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
Transmetaphysical
Veteran
Is Nirvana the same as the Brahman of Hinduism? I know that Nirvana is thought of as a state of mind, but I also conceptualize it as Brahman.
And I think the relationship between Brahman and Atman is the same as the relationship between Nirvana and ego self.
Thougths?
And I think the relationship between Brahman and Atman is the same as the relationship between Nirvana and ego self.
Thougths?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Is it really important what it's 'like'?
All this over-thinking... what point is there?
There is so much to learn, ponder and absorb about the Basics of Buddhism.... I ask myself why people are in such a hurry to explore areas of thinking that really are of no intrinsic value, when there is no mastery of the nitty-gritty....:rolleyesc
If Enlightenment is the ultimate state of mind, then what is Nirvana? Is it everything? Oneness? Ultimate reality?
Buddha said that Nirvana is "consciousness without end," so I interpret that as a sort of "infinite consciousness" which is similar to the idea of Brahman.
After you get there, it doesn't matter.
Good, well done. Whatever floats your boat.
Now what?
There are four stages of awakening (enlightenment):
1) Stream-Enterer or Stream-Winner / Sotapanna
2) Once-Returner / Sakadagami
3) Non-Returner / Anagami
4) Arahant and (Mahayana)Bodhisattva
Each stage of awakening has very specific fetters that are destroyed or at the least weakened. The "Bodhisattva" is the Mahayana ideal. They would place it higher than Arahant, but the level of awakening is the same. The Bodhisattva's intent is to liberate all sentient beings from suffering, but you don't need to be a Mahayanist to have that intent, nor call yourself a Bodhisattva.
Buddhism is about nature & natural things.
In Buddhism, a rock is a rock, mind is mind, tree a tree, eye an eye and so forth.
The Buddha taught a practitioner to see what is what, to see form as form, feeling as feeling, mind as mind, consciousness as consciousness.
Nirvana is a derivative from a very common Indian word, meaning flame or heat is extinguished. It means to be cool.
So when one start to personify or attributing special capitalised names to experience, such as 'Brahman' or 'God', then one is departing from Buddhism.
For example, if infinite consciousness is experienced, that is infinite consciousness.
:bigclap::bigclap::bigclap:
Check out any web page * or book on Buddhist beliefs, try the Brahmajala Suttra.
I recommend a "real" page not the happycrystalsokedopebuddhidm.com
I completely agree with everything you said except when you said Brahman is God. Brahman is an impersonal infinite consciousness and Buddha said Nirvana is "consciousness without end." It sounds to me like they're very similar, but perhaps Buddha's conception of it is more enlightened, hence the new word, Nirvana.
I think that you will find that everyone here looks at most parts of Buddhism a little differently. Perhaps this is because there a multiple ways of looking at the very same thing without actually being wrong. Most wisdom deepens with time and insights and so what you might think of as Buddha, being a God like fellow at one point in your life, will come to be quite different and far more subtle as you apply persistent attention to it.
Also, like any religion slash philosophy you will have two poles and everything in between. At one end you will find what I have come to recognize as the fundamentalist Buddhist, and at the other pole you might find the fellow who sees everything as a metaphor, he might even question if there ever was a fellow named Gautama, or if this is simply an archetypal story.
So I guess what I am saying here is that in the end what you believe will be based upon your own personal experience in this area.
If I were to say that I agree with you, that Nirvana is very close to being the same as Brahman if you remove the superficial personification, and I do, it will still be in your court. : ^ )
Warm Regards,
S9
AFAIK, consciousness without end is one of the four mental states achieved in the formless realm. The formless realm is a nice place to be, but it isn't Nirvana, and infinite consciousness isn't associated with Nirvana.
R: Consciousness without end is one of the four mental states achieved in the formless realm.
S9: It seems to me that “consciousness without end” would certainly indicate the existence of the other side of this coin; “consciousness without beginning.”
If this were to be the case (and it is IMO), than the concept of “achievement” of such a state would be off the mark. It would actually come down to noticing the constant ‘Isness’ of such a state. That is unless one was to believe that we could own consciousness, which we cannot, or have Constance taking place in one direction only, a future Constance.
I believe anything “without end” either must travel in both directions, past and the future, (that is if direction has anything to do with constancy it at all, that is), or continues to remain in the ‘Constant Now’; often called the “Immediate Eternal Moment,” (which is my all time favorite.) : ^ )
R: The formless realm is a nice place to be, but it isn't Nirvana, and infinite consciousness isn't associated with Nirvana.
