Lankavatara Sutra

[Guest guest]

Hi Benjamin,

 

I'll add to the fragrant pot that you are stirring...

 

I too like Buddhism, and Madhyamika for that matter. I am fond of Nagarjuna and

Chandrakirti's writings, and the prajna-paramita sutras too. I have not striven

to make these teachings conform with Advaita, not do I think they consistently

can be. And I have also not striven to locate these teachings in the original

words reportedly spoken by the Buddha in the Pali texts. The tradition itself

is what I am interested in, not so much the person.

 

The meditations on emptiness are quite powerful, and they are rightly and widely

held to be taught only after the student has a bodhicitta-frame of mind. I have

followed the teachings as filtered by the Dalai Lama, Ven. Yin-Shun, Jeffrey

Hopkins, Jay Garfield, Kelsang Gyatso, Gadjin M. Nagao, C.W. Huntington, Anne

Klein, and Elizabeth Napper, among others.

 

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.

A particular person has mental consciousnesses, ear, eye, tactile

consciousnesses, etc. So of course these are different from the consciousnesses

of other people!

 

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.

 

If you are interested in more about this, I have an article on one of the great

meditations on emptiness:

 

Called ANOTHER KIND OF "SELF-INQUIRY": CHANDRAKIRTI’S SEVENFOLD REASONING ON

SELFLESSNESS, it is here:

/Magazine/7fold-f.htm

 

Whew! The title is longer than the link!

 

OM!

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Hi Benjamin,

 

The non-dualism in Madhyamika is not to reduce everything to consciousness or

any other kind of substratum. Instead, its nondualism 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

consciousness. Everthing that exists, exists conventionally, as a vast network

of relations and conditions.

 

There are some Mahayana forms of Buddhism that do posit a Buddha Nature or Pure

Presence or Pure Mind that looks very very much like the Vedantin's Self or

Brahman or consciousness. Dzogchen is one form, Pure Land is another, and

Mind-only is another. But Prasangika Madhyamika sees these other systems as

provisional teachings, OK to a certain point, but which their own tenet system

and reasonings will sublate for those who wish to push that far. I'll find you

a very interesting quote on this when I go home to my library this eve.

 

The best and most systematic exposition of how Madhyamika sees these other

systems and their tenets is Jeffrey Hopkins's Meditation on Emptiness. It's

1017 pages and not easy reading!

 

Amituofo,

 

--Greg

 

P.S. I'm aware that this Buddhism talk verges on being off-topic on the list.

If we get messages to this effect from others and you would still wish to

continue, then we could take it off-line.

 

 

At 01:33 PM 3/18/03 -0500, 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.

>

>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>http://www.benj\

aminroot.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:\

HM/A=1495890/R=0/*http://www.netbizideas.com/yheb42>be25e90.jpg

>be26c69.jpg

>

>Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

>Advaitin List Archives available at:

<http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/>http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaiti\

n/

>To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

>Messages Archived at:

<advaitin/messages>a\

dvaitin/messages

>

>

>

>Your use of is subject to the

<>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Bright group.

 

Mike

[Guest guest]

At 04:28 PM 3/18/03 -0500, Benjamin Root wrote:

 

> 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.

 

 

If you would like to reconcile Mahayana and Advaita, then you'll like Dzogchen,

but not Madhyamika, Chandrakirti, Tsong-Ka-Pa, or the Prasangikas! Most

advaitins I know who have later gone into Buddhism as well, find themselves very

drawn to Dzogchen.

 

It is the assumption that nondual consciousness is a real and independent thing

that makes us want to assure ourselves that everyone is talking about the *same*

thing.

 

It's very much like the physical objects you talk about not really existing

externally. I agree on that. And for the same reason, other than in the most

conventional sense, there is *no* object, especially nondual

consciousness-that-is-objectless, which two people ever both grasp. No object

is ever really and truly present such that two people, or one person, or two

thoughts, or even one thought, really refer to it. How much less so grasped is

that which, in advaita, is the nature of all? We cannot comprehend, that which

in the vastest sense, comprehends us...

 

Om!

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

>

> 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.

 

Namaste All,

 

It seems to me that it all this philosophical verbiage the simplest

is not being pointed out. Luckily for me I am self trained hence only

can simplify.

 

That Gautama taught 'Nirvana', and that Advaita teaches 'Nirguna'.

They are the same thing. There can be no non-dual consciousness for

that needs a mind a jiva or a mahat and ultimately unreal. The

blowing that stops in Nirvana is the mind. The mind that doesn't

exist, the consciousness that doesn't exist....Sat-Cit-Ananda is a

description of Saguna Brahman only..

 

So it seems to me that Buddha and Buddhism aren't the same thing

necesarily. There are similarities in Mahayana with Bhakti, and in

Theravada with Advaita. However I'm wondering just how far we can

push that.

 

Sankara's main task was to appeal to the ordinary folk who couldn't

really handle Nirvana/Nirguna and many thought it atheistic; as no

doubt do many Buddhists as well.

 

.......ONS....Tony.

[Guest guest]

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

consciousness or any other kind of substratum. Instead, its

nondualism 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 consciousness. Everthing

that exists, exists conventionally, as a vast network of relations

and conditions.

