The Absolute Experience

[Guest guest]

Lewis wrote;Re: The Absolute

Experience

 

--- ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva

wrote:

 

Hi Michael,

 

Thank you, for the citation.

 

I do not have that text at hand at the

moment, so could you please

answer the question asked above:

 

" ....after reading the scanned

information, I wondered if the change

from " Vijnavadin " to " Buddhist " was in

the

orginal text. Is it that

change in the original text? "

 

Have you read Ramanuja refutation of

Sankara?

 

See:

http://www.geocities.com/advaitavedant/ram

anuja.htm

 

or the basic Mahayana Buddhist Refutations

of Atman/

Brahman at:

 

http://www.geocities.com/advaitavedant/con

tratman.htm

 

or Bhikkhu Bodhi's refutation of Mahayana

Buddhism and

Advaita?

 

See:

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/new

s/essay27.html

 

None of these are needed to do so. It is

easily done

in few words.

 

Lewis

 

£££££££££££££££££££

 

Hi Lewis,

I wouldn't know about the

original text because I have no

knowledge

of Sanskrit. That could be an editor's

addition. However within the translated

text individual references are found to

'Buddhists', 'Buddhist views', etc. In

those days discussion was robust and

Sankara did not spare incoherence or

illogic. The present declension where

everybody's right and nobody's wrong,

philosophically speaking, is silly.

 

Michael.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hi Michael,

 

The scanned page is a translation of text,

Sanskirt or

otherwise. That text is in English. The

question is

asking about the English text that was

scanned. I

asked a simple question and now more

directly:

 

Was " Vijnavadin " and " Buddhist " in the

original text?

Was there a change in the original text

after it was

scanned?

 

Why is there a reference to Sanskrit,

Michael? Is the

scanned page the same as it was in the

original or was

there a change after the scan?

 

Did you read any of the other text

referred to?

 

Is Sankara the only one with logic and

coherence?

 

What does logic and coherence, words of

any type or

form have to do with that which is has

nothing to do

with them in any way?

 

Why project, imagine what today's

movements away from

some imagined ideal is? Are you privy to

what is in

all appearances, all dreams and imaginings

and their

movements towards and away from some ideal

system of

thought or belief? Is Sankara's or

anyone's world of

words, concepts, arguments, debates,

admonitions and

beliefs the ideal that all devolve from in

each

arbritrary period of time?

 

Questions asked of you are usually left

unanswered.

These are not rhetorical questions,

Michael. Issues

are raised by you and here is the response

asking for

your bases, knowledge, and assumptions.

Bring Sankara

with you, he and his world is no obstacle.

 

Lewis

 

& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &

Hi Lewis,

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/new

s/essay27.html

" Since all schools of Buddhism reject the

idea of the Atman, none can accept the

non-dualism of Vedanta. From the

perspective of the Theravada tradition,

any quest for the discovery of selfhood,

whether as a permanent individual self or

as an absolute universal self, would have

to be dismissed as a delusion, a

metaphysical blunder born from a failure

to properly comprehend the nature of

concrete experience. "

 

" I would characterize the Buddha's intent

in the Canon as primarily pragmatic

rather than speculative, though I would

also qualify this by saying that this

pragmatism does not operate in a

philosophical void but finds its grounding

in the nature of actuality as the Buddha

penetrated it in his enlightenment " .

 

Those are two salient quotes from Bhikkhu

Bodhi's essay which really does not go

into the details of why belief in atman

is wrong, just that they don't believe in

it. He doesn't get drawn into the

metaphysical issues at all so it can

hardly be said to be a refutation of the

idea of atman. His view is that Buddhism

is primarily a path rather than an

apodictic system. It is essentially

practical rather than speculative.

 

The problem begins for Buddhism when it

wants to be taken seriously as a

philosophical system which it isn't and

never was in my opinion. I can't give you

chapter and verse on it but didn't the

Buddha refuse to be drawn into

metaphyscial speculations. Later schools

tried to elaborate a system and it is

this which Sankara deals with. In my

opinion he demonstrated the incoherence of

the system in a comprhensive way. Read

it for yourself if you are interested.

