Realization', as indicated by the

following words:

>The absence of the substantial creation of any form is not different from the

>radiantly transparent, harmonious and coherent functioning of all forms. Thus

>absolute openness and relative functioning are not divided. They are not two

>alternative dimensions, but utter simplicity. If one labels and

>thereby experiences

>this expansive simplicity as material form and personal consciousness, one is

>foolishly numbering and labeling that which has no multiplicity and

>no identity.

 

This unitary, non-dual and ineffable consciousness is also called

simply 'Suchness' or 'Pure Presence':

>Though the unwavering principle of Prajnaparamita, Tathagatas know

>all possible

>positive and negative assertions precisely as they are, for Buddha

>mind realizes the

>transparent processes and structures of personal and communal awareness to be

>simply suchness, or pure presence. Through awakening fully as pure

>presence, the

>Tathagatas know the suchness of all beings and events and of all

>statements about

>them. The whole image of phenomenal manifestation is the play of universal

>enlightenment through the constituents of individual and communal

>awareness. All is

>simply suchness. ... All material and mental structures manifest as

>one continuous

>presence, one absolute depth of unthinkable purity, without trace of

>positive or

>negative assertions. This pure presence is inextinguishable,

>indistinguishable simplicity.

 

More quotations and some discussion can be found in my article:

http://www.benjaminroot.com/Philosophy/Buddhism/Emptiness.html

 

 

Now, of course, you do agree with much of this, at least in

spirit, when you say:

>And everything, even emptiness, even consciousness, is empty.

>Emptiness is taught to mean that nothing exists inherently.

>More specifically, a thing is empty of inherent existence.

>This emptiness means a thing has a three-fold dependence:

>

>1. That thing dependent upon its parts, e.g., parts/whole relations.

>

>2. That thing is dependent upon the consciousness that perceives it.

>

>3. That thing is dependent upon causes and conditions, both causal

>and relational. Like a color is dependent upon the surface

>upon which it is seen, and it is dependent upon the other colors

>with which it is defined, compared and contrasted.

 

 

This lack of 'inherent existence' is, among other things, the denial

of material substance, as I have been arguing. For surely, if

anything has 'inherent existence', it would be material substance.

But more generally, the denial of inherent existence is the denial of

any kind of object, because 'object', if you really think about it,

means 'some self-contained entity independent of my consciousness'.

 

If this is denied, then what remains is simply Pure Consciousness,

the nondual Self of the Advaitins.

 

The three-fold dependence you enumerate is to me a less than

satisfactory debating strategy used by Nagarjuna to articulate the

vision I just discussed. I go into more detail on this point in my

article above. By the way, I will read your article.

 

It gives me great joy to stubbornly proclaim that Advaitins and

Mahayanists are talking about the same Realization, which they both

admit cannot be talked about!

 

Shanti!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

As I recall KKT wrote on this a couple of years ago. Perhaps it would be

helpful.

 

Harsha

 

/Magazine/highest-f.htm

 

Benjamin Root wrote:

>

> Hi Greg,

>

> Thank you for your comments, which do conform to the way that

> many knowledgeable people talk about these things. I would like to

> respond, not for the thrill of debate, but because I care very much

> about reconciling the spiritual visions of Advaita and Mahayana,

> which I am sure can and must be done.

>

> You said:

> >One thing about this approach that is very different

> >is what Madhyamika sees as consciousness. Every sensory,

> >perceptual, or mental appearance is a separate object,

> >existing apart from the consciousness to which it appears.

> >The consciousness that feels a pinprick is different from

> >the consciousness that hears a car horn. Every object appears

> >to a different consciousness, even within the same person.

>

> This radical dualism, in which reality explodes into a spray

> of distinct infinitesimal points, seems to me more in line with the

> Theravada view of things, which reached an excess in the Abhidharma,

> to which Mahayana reacted.

>

> As support for the wholeheartedly nondual spirit of the

> Prajanaparamita, I would like to quote from the translation by Lex

> Hixon that I mentioned earlier, called 'Mother of the Buddhas':

>

> >Buddha, bodhisattva, prajnaparamita - these are merely abstract terms,

> >composed of certain sounds and letters, correlated with certain

> conventional

> >perceptions and concepts. What they point at has never substantially come

> >into being. What they indicate is an uncreated and, hence,

> ungraspable and

> >unthinkable presence. The same is true of the terms self and

> >universe. ... That

> >all structures and processes have never been created simply means

> that they

> >appear vividly and function coherently without possessing any independent

> >essence that can be isolated, grasped or formulated in anyway.