 

But all this is only at the conceptual level - to develop a state of

mental ambivalance where the mind doesn't either accept or reject

anything. For such mental activity being mere thoughts, is ultimately

worthless. An idea of reality is not reality itself.

 

But does the Maadhyamika teach only this?

 

In the Mulamaadhyamika Kaarikaa there're numerous indications of

pointers to move beyond this.

[Guest guest]

>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.

 

Yes they do – but Buddhism differed from other philosophical streams

in being silent or ambiguous about the "one who does the negation".

That's the specialty of nairaatmaya.

>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?

 

But Ben, this state of consciousness is not common experience and

cannot thus be proved by reason. Ofcourse two people who've

experienced this state can "reasonably" talk about it. But not if one

of the parties hasn't experienced such a state. The majority of human

beings haven't been exposed to this state and thus this cannot come

under the sphere of philosophy.

>So Buddha was primarily concerned with the first stage, like

>a conscientious spiritual doctor.

 

Exactly for the reason above. He could only talk to people what they

could understand.

>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.

 

Apart from the issues that I have raised in the article, the

following questions regarding the historical development of Buddhist

philosophy have to be raised as well :

 

1. Why is Bhaavaviveka in his Tarkajvaala accusing Gaudapaada of

hijacking Buddhist philosophy? Is Gaudapaada merely parroting

Buddhist philosophy or does he have something original to teach? What

does "naitad buddhena baashitam" – "this was not taught by the

Buddha" – in the concluding chapter of the Maandukya Kaarikaas refer

to?

2. Why are the Maadhyamikas accusing the Yogaacaarins of

teaching a doctrine similar to the "atman doctrine of the heretics"?

(See Chandrakiriti's criticism of the Yogaacaara – the Vijnaanavaadin

Arya Asanga unabashedly uses the word "Atman" in his works to

describe reality. So much for nairaatmaya in Buddhism!).

3. Even after the Sautraantika Buddhist doctrine of

momentariness has been so thoroughly refuted by earlier Mahaayaana

Buddhist aachaaryaas like Naagaarjuna and Vaasubandu, why is it that

it was revived by the Buddhist logicians Dignaaga and Dharmakirti,

though they claimed to be Vijnaanavaadins?

4. And how did Buddhist philosophy suddenly disappear in India?

 

A careful appreciation of these issues as well as the fundamental

differences in philosophy between Buddhism and the other schools,

will point to the element of duplicity in Buddhist philosophy which

is what I've noted. But it also is to be noted that in their genius

both the Buddha and Naagaarjuna framed their philosophies in such a

way that it perfectly accommodated such "duplicity" – so internally

within the scope of their philosophy, it was consistent.

 

One feature of Naagaarjuna's philosophy which doesn't seem to have

come out amongst most commentators/interpreters is that : he didn't

dispute the Self - but only the common notion of it. He redefined the

understanding of the Self.

 

Without this redefinition, there's no Advaita.

>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.

 

C'mon Ben – the name Naagaarjuna is almost synonymous with

Maadhyamika!

>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.

 

This is something that I just pointed out to somebody in a discussion

on Mahaayaana's influence on Advaita. The Upanishads aren't

influenced by the Mahaayaana – but Advaita is.

 

It is the systems of philosophies which are often at loggerheads with

each other – but not the mystics.

 

I'll close this with a couple of quotes from Mahaayaana "scriptures"

which will definitely ring a bell with Vedaantins. The MahAyAna

SUtras are to the Mahaayaanists what the Upanishads are to Advaitins :

 

Saddharma Pundarika : This is reality which is calm, deep and pure

knowledge of the Buddha which transcends the intellect and which is to

be directly realized through pure knowledge. It is the most excellent

and final enlightenment (uttama agra bodhi) by which we become one

with the Buddha.

 

AshtasAhasrika PrajnApAramita : There are six perfections (pAramitas)

of which the last and the highest is the Supreme or Perfect knowledge

(prAjnApAramita). It is clear and transparent like the sky, devoid of

plurality, to be beyond finite thought, indescribable, divine mother,

one with the Buddha, terrible to the fools, but affectionate to the

wise. It is unthinkable in the sense the intellect fails to describe

it adequately. Here the cries of the intellect are satisfied and its

contradictions reconciled. It is subtler than the subtle, profounder

than the profound. It transcends phenomena and is non-dual,

independent, real and absolute.

 

The real is at once immanent and transcendent. The suchness of

all dharmas is the suchness of reality. The phenomenal is the noumenal

and the noumenal is the phenomenal. Appearances are reality. They are

grounded in the real, the Brahman which atonce transcends the duality

of the relative and the absolute. They are two reals set against each

other, which are not diverse and do not form a duality.

 

To transcend the phenomenal we shall have to take the help of the

fully mature intellect itself. Those who deny it will themselves

be destroyed and will destroy others.

 

LankAvatAra SUtra : Reality is a spiritual experience which is beyond

the categories of the intellect, beyond discrimination and dualism and

which can be realized by pure knowledge. Buddhas become enlightened by

transcending the dualism of the intellect, by realizing the ultimate

reality of all objects and of empirical subjects, by removing the

screen of suffering and of ignorance in the form of objects covering

the Real. The Real is silence.