S9: I have noticed that the word Nirvana can get confusing, for many, because of diverse personal definitions of that word. Some people define Nirvana as being the opposite of our more conceptual states of mind, a place that is empty of both thoughts and concepts, or more of a blank slate, which the mind finds relaxing and refreshing. I personally would call such a state a trance state, and yes trance states do take place in the mind, therefore being temporary.
Nirvana however is also seen as being synonymous with Liberation, a state transcendent of the mind. In this case, although it is seemingly the same word, it is being used to quite differently, to symbolize a whole other dimension or situation than any mental state. It would, in this case, be indicating a ‘State of Being” that is wholly transcendent of the mind, is outside of the mind, and all of her multitudinous problems.
Respectfully,
S9
TMP made an assertion that the Buddha equated Nirvana with "consciousness without end". I haven't read every sutra and sutta out there, so I asked him for his source. He may know something I don't. I then described what I do know, which is that "consciousness without end" or "infinite consciousness" comes from the teachings of a particular school of Buddhism, and it is associated with Samsara, not Nirvana.
In other words, my question is whether or not this statement can be attributed to the Buddha. To the best of my knowledge, it can't. A further question is whether or not this statement is a teaching of a particular Buddhist school. To the best of my knowledge, it isn't.
I believe that a good deal of what the Buddha originally said has over long year, and many misunderstandings, fallen through the cracks of time.
I also believe that a good deal of the best of what he said can be picked up in putting together what is left, and thinking about what he said and what that would reasonable infer, as well as, doing what he did and finding what he found ourselves.
So, if we limit ourselves to only parroting the literal translations of the many sutras, we may well be limiting our understanding and cheating ourselves out of the wisdom that can grow beyond those literal words.
Perhaps this is a more scholarly way of doing it, and I for one am grateful for the scholarly works which are a treasure. But, if in fact it is an attitude that nothing is right unless it is written, or belongs to a particular lineage, I personally find that limiting of Buddha’s wisdom in such a way pinches me. But, perhaps this is just my own character that makes me look at it this way.
In the end, when we stop waving the flag of whatever guy, or lineage that we most agree with, all we ever really have is our own personal experience of these things. Anything else is 2nd hand. : ^ ) and is flying in the air without any foundation in experience.
I watched as a very great scholar, and copious writer of books, D.T. Suzuki, only became Enlightened in his very late years. Anyone who read his early works would be subject to his personal misunderstandings.
Peace,
S9
When questioned about Nirvana (indirectly) Buddha said:
"Consciousness without feature, without end, luminous all around."
Kevatta Sutta of the Tipitaka.
T: When questioned about Nirvana (indirectly) Buddha said:
"Consciousness without feature, without end, luminous all around."
Kevatta Sutta of the Tipitaka.
S9: To me this pretty much points out that Nirvana is not empty in the conventional sense, but rather empty of all mind objects, and as all mind objects have features (AKA definitions), Nirvana must be outside of the mind, or rather not defined as a mind object.
To me luminous isn’t the same as light (vs. darkness), it is used more in the sense of Awareness. “Luminous all around” (AKA Awareness Everywhere) means Omnipresence, and Eternal, as time is more lineal. IMO.
Warm Regards,
S9
The Buddha not say Nirvana is "consciousness without end."
The Buddha answered the question: "Where do earth, wind, fire & water have no footing?"
His answer was "consciousness without end" ("consciousness without attachment").
'Nirvana' means to be cool, quenched, without heat, with pain.
It did read somewhere 'brahman' has the root of 'to expand'.
So if Brahman literally means 'expanded consciousness' it may be natural.
But generally the principle of Brahman is the ground of being.
Nirvana is not concerned with being or creation but freedom from the unsatisfactoriness of creation.
Brahman & Nirvana are different.
The Buddha was not a liar.
He would not claim to have discovered the final nibbana if he did not.
:smilec:
Your understanding here is not in accord to Buddhism in so many ways.
In the sutta where this comes from, the monk travels to ask Brahma where the four elements end, just like the Heart Sutra declares there is no earth, no wind, no fire, no water.
The sutta is as follows:
The Buddha said here there is no where the four physical elements cease without remainder. He simply said attachment and the various perceptions towards them can cease or end.
