Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
A Buddhists explanation of the nature of things, including all selves, not making nature an all Self
Vajraheart
Veteran
A Facebook conversation.
Jaroslav Majer: Ah U M!
59 minutes ago · Like · 1 person
Jaroslav Majer: According to Vajrayana Buddhism "Ah" which is interestingly enough a universal word for pleasure or the internal sensation of eureka, is the internal sound that "your" nature makes in every moment pryer to that moments fall into the Samsaric interpretation of the moment. I don't know if I said that clearly. For instance, if we are truly aware, or internally fast enough in every moment, we experience every Samsaric moment that arises within us, as Nirvana...
53 minutes ago · Like · 1 person
Beth Woodson: Indeed! To merge with the pure being that exists before form; our true nature. Interesting too is that many words for god have an ah sound.. Allah... God.. they tend to have an open sound like ah.
58 minutes ago · Like
Jaroslav Majer: Sure, but the slight, subtle and important difference is in seeing emptiness/dependent origination, and not creating an identity around the experience or an ultimate "self", which is why Nagarjuna said that most paths lead to the edge of Samsara (i.e. the highest possible point of Samsaric experience as a god), but Buddhadharma leads beyond Samsara to full blown Buddhahood. The Buddhas dialectic revolves around this very same premise as that's where Nagarjuna as a Sravaka Buddha, as in a Buddha upon listening to the Dharma spoken by a Samyakasambuddha (A wheel turning Buddha) such as Gotama, got his teachings from. This generally rubs people the wrong way. But, this as well is my experience upon whatever level of insight I have upon hearing the Dharma, even though I grew up a Monistic Idealist via Vedanta, much like most Theistic mystical traditions, base their interpretation of spiritual experience upon a kind of universal subjective idealism. As in, thinking there is one subject upon which infinite objects are drawn upon. Buddhas teaching reflective of his direct experience, I find is subtler. Not to create such a stringent identity of "buddhist" versus "other." As this view is far more nuanced than can be elaborated upon in a single paragraph. But... yeah. Basically that's the gist of it. Which is why I'm with the Buddha on this one, as a non-theist, for important reasons I find which transcend the merely conceptual realm of interpreting this elongated statement of mine.
34 minutes ago · Like
Jaroslav Majer: *Ultimate "Self" clinging is akin to "Independent Origination/Consciousness" as supreme and does not equate with the Buddhas final insight transcending the various form and formless samadhis/jhanas where he saw dependent origination/emptiness instead, as the liberating type of cosmology via the middle.
32 minutes ago · Like
Jaroslav Majer: "...elongated statement of mine" as dependently originated as this consciousness may recognize itself as being at this time.
27 minutes ago · Like
Jaroslav Majer: To explain further. A god who sees not himself/herself as the source of all being and rather sees all beings as the source of all beings has an insight more akin to inter-dependent origination rather than independent origination. But, most gods I find, as reflected in their teachings through various traditions, are blinded by the power of their own very deep and subtle bliss/knowledge that their pride is indeed just as subtle as the identity they hold in their explanation of the concept of the "self." Which again is why I have more of a tendency to not cling, but grok the understanding of "anatman" rather than "atman" and not merely on an intellectual dualistic level. I think I might just be talking to my sense of self at this moment. Of course, as illusionary as that scenario invariably is from an ultimate perspective of dependent origination/emptiness. =^J
Jaroslav Majer: Ah U M!
59 minutes ago · Like · 1 person
Jaroslav Majer: According to Vajrayana Buddhism "Ah" which is interestingly enough a universal word for pleasure or the internal sensation of eureka, is the internal sound that "your" nature makes in every moment pryer to that moments fall into the Samsaric interpretation of the moment. I don't know if I said that clearly. For instance, if we are truly aware, or internally fast enough in every moment, we experience every Samsaric moment that arises within us, as Nirvana...
53 minutes ago · Like · 1 person
Beth Woodson: Indeed! To merge with the pure being that exists before form; our true nature. Interesting too is that many words for god have an ah sound.. Allah... God.. they tend to have an open sound like ah.
58 minutes ago · Like
Jaroslav Majer: Sure, but the slight, subtle and important difference is in seeing emptiness/dependent origination, and not creating an identity around the experience or an ultimate "self", which is why Nagarjuna said that most paths lead to the edge of Samsara (i.e. the highest possible point of Samsaric experience as a god), but Buddhadharma leads beyond Samsara to full blown Buddhahood. The Buddhas dialectic revolves around this very same premise as that's where Nagarjuna as a Sravaka Buddha, as in a Buddha upon listening to the Dharma spoken by a Samyakasambuddha (A wheel turning Buddha) such as Gotama, got his teachings from. This generally rubs people the wrong way. But, this as well is my experience upon whatever level of insight I have upon hearing the Dharma, even though I grew up a Monistic Idealist via Vedanta, much like most Theistic mystical traditions, base their interpretation of spiritual experience upon a kind of universal subjective idealism. As in, thinking there is one subject upon which infinite objects are drawn upon. Buddhas teaching reflective of his direct experience, I find is subtler. Not to create such a stringent identity of "buddhist" versus "other." As this view is far more nuanced than can be elaborated upon in a single paragraph. But... yeah. Basically that's the gist of it. Which is why I'm with the Buddha on this one, as a non-theist, for important reasons I find which transcend the merely conceptual realm of interpreting this elongated statement of mine.
34 minutes ago · Like
Jaroslav Majer: *Ultimate "Self" clinging is akin to "Independent Origination/Consciousness" as supreme and does not equate with the Buddhas final insight transcending the various form and formless samadhis/jhanas where he saw dependent origination/emptiness instead, as the liberating type of cosmology via the middle.
32 minutes ago · Like
Jaroslav Majer: "...elongated statement of mine" as dependently originated as this consciousness may recognize itself as being at this time.
27 minutes ago · Like
Jaroslav Majer: To explain further. A god who sees not himself/herself as the source of all being and rather sees all beings as the source of all beings has an insight more akin to inter-dependent origination rather than independent origination. But, most gods I find, as reflected in their teachings through various traditions, are blinded by the power of their own very deep and subtle bliss/knowledge that their pride is indeed just as subtle as the identity they hold in their explanation of the concept of the "self." Which again is why I have more of a tendency to not cling, but grok the understanding of "anatman" rather than "atman" and not merely on an intellectual dualistic level. I think I might just be talking to my sense of self at this moment. Of course, as illusionary as that scenario invariably is from an ultimate perspective of dependent origination/emptiness. =^J
0
Comments
so consciousness is empty. mind is empty. self is empty. other is empty. basically everything i can conceptualize and think of is empty. even emptiness itself is empty.
but consciousness is a hard one to realize that it is empty. but consciousness can only exist when there is mind/body.
but then you go into okay when the body/mind dies all that is left is emptiness.
in that sense there is neither atman nor anatman. i am curious to what you think about parinirvana and what occurs after the physical death of body/mind.
i understand that one must realize both consciousness and emptiness.
just curious.
I believe in Buddharealms, based upon my meditation experiences, as well as the Buddhist texts. Buddhas can also project many emanations through samsaric realms in order to manifest compassionate influence to help endless beings come closer to goodness, and finally Buddhahood themselves. Parinirvana is not disappearing in my understanding, it's just total dissipation of limited 3 dimensional body consciousness.