 

The absolute is preached through the phenomenal, but the phenomenal

should not be mistaken for the absolute. Ultimately even this

distinction is transcended. Appearances are reality. Reality is not

to be sought for apart from phenomenal. Like samsAra and nirvAna, all

things are non-dual.

 

ShUnyata should not be understood in the sense of utter negation. It

only means that all things are unoriginated and are indescribable

because they can be described neither as existent nor as non-existent

nor as both. They are merely relative and unreal in the ultimate

sense.

 

SamAdhirAja SUtra describing the levels of spiritual experience : In

the fourth and final state the intellect becomes one with experience.

Pain and pleasure are transcended and this yields a sort of unique

bliss.

[Guest guest]

At 03:43 AM 3/19/03 +0000, vpcnk wrote:

>But all this is only at the conceptual level - to develop a state of

>mental ambivalance where the mind doesn't either accept or reject

>anything. For such mental activity being mere thoughts, is ultimately

>worthless. An idea of reality is not reality itself.

>

>But does the Maadhyamika teach only this?

>

>In the Mulamaadhyamika Kaarikaa there're numerous indications of

>pointers to move beyond this.

 

 

On the mental level, not so much mental ambivalence, but rather mental

equilibrium - the peaceful absence of the kinds of activity that attributes and

relies and constructs inherent existence and inherent non-existence.

 

But it of course goes much farther. The Mulamaadhyamika Kaarikaa is a

foundational scripture. (Thank you for posting it!) It contains the elements

of entire Mahayana paths. Its nonduality consists in the absence of

essentialist and nihilist metaphysical assertions.

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

>Its nonduality consists in the absence of essentialist and nihilist

>metaphysical assertions.

 

In Maadhyamaka non-duality we'll have to distinguish between their

epistemological vision of non-duality (which is where Greg's clause

applies) and their ontological vision of non-duality ("everything is

essentially peaceful" etc).

 

The real is the thing in itself and has little concern whatever

conception, right or wrong, that the mind holds.

[Guest guest]

Hi Nanda (16069):

 

(Yes, it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that the

mysterious 'VPCNK' is one of the co-authors of the article Ram gave

us earlier. A little clicking on the 'Sarva Darshana Samgraha'

website will show this.) It's good to have you aboard finally.

Please take of your shoes and relax by the pool. Dinner will be

served shortly...

 

Seriously, though, I would be pleased to respond to some of

your intelligent and erudite comments.

>Yes they do - but Buddhism differed from other philosophical streams

>in being silent or ambiguous about the "one who does the negation".

>That's the specialty of nairaatmaya.

 

The original Shakyamuni may have been silent about this, but this may

have been due to his profound realization of the inexpressibility of

the Ultimate Truth ... a sentiment clearly shared by the Upanishads.

One cannot conclude that he rejected the 'existence' of anything

corresponding to 'Self'. And later Mahayana Buddhism produced a riot

of scriptures that said a great deal on the state of consciousness

called Enlightenment, even if they did not call it the 'Self'. One

rather amazing scripture is the vivid and colorful 'Avatamsaka',

excerpts of which I have provided on my website. Finally, and

perhaps most importantly, one must not assume that Gautama had access

to a clear version of the Vedantic knowledge. After all, he was a

kshatriya, and didn't Brahmins guard their scriptures rather closely

in those days? Buddha may never have clearly understood the Vedantic

distinction between Self and self, and the 'self' he knew of and

denied may only have been the latter.

 

 

>But Ben, this state of consciousness is not common experience and

>cannot thus be proved by reason. Of course two people who've

>experienced this state can "reasonably" talk about it. But not if one

>of the parties hasn't experienced such a state.

 

Yes, and I am the first to admit that my 'spiritual' experiences are

elementary at best. However, my reading of the 'nondual' mystical

literature of the world has found enough patterns and similarities in

the mere words of authentic 'mystics', that I can't help believing

that something REAL is there. And I am probing it as best I can. I

feel sure that this very probing is part of the spiritual path that

is appropriate for me. Besides, there IS a pattern of coherent words

and ideas associated with the nondual literature, but there are also

many misinterpretations due to the misuse of words, as I have tried

to point out. Finally, I do not accept your notion that we have NO

intuition of higher states of consciousness. I think that most of

has can have faint and perhaps somewhat vague intuitions that have

some spiritually validity, provided our mind is sufficiently quiet

and unobtrusive. We should try to contemplate and absorb those

intuitions and intensify them, rather than just give up. Discussion

can help.

 

 

>Apart from the issues that I have raised in the article, the

>following questions regarding the historical development of Buddhist

>philosophy have to be raised as well: ...

 

I surrender to you in the area of scholarly erudition! However, I

believe that enthusiastic and insightful amateurs can benefit

spiritually by absorbing the mystical literature, provided this is

done with intuition and good judgement. (Of course, that last

proviso sweeps a lot under the rug!)