>

> Or again:

>

> >The awakened bodhisattva does not indulge in analyzing and constantly

> >reviewing the skandhas, or structural processes of personality, nor even

> >in contemplating the advanced notions that the skandhas themselves are

> >mere signs. Much less does the bodhisattva observe any apparent arising,

> >diminishing or destruction of the skandhas. ...

> >

> >Why? Because all beings and events, by their very nature are

> inconceivable

> >and therefore unapproachable, ungraspable, unfindable, unrepresentable.

> >Thus the awakened bodhisattva manifests spontaneously the transcendent

> >insight known as not grasping any separate thing - the omniscient insight

> >which is limitless, unwavering, sublime. This panoramic awakeness

> transcends

> >even the widest vision of any contemplative practitioner who remains

> subtly

> >self-conscious and self-involved.

>

> Clearly, the Prajnaparamita Sutras are concerned with rising

> above all dualistic words and concepts which discriminate and

> distinguish the immediate pure consciousness into any kind of

> multiplicity of self-existing entities, whether 'subject' and

> 'object' or different 'events' or 'skandhas' within the stream of

> consciousness. That was the mistake of certain Theravadins.

>

> Indeed, I interpret words such as 'Much less does the

> bodhisattva observe any apparent arising, diminishing or destruction

> of the skandhas. ... ' as equivalent to my denial of matter or any

> kind of object. This is the same as Gaudapada's 'ajata' doctrine,

> viz. the non-arising of anything, that was being discussed earlier.

> (And as I have said, 'matter' in its most general sense means any

> kind of object perceived as different from subject.) All that is

> left, then, is the pure, unitary, non-dual, altogether 'Advaitin'

> Consciousness, also called 'Realization', as indicated by the

> following words:

>

> >The absence of the substantial creation of any form is not different

> from the

> >radiantly transparent, harmonious and coherent functioning of all

> forms. Thus

> >absolute openness and relative functioning are not divided. They are

> not two

> >alternative dimensions, but utter simplicity. If one labels and

> >thereby experiences

> >this expansive simplicity as material form and personal

> consciousness, one is

> >foolishly numbering and labeling that which has no multiplicity and

> >no identity.

>

> This unitary, non-dual and ineffable consciousness is also called

> simply 'Suchness' or 'Pure Presence':

>

> >Though the unwavering principle of Prajnaparamita, Tathagatas know

> >all possible

> >positive and negative assertions precisely as they are, for Buddha

> >mind realizes the

> >transparent processes and structures of personal and communal

> awareness to be

> >simply suchness, or pure presence. Through awakening fully as pure

> >presence, the

> >Tathagatas know the suchness of all beings and events and of all

> >statements about

> >them. The whole image of phenomenal manifestation is the play of

> universal

> >enlightenment through the constituents of individual and communal

> >awareness. All is

> >simply suchness. ... All material and mental structures manifest as

> >one continuous

> >presence, one absolute depth of unthinkable purity, without trace of

> >positive or

> >negative assertions. This pure presence is inextinguishable,

> >indistinguishable simplicity.

>

> More quotations and some discussion can be found in my article:

> http://www.benjaminroot.com/Philosophy/Buddhism/Emptiness.html

>

>

> Now, of course, you do agree with much of this, at least in

> spirit, when you say:

>

> >And everything, even emptiness, even consciousness, is empty.

> >Emptiness is taught to mean that nothing exists inherently.

> >More specifically, a thing is empty of inherent existence.

> >This emptiness means a thing has a three-fold dependence:

> >

> >1. That thing dependent upon its parts, e.g., parts/whole relations.

> >

> >2. That thing is dependent upon the consciousness that perceives it.

> >

> >3. That thing is dependent upon causes and conditions, both causal

> >and relational. Like a color is dependent upon the surface

> >upon which it is seen, and it is dependent upon the other colors

> >with which it is defined, compared and contrasted.