He also treated, as he saw them, errors

within Astika(orthodox) schools. To

frankly adknowledge differences is not to

rubbish the religion you disagree with.

The taking up of a religion is much more

complex than that, in the end it may

amount to saying 'this is home, this is

the path with heart'.

 

Before I forget: what was scanned is what

was on the printed page, I neither added

nor subtracted anything.

 

If your looking for another 'native

informant' on an

Advaita/Jnana/Nisargadatta list Sankara is

reliable.

 

Michael.

[Guest guest]

--- ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

 

Lewis wrote;Re: The Absolute Experience

 

--- ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

 

Hi Michael,

 

Thank you, for the citation.

 

I do not have that text at hand at the moment, so

could you please answer the question asked above:

 

" ....after reading the scanned information, I

wondered if the change from " Vijnavadin " to " Buddhist "

was in the orginal text. Is it that change in the

original text? "

 

Have you read Ramanuja refutation of Sankara?

 

See:

http://www.geocities.com/advaitavedant/ramanuja.htm

 

or the basic Mahayana Buddhist Refutations of Atman/

Brahman at:

 

http://www.geocities.com/advaitavedant/contratman.htm

 

or Bhikkhu Bodhi's refutation of Mahayana Buddhism

and Advaita?

 

See:

 

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/news/essay27.html

 

None of these are needed to do so. It is easily done

in few words.

 

Lewis

 

£££££££££££££££££££

 

Hi Lewis, I wouldn't know about the original text

because I have no knowledge of Sanskrit. That could be

an editor's addition. However within the translated

text individual references are found to 'Buddhists',

'Buddhist views', etc. In those days discussion was

robust and Sankara did not spare incoherence or

illogic. The present declension where everybody's

right and nobody's wrong, philosophically speaking, is

silly.

 

Michael.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hi Michael,

 

The scanned page is a translation of text, Sanskirt

or otherwise. That text is in English. The question is

asking about the English text that was scanned. I

asked a simple question and now more directly:

 

Was " Vijnavadin " and " Buddhist " in the original text?

Was there a change in the original text after it was

scanned?

 

Why is there a reference to Sanskrit, Michael? Is the

scanned page the same as it was in the original or was

there a change after the scan?

 

Did you read any of the other text referred to?

 

Is Sankara the only one with logic and coherence?

 

What does logic and coherence, words of any type or

form have to do with that which is has nothing to do

with them in any way?

 

Why project, imagine what today's movements away from

some imagined ideal is? Are you privy to what is in

all appearances, all dreams and imaginings and their

movements towards and away from some ideal system of

thought or belief? Is Sankara's or anyone's world of

words, concepts, arguments, debates, admonitions and

beliefs the ideal that all devolve from in each

arbritrary period of time?

 

Questions asked of you are usually left unanswered.

These are not rhetorical questions, Michael. Issues

are raised by you and here is the response asking for

your bases, knowledge, and assumptions. Bring Sankara

with you, he and his world is no obstacle.

 

Lewis

 

& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &

 

Hi Lewis,

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/new

s/essay27.html

 

Michaeal : " Since all schools of Buddhism reject the

idea of the Atman, none can accept the non-dualism of

Vedanta. From the perspective of the Theravada

tradition, any quest for the discovery of selfhood,

whether as a permanent individual self or as an

absolute universal self, would have to be dismissed as

a delusion, a metaphysical blunder born from a failure

to properly comprehend the nature of concrete

experience. "

 

" I would characterize the Buddha's intent in the Canon

as primarily pragmatic rather than speculative, though

I would also qualify this by saying that this

pragmatism does not operate in a philosophical void

but finds its grounding in the nature of actuality as

the Buddha penetrated it in his enlightenment " .

 

Those are two salient quotes from Bhikkhu Bodhi's

essay which really does not go into the details of why

belief in atman is wrong, just that they don't believe

in it. He doesn't get drawn into the metaphysical

issues at all so it can hardly be said to be a

refutation of the idea of atman. His view is that

Buddhism is primarily a path rather than an apodictic

system. It is essentially practical rather than

speculative.