 

But do remember what I said about scholars. Just because some

ancient scholar and commentator is now 'famous' and 'classic' does

not mean he was a saint! Humans are complex, and they can combine

true spiritual feeling and insight with petty rivalry. Especially

scholars! So there may have been a bit of sectarian competition

going on!

 

Also, I believe that scholars back then were mostly what we call

monks, which means that they had to join a specific ashram and

promulgate a specific philosophy. The Hindu tradition combines free

and bold inquiry with devotion to a guru, so that it is not always so

easy to break away from the 'party line'! Don't forget that monks

still rely on the ashram for food and support, unless they are

prepared to be freelance beggars!

 

Finally, you seem to have limited your investigation of Mahayana to

India. What happened in China was equally important, and the Chinese

(and Japanese) Buddhists had even more pronounced similarities to

Vedanta and Advaita. I provided some references earlier.

 

 

>>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.

>

>C'mon Ben - the name Naagaarjuna is almost synonymous with

>Maadhyamika!

 

You are absolutely right, as far as scholars are concerned, but I am

standing firm despite my lack of credentials! I do not doubt that

Nagarjuna shared much of the insight and vision of the inspired

utterances of the Prajnaparamita literature (which were seminal for

Madhyamika). But some of his arguments (dependent origination) raise

some problems as far as I am concerned, and I do not see them

emphasized so much in the Prajnaparamita, although I am sure others

will disagree. Since dependent origination is supposed to be key

doctrine of the original Buddha, I'd better explain myself a bit.

 

Dependent origination basically says that 'When A arises, B follows'.

This is basically the Western philosopher Hume's definition of cause,

which I agree with. My problem is that this definition of cause also

works very well for pure materialism, which I consider opposed to any

mystical or spiritual vision. In other words, dependent origination

is simply a fact of nature that must agree with many philosophies. I

don't see that it leads logically to any kind of nondualism or

reduction of reality to consciousness. (There are other reasons for

the reduction of reality to consciousness, which I've discussed at

great length.)

 

I don't really want to launch on an extended discussion of dependent

origination; I just want to share my view that Nagarjuna, as I

understand him, makes more of it than is justified. The

Prajnaparamita Sutras do not really 'explain' anything, anyway.

Rather they are inspired mystical utterances, quite like the

Upanishads. Go to them, not Nagarjuna! I already gave a reference

to Lex Hixon's 'Mother of the Buddhas'. Buy it today from Amazon!

It's cheap!

 

 

>The Upanishads aren't influenced by the Mahaayaana - but Advaita is.

 

I think that everybody (Buddha, Mahayana, Shankara) were influenced

by the Upanishads, directly or indirectly. The oldest Upanishads

predate everybody, don't they? They are the original 'nondualistic'

utterances, if I am not seriously mistaken...

 

 

>It is the systems of philosophies which are often at loggerheads with

>each other - but not the mystics.

 

Just what I've been saying!

 

 

And I love your quotes from Buddhist literature. I also provided a

lot of quotes, but I didn't use that horrible transliteration scheme

that makes my eyes crossed! :-)

 

I can see that you've said MUCH more in later postings. I'll

certainly read them and try to learn as much as possible. I hope you

weren't too 'rough' with me!

 

Pranams!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

> Hi Nanda (16069):

>

> (Yes, it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that the

> mysterious 'VPCNK' is one of the co-authors of the article Ram gave

> us earlier. A little clicking on the 'Sarva Darshana Samgraha'

> website will show this.) It's good to have you aboard finally.

> Please take of your shoes and relax by the pool. Dinner will be

> served shortly...

>

> Seriously, though, I would be pleased to respond to some of

> your intelligent and erudite comments.

>

> >Yes they do - but Buddhism differed from other philosophical

streams

> >in being silent or ambiguous about the "one who does the negation".

> >That's the specialty of nairaatmaya.

 

Namaste,

 

Buddha did make reference to an inexplicable. Which in fact is

Nirvana/Nirguna.

 

Who am I? is the most succint for the 'feeling' of I is actually the

primordial mind, the jivas are but whirlpools in a sea of the same

illlusion.

 

I'm sure Buddha was familiar with the Vedanta, even if the Brahmins

were jealously guarding their turf. He was a Prince after all and

could command whatever. His own intuition would have brought him to

the same place anyway..........ONS.....Tony.

[Guest guest]

>I hope you weren't too 'rough' with me!

 

I hope not Ben! Sorry if I came across as "rough" - didn't mean to!

[Guest guest]

Greg Goode wrote:

 

"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:"

Hello Greg, Benjamin and advaitins all,

 

inhere-(of qualities etc.) exist, abide, in (C.O.D.)

 

Going by that I take it that Madhyamika would hold that nothing exists

inherently in the consciousness in which it occurs. Does that mean that it

is the consciousness or that it is not a mental object being known by a

mental subject. Or is there a stronger case being made that not existing

like that it does not exist at all. Which seems to be the implication when

you hold that even consciousness is empty. Here we have a progressive

derealisation of the thing in a dialectical fashion first by reducing the

thing to a consciousness of the thing then by working on the appearance of

the thing as a mere appearance that has nothing to know it. By having

nothing to know it, it then becomes an unreal appearance. Becoming an

unreal appearance it is then entirely empty.