:smilec:
Consciousness is a conditioned thing. It has a beginning and it has an end.
:crazy:
Nirvana is not empty of mind objects. It is empty of greed, hatred & delusion.
In fact, Nibbana itself is a mind object.
A fully enlightened being speaks and thinks with mind objects and with Nibbana.
The mind of a fully enlightened being does not depart from Nibbana when it must think or speak.
It thinks and speaks without greed, hatred & delusion.
:eek2:
"He does not get attached to form, does not cling to form, does not determine it to be 'my self.' He does not get attached to feeling... He does not get attached to perception... He does not get attached to fabrications... He does not get attached to consciousness, does not cling to consciousness, does not determine it to be 'my self.' These five clinging-aggregates — not attached to, not clung to — lead to his long-term happiness & well-being."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.085.than.html
"Construing is a disease, construing is a cancer, construing is an arrow. Therefore, monks, you should train yourselves: 'We will dwell with an awareness free of construings."
construe -make sense of; assign a meaning to
i would suggest you re-read the passage
it says construing is "I am"
It also says
"'I am' is a perturbation. "'I am' is a wavering. "'I am' is a complication. "'I am' is an act of conceit.
'We will dwell with an awareness free of perturbations, waverings, complications and conceit.
But the bonds of Mara are even more subtle. Anyone who construes is bound by Mara. Anyone who doesn't construe is freed from the Evil One.
Bodhi uses the word 'conceiving'.
The Pali word here is maññitametaṃ.
It means to construe or conceive 'self' or mana.
Nirodha does not mean 'cessation'. It means quenching, extinguishing. The mind is quenched. The fires of greed, hatred & delusion are extinguished or cease. But the functioning of the mind remains, in complete harmony, with no suffering.
Also, the resolution of all fabrications is unusual. The word sankhara here is a verb not a noun. It means the stilling of mental concocting, proliferation, spinning or complicating. It means if one thinks, that thinking is calm, clear, wise, free, liberated.
— MN 72
excogitations-To consider or think (something) out carefully and thoroughly
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/likefire/2-3.html
My reading is the Buddha disagreed with your view of 'non-conceptuality' in the same sutta.
Bodhi translates "speculative view" instead of Thanissaro's "position".
Again, construing is maññitametaṃ.
(n.) The act of excogitating; a devising in the thoughts; invention; contrivance.
Pegembara. I say you are missing the essence completely.
:smilec:
brahma-charyaor brahma-charya/brahma practice just means pure practice
brahma-svara/pure and far-reaching voice refers to the words spoken by the Buddha
Brahma or Mahabrahma, the great heavenly king Brahma, regarded as the personification of the fundamental universal principle (Brahman), and he was incorporated into Buddhism as one of the two major tutelary gods, the other being Shakra, known also as Indra.
I have already quoted from the Lion's Roar Sutta.
The point you are trying to make via misinterpretation is contrary to the Buddha-Dhamma.
Whether the Buddha spoke in brief or at length, Nibbana is the end of greed, hatred & delusion.
It is not the ending of thought.
The Buddha's Nibbana was permanent rather than temporary.
Each time the Buddha spoke a sermon, his mind did not depart from Nibbana.
S9: When speaking of consciousness there are two representations. The more conventional understanding of consciousness is “a ‘consciousness of’ this or that,’ which is directly attributable to the brain’s functions. It is considered temporary because a little thing like being hit on the head very hard can end it, either for a space of time or indefinitely.
Ultimate Consciousness, which some of us prefer to call “Awareness” in order to avoid confusion, is a whole other dimension. Ultimate Consciousness/Awareness does not come and go like just one more mental state. It is as our friend Trans has quoted: "Consciousness without feature, without end, luminous all around."
Kevatta Sutta of the Tipitaka.
I see no confusion in these words. They are both clear and straightforward.
Buddha was a very bright fellow. If he had meant to say “without attachment,” that would have been right there in the quote. Who when trying to convey “Conscious without attachment” would say “Consciousness without end” and not expect people to misunderstand him?
Not going to happen.
I believe that like many of us now, Buddha was very careful in his word choices.
If however this is a mistranslation of Buddha’s words, then all sutras will become suspect. They cannot claim to have no errors at all, and still need YOU to tell us where they went wrong. One cannot, out of convenience, have it both ways. : ^ (
Respectfully,
S9
Fabricates has the same meaning to construing imo.
