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.
Nirvana and Brahman
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
All that appears to perception is one's pure and total consciousness, there is no object of the view. As all is in the non-discursive state, all is equality. This is the state of the sky, and this is named "yoga" [knowledge of the authentic condition].
When objects of the five senses are perceived in their natural clarity without judging, they too are the state of the sky: the yogin abides in this condition.
..........
Those who abide in this natural non-discursive state reach enlightenment without embarking on a path, without exercising the mind, they obtain self-arising wisdom; without striving, they spontaneously achieve the capacity for spiritual action; without keeping a commitment, they naturally maintain purity.
[In this state] the senses and their objects manifest as the clarity of the fundamental condition, Buddhas and sentient beings are no longer seen as a duality, and everything is perceived as unity in the fundamental condition.
..........
In fact, not knowing that all the phenomena of existence are precisely the natural condition of enlightenment, beings become enfolded in the thick darkness of erroneous conceptions.
..........
As I transcend the dualism of subject and object, like space I am all-pervading, and I constitute the fundamental substance of all phenomena: my essence is pure and total consciousness.
..........
This pure and total consciousness, which is the essence of the universe, is the authentic condition of all phenomena, a spontaneous, natural state that has been present from the beginning.
The affirmation of a ground (Skt. asraya) which is really existent (Skt. paramartha sat) and the denial that such an existent (Skt. satta) can be found anywhere, within or without, immanent or transcendent, are two diametrically opposed paradigms- not simply variation or reformations of each other. The Webster Dictionary defines re-form: to amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuse. The example I have given above of an eternal base without which Hinduism in its own language would be atheistic (Skt. nastik) and the denial (without any implied affirmation) (Skt. prasajya pratisheda) of such an eternally existing unchanging base by Buddhism cannot be said to be a reformation but a deconstruction of the very roots of the Hindu thesis. That is why Buddhism is not a reformation of Hinduism but a paradigm shift from the paradigms on which Hinduism is based.
Many Hindu scholars believe that without an ultimate eternal reality, there can be no liberation from the changing, transient Samsara; therefore even though the Buddha denied the ultimate reality, he could have meant only conceptually really existing reality, not the eternal ultimate reality which is beyond concepts. Otherwise, there cannot be liberation. The fault with this kind of thinking is that it is measuring the thesis (which is no thesis) of the Buddha (or interpreting the Buddha) from within the Hindu paradigm. Remaining within the Hindu paradigm, an eternal ultimate reality is a necessity (a necessary dead end as the Buddha saw it) for the soteriological purpose i.e. for liberation. Since according to the Buddha there is no Brahma - such a concept being merely an acquired fabrication (Skt: parikalpana) learned from wrong (Skt: mithya) scriptures, hankering after, searching for such a Brahma is a dead end which leads nowhere, let alone liberation. The Buddhist paradigm, if understood correctly, does not require an eternal something or other for liberation. In Buddhism liberation is not realizing such a ground but rather a letting go of all grounds i.e. realizing groundless. In fact holding on to any ground is ignorance, according to Buddhism.
So in the Buddhist paradigm, it is not only not necessary to have an eternal ground for liberation, but in fact the belief in such a ground itself is part of the dynamics of ignorance. We move here to another to major difference within the two paradigms. In Hinduism liberation occurs when this illusory Samsara is completely relinquished and it vanishes; what remains is the eternal Brahma, which is the same as liberation. Since the thesis is that Samsara is merely an illusion, when it vanishes through knowledge, if there were no eternal Brahma remaining, it would be a disaster. So in the Hindu paradigm (or according to Buddhism all paradigms based on ignorance), an eternal unchanging, independent, really existing substratum (Skt. mahavastu) is a necessity for liberation, else one would fall into nihilism. But since the Buddhist paradigm is totally different, the question posed by Hindu scholars: “How can there be liberation if a Brahma does not remain after the illusory Samsara vanishes in Gyana?†is a non question with no relevance in the Buddhist paradigm and its Enlightenment or Nirvana.