 

I would be inclined to contrast this with the Advaitic position as set out

by Sankara in the preamble to B.S.B.

 

Here undoubtedly Sankara lays out the form of his basic intuition concerning

the knower, knowing and the known. It is an answer to the basic question as

to how we become little realists or little idealists. His first assertion

sets out the ground of our puzzlement. How do things get inside us? How

are we conscious? For a lot of philosophers this is a psudo question

because it can have no answer. We are aware because we are aware, the world

is information for us that we keep account of by the wonderful device of

language.

Sankara stays with the basic given of subject – here, and object – out

there. The world viewed as object for us has the quality of being

insentient in the sense that it is only I that am conscious in that initial

primary look at the world. In that original regard all I am given is my

consciousness as the only consciousness that is given.

Important: If I were to say given directly I would have made the first

tentative baby step towards Solipsism or Idealism.

However Sankara does not dilute the original primitive experience with a

rush to judgment. He still continues to hold to the original form in which

the problem appears to him viz. how does that out there get to live in here

as itself? Leave out 'as itself' and you have dissolved Advaita. Advaita

is out to save the appearances at this level. Bear with me and I hope I

will make this clear.

 

"Accordingly, the superimposition of the object, referable through the

concept "you", and its attributes on the subject that is conscious by nature

and is referable through the concept "we" (should be impossible), and

contrariwise the superimposition of the subject and its attributes on the

object would be impossible."

I take what he is saying here to be (a) if there were a truly real and

ultimate (ontologically) separation between the subject and the object ; a

separation which is experienced as an 'in here' and an 'out there' dichotomy

then (b) what actually happens viz. the appearance 'in here' of the 'out

there' would be unthinkable. One can see that his statement of the problem

is predicated on his holding of a realist view. If there really only is an

'in here' (the idealist view) then the problem as he feels it is dissolved.

This basic mystery, predicament call it what you will is the starting point

of Sankara's inquiry. How does the impossible become possible? How is

knowledge possible? How does that situation develop whereby the

discrimination that should exist between things that are utterly disparate

(chit and jada, conscious and inert) breaks down. Wherin lies the knot

between the conscious and the inert, the chit jada granthi as Ramana calls

it?

Behind these observations is a leading tendency. Could it be that the

distinction between self and other is a false one initiated in the first

instance by the natural identification with the feeling side of the

equation. '..there continues a natural human behaviour based on

self-identification in the form 'I am this' or 'This is mine'. In this way

the misidentified self becomes a substantial entity and the original unity

becomes dichotomised but the trace of that original nature is evidenced by

the capacity for the 'out there' to become 'in here'. Really this error is

at the heart of things.

 

We are not fooled so to speak by something within the business of

consciousness but by consciousness itself. It is the whole body of knower,

knowing and the known that is awry and not any relationship within it. This

is the part of the ajati theory that I can go with

 

Best Wishes, Michael.

 

 

 

 

 

_______________

MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.

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

[Guest guest]

Guys please pause for a minute and think about this :

 

What is all this thinking and logic and arguments going to bring us?

How is it going to help us know ourselves? An idea about ourselves or

our true nature is hardly the true substitute for actual knowledge

about oneself. Even as conceptual construction about our personality

or individuality (as "I'm Nanda" or "I'm strong or intelligent" etc

etc etc) is not the same as the immediate intuitive awareness of "I

am" of ourselves (though this awareness for the normal human is based

on his psycho/physical being).

 

Knowledge as we normally know it is only conceptual and experential.

We should use this to get rid of our ignorance (to realize what we

are not - body, mind, conceptual individuality etc) and then

concentrate on the true task of turning the mind inward and knowing

our true nature. Endless speculation on philosophical concepts is

ultimately worthless. Philosophy is a means to an end and should not

be made the end in itself.

 

For those who set about doing the real task of turning the mind

inward and knowling themselves, they'll find a wealth of information

in all these philosophies which they weren't previously aware of. One

should be at a certain level of consciousness to understand certain

teachings - whether Maadhyamika or Advaita. Such teachings await the

serious aspirant.

[Guest guest]

VPCNK (16083) said:

>What is all this thinking and logic and arguments going to bring us?

>How is it going to help us know ourselves? An idea about ourselves or

>our true nature is hardly the true substitute for actual knowledge

>about oneself.

>Endless speculation on philosophical concepts is ultimately

>worthless. >Philosophy is a means to an end and should not be made

>the end in itself.

 

 

You're absolutely right, Nanda!

 

So let me explain. There are several reasons I pursue these

topics, both in my reading and on the web in places like this.

 

First of all, I am unsatisfied with my present 'condition'

and feel intuitively that my intrinsic nature as consciousness means

that 'perfection', whatever that is, is somehow my birthright. I

look to the guidance of spiritually more advanced people to provide

clues as to what higher states of consciousness there might be and

how to attain them. (And I agree that there is a paradox, revealed

by Advaita, namely, that there is nothing outside of me to 'attain'

nor any means to attain it. Rather, I must simply and quietly

surrender to my true inner nature. But this is easier said than

done.)