Fabricate- to devise, invent, or concoct (a story, lie, etc.)
Construe- to interpret the meaning of (something)
( as the mind is not hindered by illusions/ eliminated all illusions )
Vipassana ends the fires of craving.
When the fires end, coolness remains.
The cool peace is Nibbana.
J: Is brahman the creative force?
S9: Lets be clear, because of some accusations previously made by a person who will remain unnamed. I am not a Hindu. But I have studied many of the world’s religions in some depth.
Actually it is Brahma that is the creative force in Hinduism. Brahman represents the Ultimate, or the Uncreated. Many people confuse these 2 anthropomorphic symbols, probably because the spelling is so close.
J: Wouldn't it be the force that is creating worlds in the mind?
S9: Brahma is said to be dreaming multiple worlds within worlds.
J: Samsara is hopping onto those worlds and living (actually it feels like dying) through their death. Nirvana is when you never cling to any of those worlds.
S9: Continuing with this same storyline, Samsara would be when you were sleeping and dreaming. When deeply asleep we do not often question the dream, often swallow it whole. It is said to be a sign of “Waking” when you even begin to question the dream and its reality.
Nirvana on the other hand would be close if not synonymous with how the Buddha described his new state, “I am Awake.” In that case you might not only question the dream, but also understand the dream as merely being a dream, and no longer cling to it.
Going further, however, we might wonder what Nirvana was, and not merely what Nirvana was not. Through ‘direct contemplation’ once you know where to look, you might begin to notice stuff like ‘Pure Silent,’ an complete ‘Emptiness’ of mind objects including concepts, or a “Constance,” which the mind could never support…and so on.
Friendly Regards,
S9
There is a difference between Nirvana in Buddhism and Brahman in Hinduism. Nirvana is the "blowing out" of all sufferings, of all the three poisons including ignorance, it is also the end of future births.
Whereas Brahman in Hinduism is a transcendental reality, characterized by Sat-Chit-Ananda or Being-Consciousness-Bliss, nevertheless it is also attributeless, formless, etc. It is the transcendental and impersonal True Self of all beings.
It may appear that the discovery of Brahman would be the Nirvana of Buddhism, however it is not the case.
First of all if you read through the Thusness's stages of experience, the experience of Brahman covers from Thusness's Stage 1 to 4 - in other words, there can be different degrees of insight into even the Brahman realisation. Even Stage 1 can be subdivided as Thusness told me into a few phases though it is not mentioned there, relating to the aspect of impersonality, degree of luminosity, dissolving need to re-confirm, and effortlessness. Furthermore, even if one experiences the I AM (Stage 1), there may still be a division between Being and phenomena, until one realises the non-duality of subject and object such that Everything (all transient phenomena) is experienced as vivid Presence-Awareness without dividing into Witness/witnessed, seer/seen, hearer/heard. (Stage 4)
Nevertheless when one is at the Brahman stage of experience (stage 1 to 4), ultimate reality is treated as something independent, unchanging, and ultimate. Brahman is also treated as 'the source of all phenomena'. Which means phenomena are transient, begins/originates and ends in this source of being, Brahman. Even in the case of Stage 4, phenomena are treated as inseparable from Awareness, yet Awareness is still seen as an independent, ultimate and unchanging source where appearances comes and goes (inseparably) from the source.
When one realises Anatta (Stage 5), one realises that there is no Ultimate Source, no unchanging Brahman, nothing 'unchanging' and 'independent', no ultimate background behind all phenomena/manifestation - only Manifestation IS.
The notion of One Mind as permanent as opposed to things beginning and ending in time, the notion of Mind being the source of appearances coming and going within this One Source, are all false views, and are all the views of inherency. Time, beginning, end, and an origin/Source, etc are all false views.
There must be insight into 'how' Mind and phenomena actually co-arise - there isn't a sense of Mind as a Source, and phenomena arising out of, or within, or being part of, this One Mind. Phenomena actually has no beginning and end, and therefore we cannot say phenomena began and originated or ended from/within a permanent Source. All these are false notions which are also dependent on notion of time, an illusory construct.