>

>

> This lack of 'inherent existence' is, among other things, the denial

> of material substance, as I have been arguing. For surely, if

> anything has 'inherent existence', it would be material substance.

> But more generally, the denial of inherent existence is the denial of

> any kind of object, because 'object', if you really think about it,

> means 'some self-contained entity independent of my consciousness'.

>

> If this is denied, then what remains is simply Pure Consciousness,

> the nondual Self of the Advaitins.

>

> The three-fold dependence you enumerate is to me a less than

> satisfactory debating strategy used by Nagarjuna to articulate the

> vision I just discussed. I go into more detail on this point in my

> article above. By the way, I will read your article.

>

> It gives me great joy to stubbornly proclaim that Advaitins and

> Mahayanists are talking about the same Realization, which they both

> admit cannot be talked about!

>

> Shanti!

> Benjamin

>

>

> Sponsor

>

<http://rd./M=245314.3072841.4397732.2848452/D=egroupweb/S=1705075991:H\

M/A=1495890/R=0/*http://www.netbizideas.com/yheb42%20>

>

>

>

> Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity

> of Atman and Brahman.

> Advaitin List Archives available at:

> http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

> To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

> Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

>

>

>

> Terms of Service

> <>.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

>As I recall KKT wrote on this a couple of years ago.

>Perhaps it would be helpful.

>

>Harsha

>

>/Magazine/highest-f.htm

 

 

Hi Harsha,

 

This excellent article gives a graphic account of how

 

EMPTINESS = VOID = PRIMORDIAL STATE = SUCHNESS = PURE

CONSCIOUSNESS = SELF

 

as I have been saying. I have checked out your website, and you seem

to be more of a poet than a philosopher. Therefore, you are

undoubtedly closer to Realization! :-)

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Hi again Greg,

 

I realize that this topic could go on for a long time, like

the previous one. I don't want to do that this time, so I'll try to

make this one of my last messages in this thread. However, I

disagree that this is 'off-topic' for the Advaitin List. On the

contrary, I think that it is of paramount importance to reconcile

Mahayana and Advaita, in order to validate the reality and

universality of the nondual consciousness.

 

Now, as for what you just said:

>The non-dualism in Madhyamika is not to reduce everything to

>consciousness or any other kind of substratum. Instead, its

>nondualism [is] avoidance of either esentialism or nihilism.

>That is, not to get stuck on relying on the inherent existence

>of anything, or the inherent non-existence of anything, even

>onsciousness. Everthing that exists, exists conventionally,

>as a vast network of relations and conditions.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with all of this, but I would

like to make the following points. There seems to be a widespread

agreement (far beyond this list) that Advaita and Mahayana both

promulgate some kind of 'nondual' consciousness, in which subject and

object and other distinctions of the ordinary dualistic mind are

transcended. Let us agree that this is true in some sense, so that

our next task is to better understand this 'nondualism', and to see

whether Advaita and Mahayana present different 'flavors' of

nondualism.

 

I maintain that when the 'object' is eliminated as a false

conceptual superposition on immediate awareness, then what is left

can be called 'Pure Consciousness'. You can call it whatever you

want, Self, Emptiness, Void, Suchness, Primordial State, Turiya, ...

Whatever remains in nondualistic consciousness is THAT.

 

Now, the word 'consciousness' can be used in ambiguous ways,

as can many common words used in philosophy. This is a source of

much confusion. For example, when many people use the word

'consciousness', they instinctively think, if only subliminally,

'consciousness OF something'. Hence, they restrict 'consciousness'

to what I have been calling dualistic consciousness. It is THIS kind

of consciousness that Madhyamika (and Mahayana) wishes to dispel.

That is why the Heart Sutra has the lines:

>Therefore, in the Void There Are No Forms,

>No Feelings, Perceptions, Volitions or Consciousness.

 

At the same time, the Mahayana maintains, "Samsara is Nirvana', which

clearly shows that the previous lines do not refer to a big fat zero

but rather refer to what we mistakenly call the 'world' or life

itself. It is the attitude that changes, which leads to a profound

change of consciousness.