 

Secondly, I do confess that philosophical topics are simply

interesting in themselves. This can be a harmless pastime, if not

taken too seriously.

 

Thirdly, I think that intellectual inquiry can indeed be a

stepping-stone to the deeper experiential inquiry of Ramana's 'I am'.

But there is always the danger of getting trapped with mere

intellectual diversions, not unlike wasting one's time watching junk

television.

 

 

Also, regarding your earlier quotes from Madhyamika

scriptures saying that Enlightenment arises when all views are

surrendered... I agree that the 'nondualistic' approach entails the

surrender of all 'discriminations', as these are the very essence of

'dualistic' thought. The path to realization is a kind of

non-conceptual absorption in immediate awareness, without any kind of

'attachment' or 'grasping' or 'discrimination' or 'judgement',

mental, emotional or whatever. This seems to be the consensus of

those who have become realized.

 

However, it is still possible to make certain statements, as

the Masters themselves have. For example, we can say that

'Enlightenment', 'Self' and even 'Emptiness' are labels that can be

attached to the sought-after experience. Simply using a label

doesn't entail discrimination. (Yes, I know that you think

emptiness is only a medicine to eliminate views and is not a thing in

itself. But I maintain that it is harmless to also use it as a label

for the experience. A label is only a label.)

 

But for sure, to acquire that realization has far more to do

with a non-verbal and non-conceptual 'sinking' into the inner depths

of our consciousness than with any kind of philosophical argument.

 

As Ramana said, 'Just be quiet!'. Hmmmm... imagine going to

a great saint and saying, 'O great master, I am so miserable in

Samsara and want to attain Moksha, but how?' And he says, 'Just shut

up, will you?' :-)

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

At 02:01 AM 3/20/03 +0000, vpcnk wrote:

>Guys please pause for a minute and think about this :

 

 

I agree with this wholeheartedly. And as much as I like philosophical

discussions, I don't want to propagate this kind of speculation on this list.

How many are there for whom these questions are of life-and-death importance?

If there's anyone who would like to discuss any of these things off-line, I will

be happy to participate.

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

At 09:47 PM 3/19/03 -0500, Benjamin Root wrote:

> As Ramana said, 'Just be quiet!'. Hmmmm... imagine going to

>a great saint and saying, 'O great master, I am so miserable in

>Samsara and want to attain Moksha, but how?' And he says, 'Just shut

>up, will you?' :-)

 

 

Hi Benjamin,

 

 

I have some acquaintances, followers of the Americanized, neo-"advaita" satsang

movement. They hold gatherings at their home in San Diego. They have a sign on

the entryway to their home:

 

"Leave your shoes and your mind at the door."

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Greg:

 

Swami Sachidananda of Yogaville was always jovial during satsanghs

and once he addressed the audience with the statement, "Inside the

hall, you should know that you are the soul since you have already

left your sole outside the hall!"

 

warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, Gregory Goode <goode@D...> wrote:

> "Leave your shoes and your mind at the door."

>

> --Greg

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "vpcnk" <vpcnk@H...> wrote:

> Guys please pause for a minute and think about this :

>

> What is all this thinking and logic and arguments going to bring

us?

> How is it going to help us know ourselves? An idea about ourselves

or

> our true nature is hardly the true substitute for actual knowledge

> about oneself. Even as conceptual construction about our

personality

> or individuality (as "I'm Nanda" or "I'm strong or intelligent" etc

> etc etc) is not the same as the immediate intuitive awareness of "I

> am" of ourselves (though this awareness for the normal human is

based

> on his psycho/physical being).

>

> Knowledge as we normally know it is only conceptual and

experential.

> We should use this to get rid of our ignorance (to realize what we

> are not - body, mind, conceptual individuality etc) and then

> concentrate on the true task of turning the mind inward and knowing

> our true nature. Endless speculation on philosophical concepts is

> ultimately worthless. Philosophy is a means to an end and should

not

> be made the end in itself.

>

> For those who set about doing the real task of turning the mind

> inward and knowling themselves, they'll find a wealth of

information

> in all these philosophies which they weren't previously aware of.

One

> should be at a certain level of consciousness to understand certain

> teachings - whether Maadhyamika or Advaita. Such teachings await

the

> serious aspirant.

 

Hello Sri Nan,

To discuss Sankara without getting into philosophy, could such a feat

of emptiness be managed? Best Wishes, Michael

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Mike:

 

In addition to your excellent question to Sri Nanda, I want to add

this additional question on the relevance of phisophying emptiness

using Shankara's other philosophical frameworks.

 

Implicitly, Sri Nanda seems to question the need for this discussion

this list and/or other philsophical forums! Atmost, I may agree to

buy the argument on the neccessity for curtailing discussions at the

appropriate time. It is quite important for us to recognize the

limitations of those endless discussions we should agree to stop

when 'enough is enough'. But the enough is enough can never be

established as the universal rule and we do need to recognize

that 'one size will not fit all!'