There is no temporal existence beginning and ending, arising from and then subsiding back 'in' Mind, since mind and phenomena (can't even be separated) have 'both' existed since beginningless 'time', there is no One Mind or Brahman being the first cause or Source, no Mind being permanent vs phenomena being temporal (having beginning and end) -- can't even be divided in the subtlest way -- there is just one co-arising without subject and object division, just phenomena/mind. All phenomena are timeless and without origin. There is just mind, but not a permanent independent mind/source, but mind as transient phenomena itself, without beginning or end, without time. One then understands what Zen Master Dogen mean by 'Impermanence is Buddha-Nature', '[T]o see mountains and rivers is to see Buddha-nature. To see Buddha-nature is to see a donkey’s jaw or a horse’s mouth.', 'Mountains and rivers at this very moment are the actualization of the world of the ancient Buddhas. Each, abiding in its phenomenal expression, realizes completeness.'
Just Manifestation IS. The difference between Stage 4 and 5 is that at Stage 4, phenomena are seen as inseparable (subject and object are in union) from Awareness, everything is seen as expression OF Awareness. However in Stage 5, the subtlest trace of sinking back to a Source and seeing Mind as unchanging and independent is removed and one sees Manifestation Alone IS. When it is seen there is NO Subject to begin with, there cannot be union of subject and object. Not manifestation of and inseparable from Awareness, Brahman, etc... but rather all there is is Appearance/Manifestation, that alone IS the radiance, awareness.
In Richard Herman's words:
Yes, it is the absolute "elimination of the background" without remainder. It is the affirmation of multiplicity, not dispersion, but multiplicity. The world references nothing but the world. Each thing is radiant expression of itself. There is no support, no ground. No awareness. No awareness.
"All dharmas are resolved in One Mind. One Mind resolves into...."
There is the radiant world. just the radiant world. No awareness.
That is the Abbott slapping floor with his hand. The red floor is red. Spontaneous function.
There is absolutely no Ultimate Source or Brahman here, which the Buddha rejected.
Quote from <!-- google_ad_section_start -->Two Sutras (Discourses by Buddha) on the Mistaken Views of Consciousness
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Second Sutra (Mulapariyaya Sutta: The Root Sequence)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.001.than.html
"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because he has known that delight is the root of suffering & stress, that from coming-into-being there is birth, and that for what has come into being there is aging & death. Therefore, with the total ending, fading away, cessation, letting go, relinquishment of craving, the Tathagata has totally awakened to the unexcelled right self-awakening, I tell you."
That is what the Blessed One said. Displeased, the monks did not delight in the Blessed One's words.
This group of monks didn’t want to hear that. They were quite happy with that level of insight, lovely as it was, and it said the monks did not rejoice in the Buddha’s words. (laughter) And similarly, one runs into this as a teacher, I have to say. This level is so attractive, it has so much of the flavor of something ultimate, that often times people are unbudgeable there.
This school had its beginnings in the thought of Uddalaka, a ninth-century B.C. philosopher who posited a "root": an abstract principle out of which all things emanated and which was immanent in all things. Philosophers who carried on this line of thinking offered a variety of theories, based on logic and meditative experience, about the nature of the ultimate root and about the hierarchy of the emanation. Many of their theories were recorded in the Upanishads and eventually developed into the classical Samkhya system around the time of the Buddha.
Although the present discourse says nothing about the background of the monks listening to it, the Commentary states that before their ordination they were brahmans, and that even after their ordination they continued to interpret the Buddha's teachings in light of their previous training, which may well have been proto-Samkhya. If this is so, then the Buddha's opening lines — "I will teach you the sequence of the root of all phenomena" — would have them prepared to hear his contribution to their line of thinking. And, in fact, the list of topics he covers reads like a Buddhist Samkhya. Paralleling the classical Samkhya, it contains 24 items, begins with the physical world (here, the four physical properties), and leads back through ever more refined & inclusive levels of being & experience, culminating with the ultimate Buddhist concept: Unbinding (nibbana). In the pattern of Samkhya thought, Unbinding would thus be the ultimate "root" or ground of being immanent in all things and out of which they all emanate.
However, instead of following this pattern of thinking, the Buddha attacks it at its very root: the notion of a principle in the abstract, the "in" (immanence) & "out of" (emanation) superimposed on experience. Only an uninstructed, run of the mill person, he says, would read experience in this way. In contrast, a person in training should look for a different kind of "root" — the root of suffering experienced in the present — and find it in the act of delight. Developing dispassion for that delight, the trainee can then comprehend the process of coming-into-being for what it is, drop all participation in it, and thus achieve true Awakening.