 

 

Lewis: This is curious. What happened to other other

" refutations, " as they are called, especially,

Ramanuja's, Michael? Why select only the Theravada

Buddhist view and not the others? Did you think that

those were presented to you to somehow overthrow or

diminish Advaita Vedanta or the Upanishads? Do you

believe that I am an adherent or apologist for

Buddhism of any stripe? In the past, you have

consistently posited, suggested, or labeled me one

thing or another; nihilist, solipsist, perspectivist,

truth relativist, etc. Are you getting ready again or

poised to do give another label?

 

To make it clear to you and others I am not a

Buddhist. I do not adhere to the teachings of

Buddhism. I am not an apologist for Buddhism. I have

read Buddhism and I have used some of the teachings in

communicating here. I feel comfortable in all the

scriptures. I believe none and do not disparage any.

 

As far as Buddhism and the Atman goes, as far as it is

known to me, Buddha did not present a refutation of

the Atman/Brahman. He did not discuss it using those

terms or speculate on it. Those who took up commentary

and interpretation of the Pali Canon have done so.

When they have there are those who interpret it as

error and heretical. There are those who say that that

Buddha only referred to the self (attaa) that is

formed in relation to the five skandhas; matter

(rupakhandha), sensations (vedanakhandha),

perceptions, (sannakhandha), mental formations

(sankharakhandha), consciousness (vinnanakhandha) and

that the Atman or Brahman was never discussed or

refuted. The latter is my understanding. The concept

of Atman, Brahman, Self is a matter left to each

appearance. Buddha had no refutation of these and did

not consider them.

 

This is not the case of some interpretations and many

Buddhists blindly adhere to a rejection of the Atman

and Brahman as concepts or as existing as Bhikku Bodhi

and many dogmatic Buddhists assert. This is as will be

shown below the same dogmatic position taken by

Sankara in relation to Buddhists. The experienced

attributeless Atman/Nirguna Brahman is beyond any

refutation since it is beyond mind, time, space,

........

 

It is refutable if asserted and defended as object

entities or conceptual ones as all of these fall under

the ax of limitations imposed by language on

describing or conceptualizing ineffable experience. It

is a pointer. Pointers can become fixations and

beliefs that bind and distort support the formation

and maintenance of self, ego or " attaa. "

 

In the Lavantra Sutra, Buddha makes it clear.

 

" However, there is another sense in which the

Tathágatas may be said to be permanent. Transcendental

Intelligence rising with the attainment of

enlightenment is of a permanent nature. This

Truth-essence, which is discoverable in the

enlightenment of all who are enlightened, is

realizable as the regulative and sustaining principle

of Reality, which forever abides. The Transcendental

Intelligence attained intuitively by the Tathágatas by

their self-realization of Noble Wisdom, is a

realization of their own self-nature, in this sense

the Tathágatas are permanent. The eternal-unthinkable

of the Tathágatas is the " Suchness " of noble Wisdom

realized within themselves. It is both eternal and

beyond thought. It conforms to the idea of a cause and

yet is beyond existence and non-existence. Because it

is the exalted state of Noble-Wisdom, it has its own

character. Because it is the cause of highest Reality,

it is its own causation. Its eternality is not derived

from reasoning's based on external notions of being

and non-being, nor of eternality nor non-eternality.

Being classed under the same head as space, cessation,

Nirvana, it is eternal. Because it has nothing to do

with existence and non- existence, it is no creator;

because it has nothing to do with creation, nor with

being and non-being, but is only revealed in the

exalted state of noble Wisdom, it is truly eternal.

 

Lankavatara Sutra, Chapter XII : Tathágata-hood, Which

is Noble Wisdom

http://www.buddhistinformation.com/lankavatara_sutra.htm

 

In what way is this different than Atman/Nirguna

Brahman?

 

He warns of asserting Transcendental Intelligence,

sunyata and any such as " things " as this will lead to

error that these thought constructions are the " real "

rather than pointers only.