First of all, to the Buddha and Nagarjuna, Samsara is not an illusion but like an illusion. There is a quantum leap in the meaning of these two statements. Secondly, because it is only ‘like an illusion’ i.e. interdependently arisen like all illusions, it does not and cannot vanish, so Nirvana is not when Samsara vanishes like mist and the Brahma arises like the sun out of the mist but rather when seeing that the true nature of Samsara is itself Nirvana. So whereas Brahma and Samsara are two different entities, one real and the other unreal, one existing and the other non-existing, Samsara and Nirvana in Buddhism are one and not two. Nirvana is the nature of Samsara or in Nagarjuna’s words shunyata is the nature of Samsara. It is the realization of the nature of Samsara as empty which cuts at the very root of ignorance and results in knowledge not of another thing beyond Samsara but of the way Samsara itself actually exists (Skt. vastusthiti), knowledge of Tathata (as it-is-ness) the Yathabhuta (as it really is) of Samsara itself. It is this knowledge that liberates from wrong conceptual experience of Samsara to the unconditioned experience of Samsara itself. That is what is meant by the indivisibility of Samsara and Nirvana (Skt. Samsara nirvana abhinnata, Tib: Khor de yer me). The mind being Samsara in the context of DzogChen, Mahamudra and Anuttara Tantra. Samsara would be substituted by dualistic mind. The Hindu paradigm is world denying, affirming the Brahma. The Buddhist paradigm does not deny the world; it only rectifies our wrong vision (Skt. mithya drsti) of the world. It does not give a dream beyond or separate transcendence from Samsara. Because such a dream is part of the dynamics of ignorance, to present such a dream would be only to perpetuate ignorance.
To Buddhism, any system or paradigm which propagates such an unproven and improvable dream as an eternal substance or ultimate reality, be it Hinduism or any other ‘ism’, is propagating spiritual materialism and not true spirituality. To Hinduism such a Brahma is the summum bonum of its search goal, the peak of the Hindu thesis. The Hindu paradigm would collapse without it. Since Buddhism denies thus, it cannot be said honestly that the Buddha merely meant to reform Hinduism. As I have said, it is a totally different paradigm. Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Jainism are all variations of the same paradigm. So truly speaking, you could speak of them as reformations of each other. But Buddhism has a totally different paradigm from any of these, not merely from Vedic- Hinduism.
This leads us naturally to the concept of the Two Truths (Skt. satyadvaya). Both Hindu Vedanta and Madhyamika Buddhism (and for that matter all forms of Buddhism) use this concept to clarify its paradigm. But again the same words point at two different paradigms. First of all the concept of the Two Truths clearly stated as in Buddhism comes into Hinduism only after Sankaracharya (7th / 8th century) whereas the Buddha himself used these words. But even though Sankara copied the use of these words from Buddhism and also copied many other conceptual words from Nagarjuna to elucidate his Vedantic paradigm, the paradigm that he tries to clarify with these words is different. In many places these conceptual wordings and analogies are forced to produce the meaning that is required for the Veantic paradigm. In the Vedantic context, the Relative Truth (Skt. samvritti satya) is that this Samsara is an illusion and the Ultimate Truth (Skt. paramartha satya) is that there is an ultimately existing thing (Skt. paramartha satta) transcending / immanent in this world. The relative truth will vanish like a mist and the transcendent and immanent Brahma will appear as the only Truth, the world being false. To sum it up, the Vedantic Ultimate Truth is the existence of an ultimate existence or ultimate reality. Reality here is used as something which exists (Skt. satta).
However, the Buddhist Ultimate Truth is the absence of any such satta i.e. ultimately existing thing or ultimate reality. That is the significance of Shunyata - absence of any real, independent, unchanging existence (Skt. svabhava). And that fact is the Ultimate Truth of Buddhism, which is diametrically opposite to the Ultimate Truth of the Hindu Brahma. So Shunyata can never be a negative way of describing the Atman - Brahma of Hinduism as Vinoba Bhave and such scholars would have us believe. The meaning of Shunyata found in Sutra, Tantra, Dzogchen or Mahamudra is the same as the Prasangika emptiness of Chandrakirti i.e. unfindability of any true existence or simply unfindability. Some writers of DzogChen and Mahamudra or Tantra think that the emptiness of Nagarjuna is different from the emptiness found in these systems. But I would like to ask them whether their emptiness is findable or unfindable; whether or not the significance of emptiness in these systems is also not the fact of unfindability.
Mahayogi Shridhar Rana Rinpoche
http://www.byomakusuma.org/MadhyamikaBuddhismVisavisHinduVedanta/tabid/76/Default.aspx
X: The apparent choice between Subject and Object is really an illusion.
S9: There is no choice between subject and object outside of mind. It is mind (small m mind or brain mind) that indulges in separation. All separation is merely dreamed up.
X: When you realise that all manifestation do not make up objective reality, you will realise One Mind and see all manifestation AS Awareness.
S9: Ah huh…
So we are basically saying pretty much the same thing here. Although I see that you do not understand that. You have stuck a personified “I Am” in my backpack, and have refused to let me throw it away, repeatedly over past discussions. ; ^ )
I fully realize that everything so called physical is a mental projection, much like Philosophical Idealism, but also taken one step further in that the originating dreaming mind is also a projection.
Q: Jax Peterson says, Awareness is the field of experience, not an observer of it.