 

Likewise, the 'nihilism' they reject is entirely consistent with my

maintaining that 'SOMETHING' remains after dualistic consciousness is

overcome, which we may call Pure Consciousness, Self, etc. However,

this 'something' must precisely not be thought of as a 'thing' in the

sense of OBJECT. That is the key point. Also, words such as

'substratum' are dangerous, in that they can make us think of a thing

or object, not unlike some kind of geological substratum. The word

substratum simply means 'what remains after dualitistic distinctions

are transcended'. This is Pure consciousness, the primordial

awareness that nobody can deny.

 

Om! Om! Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Hi Greg,

 

Your latest subtleties, such as 'there is *no* object,

especially nondual consciousness-that-is-objectless' are getting

quite ethereal and evanescent, in my opinion. I don't know whether I

should consider this a vacuous tautology, an inconsistent misuse of

words, or whether our semantic exercises are leading to a fortuitous

convergence of insight. But I had resolved not to continue this

thread, at least not today, according to my promise to Ram to keep to

two messages a day.

 

Anyhow, I would like to finish by providing a quotation from

Ramesh Balsekar, obtained from

http://consciousnessstrikes.org/teachings.htm . This seems to me

like a rather vivid affirmation of what I have been saying lately,

which overlaps with much of what you and others have been saying.

(For example, I even see an intimation of Venkat's recent argument

about the people in the dream.)

 

In particular, a side-by-side comparison of the quotation

below with the excerpts from the Prajnaparamita Sutras, which I

provided earlier today, will show a profound similarity of vision.

(And as I said earlier, the Prajnaparamita Sutras inspired the

Madhyamika 'emptiness' philosophy, which you oppose to Advaita.)

This is highly significant, because Ramesh is a disciple of

Nisargaddata, who is in the Advaitic tradition as much as Ramana. I

often encounter striking similarities in the visions of actual

masters of the Advaitic and Mahayanic traditions, if not always in

the philosophers and scholars who wrangle about such things. This

affirms my great faith in the essential similarity of their spiritual

realization.

 

The following excerpt is only a portion of a longer article,

which I recommend highly:

 

"The totality of manifestation is an appearance in consciousness,

like a dream. Its functioning is an impersonal and self-generated

process in phenomenality; and the billions of sentient beings are

merely the instruments (dreamed characters without any volition)

through which the impersonal process takes place. The clear

apperception of this truth means the irrelevance of the individual

human being as seeker, and therefore ENLIGHTENMENT. " Thus does

Ramesh summarize his teaching for a correspondent. He emphasized the

word 'impersonal' since what it signifies is crucial to the

understanding of Advaita. It means that there is no person anywhere.

The person is the imaginary creation of the verbal-thinking

intellect. The illusion of Maya can be said to function on at least

three levels. Considering that reality is usually taken to consist of

'things out there', the basis of the first level is that there

actually is no 'out there' which is separate from the Consciousness

that is perceiving it. All there is Consciousness, and all those

'things' are merely appearances in that Consciousness. Second, there

are no 'things' but only appearances or processes. So-called things

such as galaxies, mountains, trees and human beings are not entities,

but constantly changing forms that exist only as perceptions through

the instrument of body-mind, which itself is also nothing but an

appearance in Consciousness. And third is the person, the separate

individual with a name, the 'me' who thinks it is living its own

life. It is not even one of those perceptible forms, like a human

body. It is rather, an idea, a concept, an image based mainly on an

accumulation of memories. It just does not exist. This is the

greatest, the most fundamental illusion.

 

The linguistic basis of Maya lies primarily in the fact that

nouns and pronouns confer entity status on the processes of

phenomenality that could 'more accurately' be expressible as verbs.

And so, it is the fictitious person who considers itself to be the

thinker of its thoughts, whereas from an Advaitic perspective there

is no person, no thinker, and no thoughts. All there is thinking,

which just happens as a part of the functioning of phenomenality. To

a correspondent who is just beginning to understand this, Ramesh

wrote: "I am delighted to read in your letter: ' thus I am not a 'me'

but rather am 'seeing' to 'functioning' in general. A tree is not a

thing but a process. I can readily accept this. I can actually see

'it'. This is Wonderful. Let the feeling grow. Never mind that 'it'

has not been 'realized'. Who is saying this-that it has not been

realized? Who is there to realize it? The thought, however, has

arisen. Just witness it. Let there be not any conscious waiting for

the realization-it would only be a 'me' who would be waiting."