If the listeners present at this discourse were indeed interested in fitting Buddhist teachings into a Samkhyan mold, then it's small wonder that they were displeased — one of the few places where we read of a negative reaction to the Buddha's words. They had hoped to hear his contribution to their project, but instead they hear their whole pattern of thinking & theorizing attacked as ignorant & ill-informed. The Commentary tells us, though, they were later able to overcome their displeasure and eventually attain Awakening on listening to the discourse reported in AN 3.123.
Although at present we rarely think in the same terms as the Samkhya philosophers, there has long been — and still is — a common tendency to create a "Buddhist" metaphysics in which the experience of emptiness, the Unconditioned, the Dharma-body, Buddha-nature, rigpa, etc., is said to function as the ground of being from which the "All" — the entirety of our sensory & mental experience — is said to spring and to which we return when we meditate. Some people think that these theories are the inventions of scholars without any direct meditative experience, but actually they have most often originated among meditators, who label (or in the words of the discourse, "perceive") a particular meditative experience as the ultimate goal, identify with it in a subtle way (as when we are told that "we are the knowing"), and then view that level of experience as the ground of being out of which all other experience comes.
Any teaching that follows these lines would be subject to the same criticism that the Buddha directed against the monks who first heard this discourse.
Also see: Rigpa and Aggregates
As my friend who is an experienced Dzogchen practitioner, Vajrahridaya (who himself wrote a very good article on refuting Consciousness as 'Source' which I posted in ‘What makes Buddhism different’) said:
p.s. Namdrol could clear this up, as he has access to untranslated Tibetan texts and could talk about what Rigpa means. He has said that it is not established as well. Rigpa is only inherent in the sense that all compounded things are inherently empty always. Just like the Buddhas first statement. "Mind and it's phenomena are luminous, uncompounded and free since beginningless time." Or something to that effect in maybe not that order. If someone has the quote?
Anyway luminosity is not denied in Buddhism, but very often luminosity is reified into a Self, Brahman, etc. It will always be this case unless one has the right views of Anatta and Emptiness and factor this into one's experience.
Buddha-Nature is known in Buddhism as the union of luminosity and emptiness, to skew towards luminosity one turns into an Eternalist and fails to see the insubstantiality of all phenomena including any form of so called Super Awareness, while to skew into emptiness is also another extreme and one becomes a nihilist. As Thusness puts it, "do remember to infinitely regress back into this vivid present moment of manifestation – as this arising thought, as this passing scent – Emptiness is Form."
Anyway to realise Stage 5 is also not the end... there is the further emptying of objects where one realises the emptiness and dependent origination of all dharmas, objects, and phenomena. Then the essence of Heart Sutra will be realised. The article by Archaya Mahayogi Shridhar Rana Rinpoche is pretty clear on this aspect.
X: One then understands what Zen Master Dogen mean by 'Impermanence is Buddha-Nature', '[T]o see mountains and rivers is to see Buddha-nature. To see Buddha-nature is to see a donkey’s jaw or a horse’s mouth.', 'Mountains and rivers at this very moment are the actualization of the world of the ancient Buddhas. Each, abiding in its phenomenal expression, realizes completeness.'
S9: I think this goes back to sayings like "Samsara and Nirvana are (the) One." Of course they are, because samsara is Nirvana wrongfully understood. When you know the One, you come to understand that the dreaming mind is merely allowed, in fact borrows its reality from Nirvana or Ultimate Awareness. More deeply understood you come to see the emptiness of samsara.
It is the mind process that only appears to separate, and separation is illusion.
However, and this is a bigE, samsara requires an object and a witness in order to continue dreaming, whereas Nirvana requires no object and it self-revealing.
Respectfully,
S9
My excellent friend,
S9: To me that statement, “Manifestation Alone IS,” reveals a pure materialism at heart. It appears to honor objective reality above Pure Awareness. It creates a Nirvana that is full up with everything imaginable.
It doesn’t grapple with the impermanence issue, and remains attached to the dream that is flashing before our eyes.
It doesn’t understand the ultimate emptiness within co-dependent arising, which has no fundamental essence of its own.
This paradigm would be similar to saying, IMO, that all of the objects and the dream self that appear in our dreams at night have substance, and are not just figments of our vivid imagination.
