The Absolute Experience

[Guest guest]

Hi Lewis,

Contrary to normal practice I am

putting my reply at the top. Your post

which contained much interesting material

ran to 7 pages and that was just the new

comment. I append that and recommend it

to those who need assurance that Buddhism

is a broad church. I don't but

nevertheless there are certain strands

which are questionable from a

philosophical point of view and which have

been taken up by intellectual followers in

the west. The anatman doctrine is

popular, vijnanavada has its adherents

(subjective idealism) and of course that

'prolix professor of paradox', Nagarjuna,

has his fans. No time; therefore

emptiness: no motion; therefore emptiness:

no relation; therefore emptiness. They

are frail fallacies but luckily they have

nothing to support.

 

And then with a flourish enter the

trilemma. You spoke of theories or

systems as being like hammers which you

take up and put down as needed. In case

of emergency what glass would this break?

 

Michael

 

***********************************

Previous Post:

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/lankava

tara_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/lankava

tara_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

[Guest guest]

--- omombhurbhuvaomombhurbhuvaieircomet> wrote:

 

>

> Hi Lewis,

> Contrary to normal practice I am

> putting my reply at the top. Your post

> which contained much interesting material

> ran to 7 pages and that was just the new

> comment. I append that and recommend it

> to those who need assurance that Buddhism

> is a broad church. I don't but

> nevertheless there are certain strands

> which are questionable from a

> philosophical point of view and which have

> been taken up by intellectual followers in

> the west. The anatman doctrine is

> popular, vijnanavada has its adherents

> (subjective idealism) and of course that

> 'prolix professor of paradox', Nagarjuna

> has his fans. No time; therefore

> emptiness: no motion; therefore emptiness:

> no relation; therefore emptiness. They

> are frail fallacies but luckily they have

> nothing to support.

 

 

The above is a misconception of the Buddhist concept

of emptiness, Michael. It is similar to the one given

by Sankara quoted in the previous post. For a broad

presentation of the Buddhist concept of emptiness

(sunyata) see:

 

 

http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/bodhidharma/sunyata.html

 

 

> And then with a flourish enter the

> trilemma

 

 

Tetralemma

 

 

You spoke of theories or

> systems as being like hammers which you

> take up and put down as needed. In case

> of emergency what glass would this break?

>

> Michael

 

 

The analogy was:

 

Hammer = tool (drive nail into wood)

 

Religion, philosophy, science = tool (realization,

union, nonduality; understanding; technology)

 

The tetralemma is used for understanding concepts and

concept formation. As a tool, it can be used to reveal

the dependent nature of thought and concept formations

of any type. In Buddhism, it is a tool used to

overcome attachment to viewpoints or ontological

commitments of any sort that are conceived to be a

source of " suffering. "

 

 

In the latter sense, Michael, it works this way:

 

1. Assertion (something is): The affirmation of

existence of anything using language is conventional.

Such affirmations lead to obvious attachments with the

inclusion and exclusion of other concepts. appied to

the ultimate degree to remove contradictions it leads

to affirming that all is one thing (monisms). Illusion

and delusion results. Liberation of illusion and

delusion is seen as coming from denying the existence

of something. And a position of denying the existence

of something is undertaken.

 

2. Denial (something is not): Once taking this

conventional position of denial it is clear that it is

no different than assertion in that it includes and

excludes and allows attachments. Applied to the

ultimate degree, it leads to all is nothing,

nothingness (nothingisms, nihilisms). Illusion and

delusion results. Liberation of illusion and delusion

is seen as coming from rejecting the denial of the

existence of something as well as denying the

affirmation of existence.

 

3. Synthesis (something is and is not): To resolve

contradictions created by affirmations and denials of

existence and to find something midway, a solution is

sought through the use artificial syntheses

(non-monisms and non-nihilisms). Dualities and

nondualities are manipulated and merged to achieve

resolution. But this too fails. Illusion and delusion

results. Liberation of illusion and delusion is seen

as coming from rejecting syntheses, denials and

affirmations.

 

4. [Positive] Skepticism (neither something is nor is

not): Here all viewpoints and ontological commitments

are discarded since no point of view or ontology, no

matter how effective or useful it may be as it is

employed, can be said to be true in an ultimate sense,

that is, to represent the " mystery " or the experience

or non-experience of the " mystery " in conceptual

language. Skepticism is rejected for it is also a

viewpoint and ontological commitment, an " ism, " as

well. Buddhism is discarded.

 

The tetralemma ends here

 

And it is here, where practitioners of bhakti,

self-inquiry (neti, neti) meditation, mindfulness,

infused contemplation, and similar practices, found in

many different religions and philosophies, can [or

not] find themselves, aware or unaware or both or

neither, at the " brink of an abyss, " where there is

only direct experience without " isms, " books, guides,

maps, help, all alone. And then, somehow, there is a

falling up or down or both or neither and then life as

it is.....

 

Also, the tetralemma also can be used by dogmatists to

protect their dogma by using it as a filter to screen

out all competing notions and to attack and destroy

the dogma and notions of others. This is common.

 

How it is used depends on skill and purpose.

 

Lewis

 

 

> ***********************************

> Previous Post:

 

Nisargadatta/message/20702

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Make your home page

http://www./r/hs