Sankara vs The Buddhists (and note to Ben)

[Guest guest]

BENJAMIN:

Consciousness is simply undeniable. We may argue over whether matter

(prakriti) exists or does not, but any attempt to deny consciousness

immediately refutes itself.

 

CONCORDANCE:

We've had this discussion before, and there's no need to defend your

position or offend mine - we've both been there, done that, and have

T-shirts in its honor. So I'm just going to reply for the sake of

whoever's listening in on this conversation.

 

The Buddhists do not deny consciousness, only clarify its nature.

There is a world of difference between these two. Did William James

really mean that we are not aware of anything, when he denied

consciousness? -- http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/James/consciousness.

htm

 

He writes, "I believe that 'consciousness,' when once it has

evaporated to this estate of pure diaphaneity, is on the point of

disappearing altogether. It is the name of a nonentity, and has no

right to a place among first principles. Those who still cling to it

are clinging to a mere echo, the faint rumor left behind by the

disappearing 'soul' upon the air of philosophy."

 

This is no denial of consciousness, but it is a denial of

Brahman-consciousness: the Shunyatasaptati pre-echoes James -

 

56. Consciousness occurs in dependence on the internal and external

sense-fields. Therefore consciousness is empty, like mirages and

illusions. A

 

s does the Bodhicittavivarana,

 

40. Mind is but a name. It is nothing apart from [its] name.

Consciousness must be regarded as but a name. The name too has no

own-being.

 

- and it is adviseable to read these texts in their entirety.

 

Consciousness doesn't have a universal definition yet, so different

people, though perhaps referring to the same thing at times, explain

it within different metaphysics or philosophies.

 

BENJAMIN:

The notion of 'emptiness' was simply the means by which later Mahayana

Buddhism expressed the 'Neti, neti' of the Upanishads.

 

CONCORDANCE:

Whether or not this is the case in the Prajnaparamita literature I

don't know. But if, by Neti, neti, the sages of the Upanishads meant

the Nirguna Brahman, then it cannot be the same thing as what

Madhyamika means by "emptiness". The eye, for instance, apparently

sees, though has no self-nature, as it is dependently arisen:

 

Shunyatasaptati:

 

50. Since color and shape never exist apart, they cannot be conceived

apart. Is form not acknowledged to be one?

51. The sense of sight is not inside the eye, not inside form, and not

in between. [Therefore] an image depending upon form and eye is false.

52. If the eye does not see itself, how can it see form? Therefore eye

and form are without self. The same [is true for the] remaining

sense-fields.

53. Eye is empty of its own self [and] of another's self. Form is also

empty. Likewise [for the] remaining sense-fields.

 

BENJAMIN:

It is the misperceived objects of ordinary dualism which are empty.

If consciousness itself were truly 'non-existent', then why strive for

Nirvana?

 

CONCORDANCE:

Sentient beings are truly 'non-existent', if by 'exist' we mean

svabhava - and this fact itself is Nirvana.

 

63. The thing that arises in dependence upon this or that does not

arise when that is absent. Being and non-being, composite and

non-composite are at peace — this is nirvana. - Shunyatasaptati

 

BENJAMIN:

By the way, nobody took me up when I suggested that an extreme

nihilistic view of deep sleep may suffer some of the same deficiencies

as the extreme version of emptiness. Just a suggestion...

 

CONCORDANCE:

Which message was this?