S9: Awareness isn’t a guy in the sky named Awareness. Both the witnessing of the field and the activity within the field are but one dream, as brain/mind is capable of self-reflection. Everything comes up temporarily, and goes down within the dreaming mind and yet at the same time nothing is lost, simply because it never really was anything in a separate sense of existence, (all smoke and mirrors better known as imagination.)
Warm Regards,
S9
The mind & body must sleep. The mind & body will one day die.
It is temporary.
:crazy:
The sutta states: "Where do earth, wind, fire & water have no footing?"
No footing means where they do not adhere, do not form object of attachment.
The answer is consciousness without feature; luminous; boundless.
It is not a mistranslation.
The translation is "consciousness non-manifesting, boundless, luminous all round".
It is a consciousness free from defilement.
But it is not a primordial permanent phenomena.
When consciousness looks to the end of the horizon, that is conscioiusness without end.
When consciousness looks into outer space, even using a telescope to look into the next galaxy, that is conscioiusness without end.
But that consciousness is impermanent. It is conditioned. It depends on a sense organ.
This is how the Buddha taught.
Regarding consciousness with feature, luminous all-round, the Buddha taught as follows:
Now any form of grasping or attachment is a defilement.
The Buddha asked the question: "Where do earth, wind, fire or water have no footing?"
The answer is consciousness without feature, boundless, luminous all round.
:smilec:
Well spoken.
The quote also (and only) appears in MN 49, which is again a humorous jab at the Brahminical concept of god.
But indeed. Nirvana is not being discussed here.
The topic of the sutta, about earth, wind, fire & water having no footing, is consistent with other suttas.
:crazy:
Sadhu, sadhu ! _/\_
.
The whole essense of Buddhism is mind without attachment (unlike your posts that are always grasping at some sense of Ultimate Permanence).
Unliberated and liberated consciousness are described as follows.
It certainly does. Cessation is the most common translation. The question, though, is the cessation of what?
That said, I agree.
The essential issue is the cessation of what?
kind regards
:smilec:
In MN 49, to demonstrate how the Brahmanites were attached to their delusion of an Ultimate Permanent Consciousness/Awareness, the Buddha made himself invisible.
However, the word 'conditioned' is different meanings.
For example, hair is conditioned by scalp but also conditioned by shampoo.
The body is conditioned by the four great elements but also conditioned by exercise.
Similarly, consciousness existentially is conditioned by sense organs but also its quality conditioned by defilement.
Obsured consciousness is conditioned by defilement (kilesa) but functional consciousness is conditioned by sense organs.
So there is both a conditioned consciousness and unconditioned consciousness.
Neither implies permanence or reification.
Kind regards
:smilec:
I prefer to hold 'reified into a Self' or 'Permanent Essense'.
I prefer to hold there are things. There is phenomena.
For me, the essential matter is what is the true nature of those things.
:smilec:
As far as I understand it, 'rnam shes' refers to the six consciousnesses (without the addition of the extra two making eight in Vajrayana) of what is embarrassingly refered to as "Hinayana", whilst 'rigpa' means pure awareness.
.
J: Cessation is the most common translation (of Niroda). The question, though, is the cessation of what?
S9: Yes, that is certainly the question. Perhaps it is premature of anyone to claim they know the answer to that question without some personal experience of the same.
J: In Tibetan Buddhism, one draws a distinction between conditioned consciousness (rnams shes) and pure consciousness (rigpa). But the latter is not meant to be reified into a thing.
S9: Anyone who thinks that rigpa is a thing simply hasn’t experienced it, because every definition of thing-ness simply doesn’t apply to rigpa.
Respectfully,
S9
Where does the Buddha speak of Enlightenment as opposed to only "nibbana/nirvana" in the suttas?
Have you experienced rigpa youself then, S9 ?
I've actually never been quite sure which tradition you practice with. Are you an offline Tibetan Buddhist practitioner?
.
"Since the concept of Brahma, the truly existent (Skt. paramartha sat) is the very foundation of Hinduism (as a matter of fact some form of an eternal ultimate reality whether it is called God or Nature is the basis of all other religious systems); when Buddhism denies such an ultimate reality (Skt. paramartha satta) in any form, it cuts at the very jugular veins of Hinduism."
True........ But then let it go, because getting stuck in the absence of an ultimate reality is just as off the mark.
Thanks jinzang.
Question: Is it a full and unreversed cessation? What about when it just seems to take second foot?
I wasn't aware nirvana was a state of mind, reconciling religions even less so.
If I am to understand you correctly, you are setting up the Ultimate Reality to be a dualistic event, or ground, with samsara as its opposite partner in crime. Of course this is exactly how the mind would think of Nirvana, as being just one more thing, or world.