 

But, Mahamati, if you assert that there is such a

thing as Noble Wisdom, it no longer holds good,

because anything of which something is asserted

thereby partakes of the nature of being and is thus

characterized with the quality of birth. The very

assertion: " All things are un-born " destroys the

truthfulness of it. The same is true of the

statements: " All things are empty " , and " All things

have no self-nature, " both are untenable when put in

the form of assertions. But when it is pointed out

that all things are like a dream and a vision, it

means that in one way they are perceived, and in

another way they are not perceived; that is, in

ignorance they are perceived but in Perfect-knowledge

they are not perceived. All assertions and negations

being thought-constructions are un-born. Even the

assertion that Universal Mind and Noble Wisdom are

Ultimate Reality, is thought construction and,

therefore, is un-born. As " things " there is no

Universal Mind, there is no Noble Wisdom; there is no

Ultimate Reality. The insight of the wise who move

about in the realm of imageless-ness and its solitude

is pure. That is, for the wise all " things " are wiped

away and even the state of imageless-ness ceases to

exist.

 

Lankavatara Sutra, Chapter IV: Perfect Knowledge or

Knowledge of Reality, Tranaslated by D.T. Suzuki and

Dwight Goddard

http://www.buddhistinformation.com/lankavatara_sutra.htm

 

Buddhists who adhere to latter quote and those similar

to it and assert no-self (anatman) and deny Self

(Atman-a philosopher's Atman, a conceptual one or not)

fall into one-side dogmatism and off the " middle

path. " It is a misunderstanding of the obvious and

clear teaching of the Buddha. and Buddhists of all

stripes have to deal with Buddha's pointing to

Universal Mind, Divine Mind, Transcendental

Intelligence and Tathágata in the Lankavatara Sutra.

Some deal with it by denying it, others by downplaying

it or using it openly and so on.

 

 

Michael: The problem begins for Buddhism when it wants

to be taken seriously as a philosophical system which

it isn't and never was in my opinion.

 

 

Lewis: Buddhism is not a person and has no agency. It

does nothing.Also, it is not a speculative system of

philosophy. Buddhism in general and Nagarjuna's work

specifically, can be classified as an analytic or

critical philosophy, a systemization that rejects any

and all dogmatism. Buddhism has no position that

stands since it is self-refuting. Those Buddhists who

take positions such there is no self/ no Atman or

there is anatman and no self. are simply anti-dogmatic

dogmatists.

 

The main method used by Buddhists in Buddhism of

considering other belief systems is to demonstrate the

beliefs self-contradictions using its own premises and

assertions and denials. In this way, the promotion of

premise and the assertion or denial of positions

always ends in dogmatism with each of these being

shown to be faulty by the revealing of the

counterproposition that lies at the base of every

premise, assertion and denial. The use of the

tetralemma catches all who try to avoid dogmatism,

that is the holding of one's view as correct or

ultimate, by demonstrating dogmatism in assertion

(is), denial (is not), synthesis (is and is not) and

skepticism (neither is nor is not). This approach does

not destroy. It only reveals the dogmatism and the

fixation or attachement to it.. Those who use it to

destroy are dogmatists seeking supremacy of position.

 

 

Michael: I can't give you chapter and verse on it but

didn't the Buddha refuse to be drawn into

metaphyscial speculations.

 

Lewis: Yes and no. See the above and have a go at the

Lankavatara Sutra.

 

Michael: Later schools tried to elaborate a system and

it is this which Sankara deals with.

 

Lewis: Yes. And he misrepresents it.

 

Michael: In my opinion he demonstrated the incoherence

of the system in a comprhensive way. Read it for

yourself if you are interested.

 

In the reading of Sankara done, he works with his

estimation and presentation of Buddhism and

misrepresents it in obvious ways and labels it what it

is not.. In the quote below, as translated, he

misunderstands and misrepresents the Madhyamikas

teaching of sunyata as nonexistence and labels

Madhyamikas as nihilist and, which it is plainly not.

All of what he says about it amounts to a straw man

that he makes, sets up and then knocks down. He argues

with himself and defends his beliefs which he plainly

asserts.