 

The question, 'Who am I?' doesn't always stop with that question

alone. It expands further into many related questions such as 'How,

where, with whom, and how long do I live?,' and 'What, When, Where,

Why do I have to eat or drink or hear or speak or touch or feel?,'

etc., etc. The entire Gita dialog between Arjuna and Krishna

symbolically portray how the one question transforms into millions of

questions. Only after the long dialog, Arjuna was able to recover

back to his senses and he symbolically represents the dilemma of our

life.

 

Everyday more than few times we all feel that our stomach is empty

even when it is full! Also even with an empty head we feel quite

confident that it is always full! This is also part of the myth for

which we haven't found any answer! Should we stop wondering?

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "svahauk" <ombhurbhuva@h...> wrote:

> Hello Sri Nan,

> To discuss Sankara without getting into philosophy, could such a

feat

> of emptiness be managed? Best Wishes, Michael

[Guest guest]

VPCNK (16083) said:

>What is all this thinking and logic and arguments going to bring us?

>How is it going to help us know ourselves? An idea about ourselves or

>our true nature is hardly the true substitute for actual knowledge

>about oneself.

>Endless speculation on philosophical concepts is ultimately

>worthless. Philosophy is a means to an end and should not be made

>the end in itself.

 

 

Dear Nanda,

 

Let me give you a personal example of how a little

'philosophy' can help one along the spiritual path, to illustrate

what you just said.

 

I was raised a Christian, though I am now far more

sympathetic to Indic religions, which I would prefer to call the

'Sanatana Dharma' to emphasize the universal nature of the truth.

(For me, this consists primarily of the universal truths and insights

of, say, the Upanishads, rather than the colorful details of the

culture.)

 

Now, I do believe that the right kind of Christianity ...

tolerant, non-dogmatic, gentle, wise, open-minded and open-hearted

.... can provide a perfectly valid path for spiritual realization.

Let us hope so, considering that 33% of the world is supposedly

Christian and the numbers are growing rapidly in Africa and South

America! Of course, I am well aware of the many dark moments in

Christian history, due to the mingling of politics and religion.

 

However, speaking candidly, I was NEVER able to feel much by

way of devotion for a God 'out there' ... which is a key

'requirement' of all dualistic religions, including the dualistic

part of Hinduism. Many of the words of Jesus resonated in my heart,

but most of the dogma left me cold, and above all I could not see

forcing my heart to feel a devotion that was simply not there.

 

What DID impress me were occasional moments of inspiration

that came suddenly and passed quickly, but that seemed full of truth

and beauty while they lasted. That I could believe in. But for a

long time, it never occurred to me that God could be found WITHIN my

own consciousness, since I had been programmed to believe that God

was 'out there'. So I simply labeled the feelings as 'inspiration'

and gave them no theological interpretation.

 

Later, my study of philosophy persuaded me that 'all is

consciousness' and that matter does not exist. I developed these

ideas while studying philosophy about 20 years ago and did NOT then

connect them to religion. Specifically, I agreed with Berkeley's

arguments that all is consciousness but rejected his next step

connecting them to God as intriguing but unjustified. And so I

remained for many years, until a budding interest in Indian

philosophy persuaded me that 'God' or Pure Consciousness or the

Ultimate Source of Reality must indeed underlie my seemingly finite

consciousness. You can read about my reasons on my webpage, where I

try to present a string of arguments that judiciously combines

intuition, logic and experience.

 

Finally, I connected these philosophical ideas with the

moments of inspiration that I had felt earlier, and now I have a

spiritual path that actually MEANS something to me. It is centered

on the realization that God is to be found within, at the core of my

own consciousness, which has been obscured by mental habits and

preconceptions called ignorance, ego, vasanas, etc. Of course, I am

still quite far from being a realized mystic, but I at least draw

comfort from the belief that this is a valid and reasonable path.

Indeed, I believe that it is the final destination of all of us.

Spiritual evolution supercedes physical evolution as the driving

force behind Samsara.

 

This may seem quite routine to someone from an Indian

background, but you must realize how much any talk of claiming an

intrinsic identity with God is disturbing to orthodox Christians. As

is well known, the mystics in Christianity have often been harassed

or at least kept at arm's length. Although I never really felt any

pressure from actual people, I did feel a bit uneasy about it for a

while, simply due to mental imprints absorbed from a Christian

culture.

 

So my point is that you can see how important a role

philosophy played in all of this, even if only as an intermediary

stage. It was philosophical ideas which led me into an interest in

Indian religions, which in turned provided a path I can really

believe in, even if philosophy is ultimately transcended. So do not

disrespect philosophy! But you are right that it is only a step

along the path which can easily seduce us into losing sight of that

path.

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

> Implicitly, Sri Nanda seems to question the need for this

>discussion this list and/or other philsophical forums!

 

Not really Ram. I myself for a long period of time engaged in various

debates - as you yourself well know.

 

But all I'm pointing out is the limit/validity of philosophy.

Philosophy is useful to know what you're not. But it cannot show you

what you are.

 

Spirituality especially the Indian way has two stages : in the first

stage the aspirant is taught what he is not - the body, mind, senses

etc and then the second stage is about realizing one's true nature -

this is not merely theoretical, but experential - by probing deep

inside one's self.