This, however, is wholly unnecessary because the mistaken view of samsara is superimposed right on top of Nirvana like a coat of paint. All of the definitions of Ultimate Reality are mind definitions. So consequently when you look for such a made up reality, you cannot find it. Of course not, you just made it up. ; ^ )
Ultimate Reality is in the dimension of One. And you keep looking for two, by thinking that both Truth and the mistaken Idea of truth are two equal things. Mistaken views are just that, mistakes.
If you look for the conventional idea of this material world, you will not find that either, because again this is a mistake.
Truth is purely empty of ALL of our mistaken concepts. But, something is going on…is it not? What is this innate perception that something is present…Awareness?
Respectfully,
S9
The Abhidharmakosha mentions two kinds of cessation. But I'm too tired to look up the details right now. The discussion here seems to be about the cessation of the afflictive emotions versus the cessation of the skandhas and which is genuinely nirvana. Much could be said on nirodha, but I am not the best person to ask.
Gassho.
Namdrol:
There is no teaching in Buddhism higher than dependent origination. Whatever originates in dependence is empty. The view of Dzogchen, according to ChNN (Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche) in his rdzogs chen skor dri len is the same as Prasanga Madhyamaka, with one difference only - Madhyamaka view is a result of intellectual analysis, Dzogchen view is not. Philosophically, however, they are the same. The view of Madhyamaka does not go beyond the view of dependent origination, since the Madhyamaka view is dependent origination. He also cites Sakya Pandita "If there were something beyond freedom from extremes, that would be an extreme."
Further, there is no rigpa to speak of that exists separate from the earth, water, fire, air, space and consciousness that make up the universe and sentient beings. Rigpa is merely a different way of talking about these six things. In their pure state (their actual state) we talk about the radiance of the five wisdoms of rig pa. In their impure state we talk about how the five elements arise from consciousness. One coin, two sides. And it is completely empty from beginning to end, and top to bottom, free from all extremes and not established in anyway.
Dzogchen teachings also describe the process of how sentient being continue in an afflicted state (suffering), what is the cause of that afflicted state (suffering), that fact that afflicted state can cease (the cessation of suffering) and the correct path to end that suffering (the truth of the path). Dzogchen teachings describe the four noble truths in terms of dependent origination also.
Ergo, Dzogchen also does not go beyond Buddha's teaching of dependent origination which Nagarjuna describes in the following fashion:
I bow to him, the greatest of the teachers,
the Sambuddha, by whom dependent origination --
not ceasing, not arising
not annihilated, not permanent,
not going, not coming,
not diverse, not single,
was taught as peace
in order to pacify proliferation.
So as Thusness said before, It is the manifestation itself! It is the appearance itself! There is no Source to fall back, the Appearance is the Source! Including the moment to moment of thoughts. The problem is we choose, but all is really it. There is nothing to choose.
There is no mirror reflecting
Manifestation alone IS.
There is nothing to choose because All Manifestation Is It.
There is no invisible Being/Source/Background hiding anywhere. Whenever attempt to fall back to an invisible transparent image of Awareness, it is again the mind game of thought.
It is not just about 'the witness and object are illusion', it is about how all manifestations are actually not objective but is Awareness itself. In other words you must be able to see all manifestation as Awareness.
This is not about denying all manifestation as dream. It is about seeing the transient manifestation as Awareness, not about rejecting transience. Objectivity is seen through, which reveals the true essence of manifestation as Awareness.
For if you reject the transience, you will again fall back into that "invisible transparent image of Awareness", sinking back to a background/Source through referencing back to a self.
A very interesting talk by B. Alan Wallace of SBI for Consciousness Studies
What is mind?
http://www.sbinstitute.com/16%20Teachings/whatismind.mp3
Deep dreamless states are also called bhavanga or "substrate consciousness/ground of the ordinary mind" out of which mind(thoughts, feelings, perceptions) arise. Appearances in dreams and in awake states are qualitatively similar. Waking experience is a like a dream with constraints from the environment and dream is like waking experience without constraints from the environment.
But
Sights, sounds, smells, taste, touch, feelings, memories, thoughts and consciousness don't persist and are constantly arising and ceasing moment by moment. Each moment of arising potentially causing a new round of self identification (I see, hear ...feel, think and I am) unless the phenomena are seen as what they really are. The last fetter of conceit "I am" is dropped with the de-reification of consciousness itself.
X: What I meant is that Awareness, Source, whatever you want to call it... is really the Manifestation itself… the Appearance is the Source! Including the moment to moment of thoughts. The problem is we choose, but all is really it. There is nothing to choose.
S9: See this is the thing, than. If everything is the Source, why is choice a problem?
Wouldn't the error of choice be a part of the Source, too, and therefore a good thing to do?
Wouldn’t that mean, going further, that every mistaken view or choice was also the Source, and even that the Source was also at least partly an illusion also, and therefore not an illusion at all, (do you smell a contradiction here)? Because what does illusion even mean, if Ultimate Truth is an illusion even in part?