Respectfully,
S9
In his note to the story, Thanissaro points out that the Pali expression being translated as "Consciousness without feature" is not explained anywhere, and it's not clear how it relates to Nirvana.
In the Nibbana Sutta (Ud 8.1) the Buddha says Ireland's translation has "end of suffering". The end of stress or suffering is the definition of Nirvana, so it would appear that the Buddha of the Pali suttas ruled out equating Nirvana with infinite consciousness.
The suttas consistently avoid making a positive description of Nibbana. They describe it by what it is not, rather than by what it is. There are a few tantalizing passages that hint at the possibility of a positive description, but these are just hints. There are no unambiguous explicit statements about what Nibbana is, only about what it is not.
X: There is absolutely no Ultimate Source or Brahman here, which the Buddha rejected.
S9: Buddha did not reject Ultimate Being, or Nirvana, or AKA Buddha Nature, which is in no way individuated. Rather he rejected the misunderstanding of our ego-self going on to become an all new, and improved ego self and calling that the ultimate, similar to what Christian’s call the soul.
He fully understood that ‘Pure Awareness’ couldn’t be personified, because that in itself would create a two-ness.
Warm Regards,
S9
When you realise that all manifestation do not make up objective reality, you will realise One Mind and see all manifestation AS Awareness. Then you will see that it is not possible to honor objective reality above Pure Awareness NOR honor Pure Awareness above objective reality, simply because there is no objective reality to begin with! The apparent choice between Subject and Object is really an illusion. Which means what you think of as a physical external universe is upon investigation really just one's sensations and perceptions, which upon further investigation is simply made of, and none other than, the substance of Awareness with absolutely no subject-object, hearer-heard, seer-seen separation at all. All there is is Pure Awareness, including what you see, hear, touch, i.e. manifestations. This is the beginning of non-dual aka stage 4. It does not mean Awareness is reduced into an objective reality, but rather, it means that objective reality is deconstructed, by Stage 4 you see clearly that there is absolutely No Objects/Objective Reality and one realises that All There Is Is Awareness, that Awareness is the substance of the entire experiential field including all manifesations, sights, sounds, etc, it is the sum of all our parts, that which sees, hears, feels and tastes all at once as One Reality. And as Jax Peterson says, Awareness is the field of experience, not an observer of it. You may ask what Awareness looks like... whatever you see, feel, think, imagine, hear, taste, smell are all the manifestations or appearances of Awareness and are therefore perfect just as they are. You feel 0 distance from everything. However this nondual is viewed more like Subject being unified with all Objects by nature, the unified One Mind is still not completely deconstructed (the bond of inherency) and thus seen as permanent and independent or having an ultimate essence, but the dualistic (subject-object division) bond is broken.
As David Carse describes clearly the insight of One Mind where all objectivity is dissolved into a unified reality:
After the jungle, there is an intensely odd and very beau-tiful quality to the experience of life. In one sense I can only describe everything, all experience, as having a certain emptiness. This is the sense in which everything used to matter, to be vital and important, and is now seen as unreal, empty, not important, an illusion. Once it is seen that the beyond-brilliance of Sat Chit Ananda is all that is, the dream continues as a kind of shadow. Yet, at the same moment that all of what appears in the dream is experi-enced as empty, it is also seen as more deeply beautiful and perfect than ever imagined, precisely because it is not other than Sat Chit Ananda, than all that is. Everything that does not matter, that is empty illusion, is at the same time itself the beyond-brilliance, the perfect beauty. Somehow there is a balance; these two apparently opposite aspects do not cancel each other out but complement each other. This makes no 'sense,' yet it is how it is.
There is one tradition within Advaita which says that maya, the manifestation of the physical universe, is over-laid or superimposed on Sat Chit Ananda. I'm no scholar of these things, and can only attempt to describe what is seen here; and the Understanding here is that there is no question of one thing superimposed on another. Maya, the manifestation, the physical universe, is precisely Sat Chit Ananda, is not other than it, does not exist on its own as something separate to be overlaid on top of something else. This is the whole point! There is no maya! The only reason it appears to have its own reality and is commonly taken to be real in itself is because of a misperceiving, a mistaken perception which sees the appearance and not What Is. This is the meaning of Huang Po's comment that "no distinction should be made between the Absolute and the sentient world." No distinction! There is only One. There is not ever in any sense two. All perception of distinction and separation, all perception of duality, and all perception of what is known as physical reality, is mind-created illu-sion. When a teacher points at the physical world and says, "All this is maya," what is being said is that what you are seeing is illusion; what all this is is All That Is, pure Being Consciousness Bliss Outpouring; it is your perception of it as a physical world that is maya, illusion.