 

" Perhaps I shall be reminded that the Nihilist

(Madhyamika) argues from the non-existence of any

knowable to the non-existence of knowledge. But, if

so, the Nihilist ought to tell us through what it is

that he establishes the non-existence of that

knowledge whereby he argued the non-existence of

knowledge. This non-existence, too, is something that

has to be known. It could not be established unless

there were knowledge. Perhaps you will say that

knowledge is inseparable from the knowable, and that

the non-existence of the knowable would therefore

imply the non-existence of knowledge. But this will

not do. For the Nihilist regards non-existence as

knowable, and even accepts this 'knowable

non-existence' as eternal. If, in these circumstances,

knowledge were assumed to be non-different from the

knowable, it, too, would be eternal. And its

(knowledge's) non-existence would itself (because

knowable) imply knowledge. The 'non-existence' of

knowledge would thus be purely verbal. On this view,

one could not definitely establish as a final truth

that knowledge was non-existent or was not eternal.

And no harm results to our position if knowledge in

fact exists and it is its mere nominal non-existence

that we have to contend with! But what if

non-existence be knowable but other than knowledge?

Here again, no harm results to our position, as the

absence of the knowable does not imply the absence of

knowledge. You cannot say that the knowable can exist

apart from knowledge, but that knowledge cannot exist

apart from the knowable, for a verbal distinction does

not amount to a real one. If you start from the

position that knowledge and the knowable are the same,

then to say that the knowable exists separately from

knowledge, while knowledge does not exist separately

from the knowable, is a mere verbal quibble. It is

like saying that flames exist separately from fire,

but that fire does not exist separately from flames.

If, on the other hand, you hold that knowledge is

different from the knowable, then it is clearly wrong

to hold that the non-existence of the knowable implies

the non-existence of knowledge. But is ít not a fact

that we are not aware of knowledge in the absence of

the knowable, so that it does not then exist? No, for

we have to admit the presence of knowledge in

dreamless sleep. Nor can you retort that in dreamless

sleep we have knowledge knowing itself as knowable,

because knowledge and the knowable have been proved to

be different from one another. For it has already been

shown that the knowledge which has non-existence as

its object is different from that non-existence, and

that knowledge and the known are therefore different.

Not even a hundred Nihilists could alter this point,

which has already been proved, as if they were raising

up the corpse (of an already refuted argument) from

the dead.

 

From Sankara's commentary on the Prasna Upanishad, 6

 

 

Michael: He also treated, as he saw them, errors

within Astika(orthodox) schools. To frankly

adknowledge differences is not to rubbish the

religion you disagree with. The taking up of a

religion is much more complex than that, in the end it

may amount to saying 'this is home, this is the path

with heart'.

 

 

Lewis: Your interest in taking up of religion is

admirable and there is no interest to rubbish your

religion. Everyone does as they are. If you chose the

path with a heart, bhakti, you do as you are as we all

do.

 

 

Michael: Before I forget: what was scanned is what was

on the printed page, I neither added nor subtracted

anything.

 

 

Lewis: Then it must be said, as it was wondered about

before, that Sankara or the translator slights

Buddhists by lumping all the Buddhists sects and

lineages under one word, " Buddhist, " when in that

citation Sankara was only referring and debating the

Vijnanavada/Yogachara school of thought. So it still

seems " odd that 'Buddhist' would be used since the two

schools mentioned above are at odds with each other as

well as at odds with Sankara's Vedantin who is

debating a 'Vijnavadin - Budhhist' and not a 'Buddhist

in general' or 'Madhyamikan.'

 

http://homepage.eircom.net/~ombhurbhuva/vijnanavada1.htm

 

 

Michael: If your looking for another 'native

informant' on an Advaita/Jnana/Nisargadatta list

Sankara is reliable.

 

Michael.

 

 

Lewis: Perhaps, if he were alive and available. I find

that reading translated scriptures directly as

necessary to be more useful and to refer to his

commentaries as one take of the many available that

can be utilized in communicating with others.

 

Lewis