In this case, the mind and its many ways of seeing Reality that just don’t add up, actually belong to the Source as well, which may under diagnosis turn out to be either neurotic, or even psychotic, or at least some kind of Ultimate Insanity, with its split personality and division against itself Manifested (like you say) within the human mind.
In other words, are you saying that the Source is Perfectly Confused, or that this source-less world is doomed to remain confused, not to mention unhappy?
If we cannot scapegoat the mind, (as being the problem or even the enemy), than wouldn’t the problem be built right in and a truly hopeless situation?
Right now you are probably thinking, (and I can’t blame you), that S9 thinks too much, or something along those lines in order to comfortably dismiss my question, (certainly the easiest thing to do at this point). ; ^ )
But, my point is that, our words must be consistent, because they certainly go on (as much as we may wish they would not, and would simply be accepted in parts and pieces) to build a world view, at which time we must live with it (within it?).
Let us not mention, (okay let’s) that Buddha said, “Suffering Is.”
Would that not prove that there is a snake in the garden (AKA the manifestation), and going further a worm in the works of this all-encompassing Source/Manifestation? If we are in good part not happy, than how (“In Buddha’s name,”) can we claim that all is well, “Right here in River City?”
Sorry,
S9
X: You must be able to see all manifestation as Awareness.
S9: I wouldn't say that this “manifestation” is Awareness, in that manifestation is in every way equal too Awareness. I see manifestation as a dream, or imagination, which only temporarily takes place or is taking a ride on Awareness, in much the same way as a flea takes a ride, and depends for its vital subsistence, on a dog.
Granted most dogs have at least one flea taken a ride on it, in any given time. But wouldn’t we be a little foolish, seeing the remarkable differences between the flea and the dog, to claim that a flea is in fact a dog, or really even a major part of dog-ness?
; ^ )
X: This is not about denying all manifestation as dream. It is about seeing the transient manifestation as Awareness, not about rejecting transience.
S9: Again, I do not advocate denying a flea (or rejecting finitude). I am merely saying, “Lets not homogenize the flea with the dog, and call this a discovery of wholeness.”
X: Objectivity is seen through, which reveals the true essence of manifestation as Awareness.
S9: Let’s remember that the only way to be objective is to be able to stand outside of what you are examining. In your paradigm of Manifestation/Awareness (same/same) there is no outside on which to stand, and therefore there is no objectivity either. ; ^ )
X: For if you reject the transience; you will again fall back into that "invisible transparent image of Awareness", sinking back to a background/Source through referencing back to a self.
S9: If there is no separation (as in your paradigm), than it follows that rejecting is impossible, and there is no falling back. We are pretty much stuck right were we are, as improvement would also be out of the question…improve to what? If everything is already perfect, than fixing it would just gum up the works. Everything is everything already…done deal.
Let us be clear on this one thing, please. I do not reject transience, anymore than at night I believe I can lie down and decide not to dream. But, in looking closely at the dream, I see that it is merely imagination, and I do not let in affect me too deeply. If I dream that my mother died, neither do I begin to mourn nor do I make arrangements to have her buried, because I know that it is JUST a dream.
Warm Regards,
S9
There is the term magga-phala-nibbana.
Magga is path, phala is fruit and nibbana the final extinguishing of defilement.
Enlightenment is fruit, nibbana is nibbana.
Enlightenment is insight knowledge, nibbana is peace.
Enlightenment leads to peace but for a Buddha, with the eye of stainless insight, these are distinct but related dhammas, namely, magga-phala-nibbana.
Kind regards
Did the Buddha attain Nibbana at 35 years old?
Or did he when he died?
Nibbana is affictive emotions ceasing.
This is why the word 'cessation' is inaccurate.
When the suttas say: "the cessation of consciousness", the meaning here is the cessation of emotion or ignorance obscuring and stimulating consciousness.
The skandas 'quench' or 'cool down'. They do not 'cease'.
Please read the following sutta very carefully.
Kind regards
So where is Ajahn Chah's mind now, after his body died?
Where or how was Ajahn Chah's mind when he spent his final years mostly barely conscious with dementia?
Nice long posts of blind faith friend but essentially the Dzogchen Tantra Kunjed Gyalpo is WRONG.
Enlightenment sides with insight knowledge rather than pure radiant awareness itself.
When the Prince Siddhartha left the palace, he immediately attained states of pure consciousness with his first teachers.
He rejected these states as Nibbana.
Best wishes
Did you once mention insight (vipassana) in your posts?
The Buddha-Dhamma is the effluents (asava) of mind end via insight.
Nibbana happens after insight.
Where there is no insight, this is not the Buddha's Nibbana.
It is simply a very profound samadhi experience.
Most of what I read in your posts are simply samadhi experiences.