 

So philosophy is useful in the first stage. After which it is to be

set aside for the serious pursuit of aatma vichaara.

 

Actually there's a philosophical part in atma vichaara too - which is

the crux of Shankara's Advaita, where he peels off one layer after

another, of our individuality. Such issues have a direct implication

on our self realization and are of greater value than discussing

objective issues like shunya, maya etc.

 

But if one is to make an end of philosophy itself - endless

discussing maya, shunya etc - it is counter productive.

 

Even worse than this is metaphysical speculation on the absolute -

how it can be both the diverse world as well as the changeless

absolute, how everything is consciousness, "all in one and one in

all", "one without an other" etc etc etc.

 

Atleast shunya and maya if rightly understood helps rid the intellect

of its ignorance - but the spiritual value of metaphysical

speculation is absolutely zilch!

 

As Ramana pointed out - the only relevant question in spirituality

is : "Who am I?"

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dear Nanda:

 

We know each other for over five years and thanks for the detailed

explanations. These clarifications are quite necessary to avoid

unnecessary confusion between the purpose of our discussions and the

ultimate goal of our life.

 

Thanks again,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "vpcnk" <vpcnk@H...> wrote:

> > Implicitly, Sri Nanda seems to question the need for this

> >discussion this list and/or other philsophical forums!

>

> Not really Ram. I myself for a long period of time engaged in

various

> debates - as you yourself well know.

>

> But all I'm pointing out is the limit/validity of philosophy.

[Guest guest]

Respected Shri VPCNKji: I agree with what you have said in this posting. I

too was getting a little tired of endless dissertation on consciousness etc.

 

To an unenlightened man like me, how would you answer briefly and precisely

the question that shei Ramana wanted us to explore: "Who am I"

 

Please do not direct me to other posting. I request you to answer me

directly.

Thanks

Shanti

-

"vpcnk" <vpcnk

<advaitin>

Friday, March 21, 2003 8:58 AM

Re: Lankavatara Sutra

 

> > Implicitly, Sri Nanda seems to question the need for this

> >discussion this list and/or other philsophical forums!

>

> Not really Ram. I myself for a long period of time engaged in various

> debates - as you yourself well know.

>

> But all I'm pointing out is the limit/validity of philosophy.

> Philosophy is useful to know what you're not. But it cannot show you

> what you are.

>

> Spirituality especially the Indian way has two stages : in the first

> stage the aspirant is taught what he is not - the body, mind, senses

> etc and then the second stage is about realizing one's true nature -

> this is not merely theoretical, but experential - by probing deep

> inside one's self.

>

> So philosophy is useful in the first stage. After which it is to be

> set aside for the serious pursuit of aatma vichaara.

>

> Actually there's a philosophical part in atma vichaara too - which is

> the crux of Shankara's Advaita, where he peels off one layer after

> another, of our individuality. Such issues have a direct implication

> on our self realization and are of greater value than discussing

> objective issues like shunya, maya etc.

>

> But if one is to make an end of philosophy itself - endless

> discussing maya, shunya etc - it is counter productive.

>

> Even worse than this is metaphysical speculation on the absolute -

> how it can be both the diverse world as well as the changeless

> absolute, how everything is consciousness, "all in one and one in

> all", "one without an other" etc etc etc.

>

> Atleast shunya and maya if rightly understood helps rid the intellect

> of its ignorance - but the spiritual value of metaphysical

> speculation is absolutely zilch!

>

> As Ramana pointed out - the only relevant question in spirituality

> is : "Who am I?"

>

>

>

> 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

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Nanda (16103):

>Even worse than this is metaphysical speculation on the absolute -

>how it can be both the diverse world as well as the changeless

>absolute, how everything is consciousness, "all in one and one in

>all", "one without an other" etc etc etc.

>

>Atleast shunya and maya if rightly understood helps rid the intellect

>of its ignorance - but the spiritual value of metaphysical

>speculation is absolutely zilch!

 

 

You are making some quite valid points, but they are just a wee bit

overstated in my opinion. For sure, realization is experiential and

transcends the intellect. But the pursuit of philosophy, if

undertaken with intuition, sincerity, humility and the right dash of

skepticism, can be most conducive to developing spirituality.

 

Here is a basic example. Many of us are materialistic (in the

philosophical sense). This means that we think matter is really

everything, and we identify with our bodies and fear death. This

view of reality is natural to the unenlightened mind and can be very

disturbing and depressing. We may seek to escape the seeming

inevitability of our death in mindless pursuits and entertainment,

but in the dark hours of the night our mortality comes back to haunt

us.

 

But if philosophy can persuade us that the fundamental principle of

reality is consciousness, and that matter is an illusion projected

upon this consciousness, then this change of view can provide great

psychological relief, even if it does not in itself produce

full-blown enlightenment. It is still like coming out of the dark

cave of materialism into the sunlight of consciousness (analogy

borrowed from Plato)!

 

Another example: Ramana actually said somewhere: 'Just try to see God

everywhere!' If philosophy can persuade us somehow that 'all is

one', then this advice becomes rather easier to implement! But the

actual vision is indeed trans-conceptual.

 

So we are all correct!

 

Om!

Benjamin