However when even the One Mind is scrutinized and any trace of clinging to an independent and permanent unified reality is deconstructed, when all traces of Subjectivity dissolves, then that is the experience of Anatta. This is what I mean by "Manifestation Alone IS", both object and subject are deconstructed. Yet seeing/scenery, hearing/sound, feeling/heart beat, whatever happens still happens as vivid presence, but without a Self.
At this point all manifestations is experienced as vivid Presence-Awareness, there is no view of an objective reality, and no skewing to a subjective reality -- Awareness is not a Subject and is not more ultimate than a transient sound, transient thought. There is no choosing, because all is IT. And there is nothing independent or permanent to grasp, not even the view of an ultimate Source which the Buddha rejected remains.
As Thusness pointed out in his reply to me at (see especially his comments on David Carse's explanation of One Mind) - http://buddhism.sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/391975
Further, in his practice of samadhi, such a good person's mind is firm, unmoving, and proper and can no longer be disturbed by demons. He can thoroughly investigate the origin of all categories of beings and contemplate the source of the subtle, fleeting, and constant fluctuation. But if he begins to speculate about self and others, he could fall into error with theories of partial impermanence and partial permanence based on four distorted views.
First, as this person contemplates the wonderfully bright mind pervading the ten directions, he concludes that this state of profound stillness is the ultimate spiritual self. Then he speculates, "My spiritual self, which is settled, bright, and unmoving, pervades the ten directions. All living beings are within my mind, and there they are born and die by themselves. Therefore, my mind is permanent, while those who undergo birth and death there are truly impermanent."
......
Because of these speculations of impermanence and permanence, he will fall into externalism and become confused about the Bodhi nature. This is the third externalist teaching, in which one postulates partial permanence.
What this denies is not your experience of Being, but the view of Being as independent, permanent, or separate from transient phenomena. Seen correctly, it would be like Thich Nhat Hanh puts it: Being is Becoming. (Which is the same as Zen Master Dogen saying Impermanence is Buddha-Nature)
"When we say I know the wind is blowing, we don't think that there is something blowing something else. "Wind' goes with 'blowing'. If there is no blowing, there is no wind. It is the same with knowing. Mind is the knower; the knower is mind. We are talking about knowing in relation to the wind. 'To know' is to know something. Knowing is inseparable from the wind. Wind and knowing are one. We can say, 'Wind,' and that is enough. The presence of wind indicates the presence of knowing, and the presence of the action of blowing'."
"..The most universal verb is the verb 'to be'': I am, you are, the mountain is, a river is. The verb 'to be' does not express the dynamic living state of the universe. To express that we must say 'become.' These two verbs can also be used as nouns: 'being", "becoming". But being what? Becoming what? 'Becoming' means 'evolving ceaselessly', and is as universal as the verb "to be." It is not possible to express the "being" of a phenomenon and its "becoming" as if the two were independent. In the case of wind, blowing is the being and the becoming...."
"In any phenomena, whether psychological, physiological, or physical, there is dynamic movement, life. We can say that this movement, this life, is the universal manifestation, the most commonly recognized action of knowing. We must not regard 'knowing' as something from the outside which comes to breathe life into the universe. It is the life of the universe itself. The dance and the dancer are one."
Thusness posted in another forum years ago:
Very often it is understood that beingness is in the experience of "I AM", even without the words and label of "I AM", the 'pure sense of existence', the presence still IS. It is a state of resting in Beingness.
But in Buddhism, it is also possible to experience everything, every moment the unmanifested.
The key also lies in 'You' but it is to "see" that there is no 'You' instead. It is to 'see' that there is never any do-er standing in the midst of phenomenal arising. There is just mere happening due to emptiness nature, never an 'I' doing anything. When the 'I' subsides, symbols, labels and the entire layer of conceptual realm goes with it. What is left without a 'doer' is a mere happening.
And seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting and smelling and not only that, everything appears as purely spontaneous manifestation. A whole Presence of the manifold.