It is about seeing through, by insight, the illusory subject-object constructs and realising everything (including all perceptions, all sense experience) as non-dual. It is not a state of samadhi. Rather, it is already so. It does not require sustaining a state of experience, it is about realising that this is already so, the nature of awareness, and once realised it is realised "forever" - it is not an experience that can be entered and left simply because it is an insight into a fact of awareness, not an experience.
Even if Dzogchen speaks of 'sustaining', it is more like 'sustaining the recognition of the nature of awareness' - just as 'sustaining mindfulness of the 3 dharma seals' is not about sustaining a samadhi. At an advanced stage even the effort or need to 'sustain mindfulness' is relinquished, and that is when the insight has sunk so deeply into consciousness that the tendencies/ignorance have ended and no longer arise.
Sometimes the way it is phrased in the texts may be a little bit misleading especially if you did not read it in context. I only pasted small portions of it. But Dzogchen really does require insight and is not about sustaining samadhi states. However since you are so pro-Theravada I shall not comment further. Actually it is all over but perhaps you didn't get me. Insight into non-dual (though this is not peculiar to Buddhism, there is some form of deconstruction yet not total liberation as consciousness is still seen as 'inherent'), and furthermore insight into the insubstantiality of any form of so called Super Awareness by seeing them as anatta and anicca (and this is peculiar to Buddhism, and leads to liberation), this is insight.
Right now.. looking at our environment, we may witness darkness, cloudy, cool, moist and windy. We call it "weather," but what is it really? Wind. Rain. Clouds slowly parting. Not the words spoken about it, but just this darkening, blowing, pounding, wetting, and then lightening up, blue sky appearing amidst darkness, and sunshine sparkling on wet grasses and leaves. In a little while there'll be frost, snow and ice-covers. And then warming again, melting, oozing water everywhere. On an early spring day the dirt road sparkles with streams of wet silver. So — what is "weather" other than this incessant change of earthly conditions and all the human thoughts, feelings, and undertakings influenced by it? Like and dislike. Depression and elation. Creation and destruction. An ongoing, ever changing stream of happenings abiding nowhere. No entity "weather" to be found except in thinking and talking about it.
Now — is there such an entity as "me," "I," "myself?" Or is it just like the "weather" — an ongoing, ever changing stream of ideas, images, memories, projections, likes and dislikes, creations and destructions, which thought keeps calling "I," "me," and thereby solidifying what is evanescent?
Applying this to Awareness, we see truly that Awareness, like Weather, or Me, is insubstantial and unlocatable. But this will not be apparent just by having an initial glimpse or realisation of the luminosity of Awareness. The first insight into Awareness with the tendency or framework of viewing things dualistically and inherently still rooted in our consciousness will make it seem like Awareness is a pure Subject, a Self, behind all things, and as the core essence of one's being. Those practicing Vipassana may not necessarily go through this stage, though depending on the practice, Theravadins may also encounter this stage depending on their method of practice (Burmese Vipassana meditators may not go through this stage but at an advanced stage of their practice realise Anatta with non-dual implicit thus bypassing the I AM stage, though Thai Forest tradition usually goes through this) - Ajahn Brahmavamso warns that the experience of this, a.k.a Poo Roo in Thai forest tradition, will be mistaken as an Ultimate Self. Ajahn Brahmavamso also warned in his book that even some high (Buddhist) monks have such mistaken views similar to Hinduism. I have to agree... and I have noticed some monks, sometimes in Thai tradition, sometimes in other traditions, that have this dualistic tendency of treating Mind as an ultimate Knower separated from all other objects.
After having glimpsed the luminosity of Awareness, the next step is to discover that there is no separation whatsoever, Awareness is not a Subject/Self separated from all Objects, but rather is a seamless whole, just as "Weather" is not something behind or separated from all the wind blowing, clouds, moist, rain, etc. This is the beginning of non-dual insight. The Knower and Known are realised as simply One Knowing. The bond of dualifying things into Subject and Object is gone through this insight, yet the bond of 'inherency' remains.
Non-dual insight is insufficient because 'Awareness' may still be seen as inherent. For example, though we may think of 'weather' as not being separated from all the phenomenon of wind, rain, clouds etc... we still think in terms of things happening 'in' weather. But is that right? Conventionally we feel that is correct, but if we investigate, a 'container' called 'weather' cannot be found. 'Weather' is not a container, not a larger something than everything else, but is really just the stream of phenomena, which are insubstantial, impermanent, and thus cannot make up an identity (in other words 'weather' cannot be located in or apart from these phenomena), but is simply a convention we use, just like 'me', 'self', 'awareness' - but nothing substantial can be found in direct experience (though the flow of phenomenon to which these words refer to are vividly present, they are insubstantial).
If 'weather' is not a 'background' or 'container', but is simply the flow of phenomena, how can we talk about 'things happening in weather' - in the similar way, if 'awareness' is not an inherent something containing all other things, but is really just the insubstantial stream of manifestation which are anatta and anicca, how can we talk about things 'coming from, happening in, subsiding back to' Awareness, or Awareness as an Ultimate Source or God. Consciousness is like being 'spell bound' by these tendencies to reify, solidify, inherent-ify, dualify, whatever it experiences... even after having non-conceptual experience of Awareness. A non-dual non-conceptual direct meditative experience is being reified into a metaphysical essence without even us noticing it. Hence I do agree with you that ignorance goes far deeper than a non-dual, non-conceptual meditative state. It is the insight into the non-dual, non-inherent nature of consciousness/phenomenon that liberates.
........
I think of it this way, from a very high but still vipassana point of view, as you are framing this question in a vipassana context:
First, the breath is nice, but at that level of manifesting sensations, some other points of view are helpful:
Assume something really simple about sensations and awareness: they are exactly the same. In fact, make it more simple: there are sensations, and this includes all sensations that make up space, thought, image, body, anything you can imagine being mind, and all qualities that are experienced, meaning the sum total of the world.
In this very simple framework, rigpa is all sensations, but there can be this subtle attachment and lack of investigation when high terms are used that we want there to be this super-rigpa, this awareness that is other. You mention that you feel there is a larger awareness, an awareness that is not just there the limits of your senses. I would claim otherwise: that the whole sensate universe by definition can't arise without the quality of awareness by definition, and so some very subtle sensations are tricking you into thinking they are bigger than the rest of the sensate field and are actually the awareness that is aware of other sensations.
Awareness is simply manifestation. All sensations are simply present.
Thus, be wary of anything that wants to be a super-awareness, a rigpa that is larger than everything else, as it can't be, by definition. Investigate at the level of bare sensate experience just what arises and see that it can't possibly be different from awareness, as this is actually an extraneous concept and there are actually just sensations as the first and final basis of reality.
As you like the Tibetan stuff, and to quote Padmasambhava in the root text of the book The Light of Wisdom:
It is neither seen as something different from the aggregates
Nor as identical with these five aggregates.
If the first were true, there would exist some other substance.
This is not the case, so were the second true,
That would contradict a permanent self, since the aggregates are impermanent.
Therefore, based on the five aggregates,
The self is a mere imputation based on the power of the ego-clinging.
As to that which imputes, the past thought has vanished and is nonexistent.
The future thought has not occurred, and the present thought does not withstand scrutiny."
Thus, if you want to crack the nut, notice that everything is 5 aggregates, including everything you think is super-awareness, and be less concerned with what every little type of consciousness is than with just perceiving them directly and noticing the gaps that section off this from that, such as rigpa from thought stream, or awareness from sensations, as these are golden chains.
Once you see there is no such separation, you will automatically not 'choose', the belief in separation is no longer there, like the belief in santa claus is seen through and no longer held.
However if the subtle belief in separation is present, then there is a tendency to reject or disassociate from the objective pole and sink back to a Subjective background, source, etc. Every thought (including those operating under mistaken views) is a luminous manifestation. Including even suffering, yes. All manifestations are already non-dual, and already exhibit every characteristic of the dharma seals, yet unless you realise it, you continue to suffer. If ignorance is present, suffering arises.
The purpose of practice is to overcome ignorance, our deeply held mental constructs (of duality, of self, etc) and the resulting suffering, through insight.
Am I saying Awareness is illusion? No, it is just as it is. A thought (which is not something apart from awareness) is just as it is. Ignorance happens, it is just as it is. Suffering happens, it is just as it is. Illusion (false perception of reality, i.e. not seeing things just as it is) happens, it is also just as it is. Enlightenment (true perception of reality, i.e. seeing things just as it is) happens, it is also just as it is. In Zen it is said, If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are.
Everything is ultimately neither illusion nor real (inherently existing), it is just dependently originated appearance, and is just as it is. When condition is there, manifestation inevitably arise, as a D.O-ed appearance. If ignorance is present, suffering manifests, not that suffering in any way exhibits the nature of reality less than bliss. Whatever manifests including suffering is not an illusion because it is undeniably luminously present, but it is not exactly 'real' too - it is empty and ungraspable, dependently originated. Precisely. That is why in Dzogchen, one of the core teachings is that all appearances are already Spontaneously Perfected from the beginning. Right in the transient appearance, the essence and nature of luminosity and emptiness is already perfectly manifested. But whether you realise it is another matter! And makes a whole difference in terms of suffering and not-suffering...
But what is clear here, is that the teachings of non-dual luminosity, anatta and emptiness, is not about disassociating the Absolute from the transience phenomena in order to have clear glimpse of the formless Absolute.
As Thusness puts it: "“Emptiness” is 'the wisdom' to see the Absolute in the Relative without the need to 'abstract' the Absolute from the Relative and seeing Reality as one seamless functioning"
S9: Use of words like “insight knowledge” is oxymoronic. It is a bit like saying “wise ignorance.” Because these words do not really go together and retain their meaning, they actually neutralize each other and become meaningless.
If Nirvana is synonymous with Buddha Nature, to say that he rejected it is impossible.
Smiles,
S9
X: Awareness is simply manifestation. All sensations are simply present.
S9: This is the difference. Awareness is always just Awareness, never changing and permanent, whereas all manifested mental objects and sensations are impermanent and ever-changing.
Also all of the multiple sensations are not synonymous with experience itself, simply because “Awareness is aware of Awareness” as it’s own object intrinsically. Whereas all sensations, including that of the multiple weather conditions, moods, etc. are completely dependent upon Awareness in order to even exist and be known in any real sense, even if only temporarily.
Respectfully,
S9
X: Thus, be wary of anything that wants to be a super-awareness, a rigpa that is larger than everything else, as it can't be, by definition.
S9: Representing Awareness as being super-awareness is an incorrect way to represent what is being talked about, or experienced as Awareness. Awareness is more like the Ocean, whereas manifestation, as in each manifested mind object, is more like each and every wave. Is the wave separate from the ocean and is the ocean separate from the wave? No not really. But the ocean can be without any manifestation of a temporary phenomenon called wave-ing, you will never see a wave without an ocean to support it and let it burrow its existent. This, my friend, is the difference between Awareness and every little manifestation imaginable.
Warm regards,
S9
X: You will see that the apparent choice is operating in an illusory belief - a belief that there is a separation between Awareness and manifestation.
S9: No not actually separate, but certainly different. For instance, my arm is not separate from my body, yet at the same time, my arm is not the whole of my body either. It is very different in this way, my arm is wholly dependent upon my body to supply its life force to it. Cut off the arm set it aside, and you will soon realize just how dependent the arm actually is on the body. However, the body can go on for many years quite nicely without the arm (once it heals from the trauma.)
In this same way, manifestations cannot exist without Awareness. Awareness can run from manifestation to manifestation discarding each individual manifestation like an old girl friend that no longer holds its interest, and yet Awareness can continue to do this for years without any loss to its intrinsic wholeness as Awareness.
X: Once you see there is no such separation, you will automatically not 'choose', the belief in separation is no longer there, like the belief in santa claus is seen through and no longer held.
S9: Awareness does not require my choice, one way or the other, in order to be what it is. Many people in their conventional wisdom never give Awareness any thought, and yet Awareness in it Teflon ability not to be harmed by choice or lack of choice, or even a lack of interest, never suffers a scar.
X: However if the subtle belief in separation is present, then there is a tendency to reject or disassociate from the objective pole and sink back to a Subjective background, source, etc.
S9: Awareness is never subjective nor is it objective; it cannot be imprisoned in the mind and all of her classifications. “Awareness in abiding in the non-abiding," and cannot be thing-ized or objectified or even localized. We are stepping into another dimension that which is not mental…the land of IS.
Friendly Regards,
S9
Of course, it is the same
I will argue and give cannonical proofs if you ask me so..
For now, just know that there is a huge misconception among many buddhist schools and communitty about the atman topic..
If you you know the pali and sanskrit language, you will come to understand that ''a'' is a suffixe that mean ''the absence of'' or ''what is not''
The buddha never taught that there is no absolute that give shelter when fixing the very heart (the citta) into..
He never denied the SOUL but did rather use of an apophasis dialectic concerning what is not the soul wich are the five kandhas: rupa, vedana, sanna, samskara, vinnana..
If he had denied the soul he woul have use the term nanatta wich mean no soul and is, in cannon, always associate with the ucchevada heresy (nilhisim). In fact, ''Tat'' mean Brahman and the real rendition of Tathagata is ''the one that went into (or becamed) brahman''
You can never denied something unreal if it is not the point out something real!
A is not X
B is not X etc.. but X is X!!
This is what the methodology of anatta is all about.. IN CANON!!
All others elucubrations are from commentarial literature and are B.S
Peace!
Yes, please do give us some supporting citations from the canon. This is interesting.
start by this and watch the other parts..
OK, please give more cannonical proof and argue them for us!
You know Pali and Sanskrit? COOL!
Where did you learn those languages?
BTW, were you Songhill over on FreeSangha?
And forget about the proof and agument.
I was just kidding.
I suspect not @Chaz..Songhill/Element/Darkzen is a great atta devotee, but he does not make basic errors in spelling like 'comunitty' and 'cannonical'