Refuting Samkhya Notions of Causality, Anatta vs Brahman

 Conversation took place before Anurag Jain realized anatta.


  • Soh Wei Yu

    tsSorpdoen 4bp61,er584tSe3eu2i12001002m6ui2tt61 1 
    Shared with Your friends
    The Original Pure Land
    Padmasambhava is to be inseparable from the primordial nature.
    His Copper-Colored Mountain buddhafield is the purity of your personal experience.
    May everyone be born in this original pure land,
    The uncontrived natural state of indivisible appearance and awareness.
    CHOKGYUR LINGPA
    (Jewels of Enlightenment: Wisdom Teachings from the Great Tibetan Masters
    By Erik Pema Kunsang)

    250 Comments


    Anurag Jain
    Sounds very Advaitic Soh 🙂


    Soh Wei Yu
    That is dzogchen view, however dzogchen is different from Advaita as explained by the Dzogchen teacher Arcaya Malcolm Smith and his student Kyle Dixon:
    Acarya Malcolm on Dzogchen and Advaita Vedanta
    AWAKENINGTOREALITY.BLOGSPOT.COM
    Acarya Malcolm on Dzogchen and Advaita Vedanta
    Acarya Malcolm on Dzogchen and Advaita Vedanta

    • Reply
    • Remove Preview
    • 1y

    • Anurag Jain
    Soh, excerpt from your reference provided above,
    "This is a non-reductive system. Nothing is actually reifed as being established at the end of the path. Just an array of illusory appearances"
    Counterpoint: No illusory appearances can exist without a substrate.

    • Reply
    • 1y
    • Edited

    • Soh Wei Yu
    Illusory appearances do not “exist”. They are empty of extremes such as existence or non existence


    • Anurag Jain
    Soh, yes....I am also talking of "illusory" appearances dear. Why would one use the word "illusory"?!


    • Anurag Jain
    Even in Advaita all phenomena neither exist nor not exist. They are called mithya (neither sat nor asat)


    • Soh Wei Yu
    No substrate is necessary.
    Substrate implies a background. It is seen here that the sense of a background is erroneous. There is no background. Appearances are just vibrant transparent pellucid presencing. Even what you call I - even in the absence of five senses - is just another “foreground” manifestation mistaken into an ultimate background.
    I will stop here because it is likely going to end up in a neverending debate

    • Reply
    • 1y
    • Edited

    • Soh Wei Yu
    You either realise it or do not


    • Anurag Jain
    Soh you have grown wise. I agree, three thousand years have not resolved this. But just to let you know there are refutations to what you have stated too in Shankara's Upadeshasahasri.
    At any rate. I ain't serious. Just enjoying some appearances 🙂


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Right now every manifestation is pellucid, vibrant, utterly alive, bright, transparent, boundless, presencing all and everywhere with no trace of self/Self/objects
    Utter joy and bliss
    Utter perfection and purity everywhere
    Utter paradise
    Eyes always wide opened all senses open and beaming with brilliance without the dichotomy of sense organs, sense object and sense consciousness
    Energetic radiance in total exertion
    Transcendence is in the ordinary, nirvana is samsara
    What was realised as “I” is just the same luminous taste in all manifestation, except there is no background I. That background unchanging is simply a wrong view. “Who” no longer applies, it is a flawed enquiry, and no longer applies for the past ten years.

    • Reply
    • 1y
    • Edited

    • Anurag Jain
    Wait, wait, let me spoil some of your utter joy and bliss 🙂







    • Collin Wong
    Nice weiyu keep it up !


    • Anurag Jain
    Please read this refutation from Shankara
    No photo description available.


    • Anurag Jain
    Part 2 of the refutation
    No photo description available.


    • Mr. RDT
    Everything can be refuted actually.


    • Anurag Jain
    In effect, Nothing can be an object of its own quality just as fire cannot burn itself, appearances cannot experience themselves.


    • Mr. RDT
    There is no faultless position.


    Mr. RDT
    Though to correct that I would add one thing. There is one faultless position. Its realising ones nature in direct perception beyond words and conceptual elaborations 😉


    • Anurag Jain
    Hi Mr. RD. Who is the refuter? Lol! We are back in the game 🙂

    • Reply
    • 1y
    • Edited



    • Mr. RDT
    Apart from dropping all positions which is precisely the meaning of Dzogchen and Madhyamaka. In fact even saying that positions are false is already making the error of limiting to a position regarding falsity or none of positions.


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, aren't these all thoughts in the mind? Could you be thinking all while asleep?


    • Mr. RDT
    Anurag you sound like neophyte who wants to prove something to Buddhism. Do you feel insecure and you need to prove something? There is nothing to prove. Relax friend and let go.


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, talk to the point. No point slugging 🙂


    • Anurag Jain
    I am a veteran. So......




    • Mr. RDT
    I see no reason to limit myself to your game and your line of reasoning so no thank you. If you are really free and at peace then you can drop this line of inquiqy as I assure you its pointless.

    • Reply
    • 1y
    • Edited

    • Anurag Jain
    I hope I answered you. If I know the game it bores me 🙂


    • Anurag Jain
    That's fine. Remember we can drink a cup of tea 🙂


    • Anurag Jain
    Thanks Robert ! Take Care.


    • Investigation into Movement
    AWAKENINGTOREALITY.BLOGSPOT.COM
    Investigation into Movement
    Investigation into Movement

    • Reply
    • Remove Preview
    • 1y
    • Edited

    • Anurag Jain
    Soh, first respond to Shankara's refutation that appearances cannot experiences themselves just as fire cannot burn itself and light cannot see itself.

    • Reply
    • 1y
    • Edited

    • Soh Wei Yu
    That statement implies there is an object being illuminated by something else.
    Buddhists do not ultimately establish any objects to be illuminated by something else. There is ultimately no subject, objects, nor its characteristics to be found upon analysis.

    • Reply
    • 1y
    • Edited

    • Anurag Jain
    Soh, you have said, "Appearances are just vibrant transparent pellucid presencing."
    And I say appearances cannot be presencing themselves. Nothing can be an object of it's own quality.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Presencing appearances are not illuminated objects nor can there be subjects apart from presencing appearances to illuminate them.
    'Themselves' imply presencing appearances have their own existence. Actually all are just conventions, including 'presencing appearances'. Like chariot.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    We can say bright, pellucid, etc, but these are merely conventional descriptions. There is no brightness to be found as a subject nor as an object.


    • Anurag Jain
    And yet appearances are seen 🙂


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Also, there is no fire besides burning, nor is there a sun besides shining, nor a wind besides blowing, etc.


    Jackson Peterson
    Soh Wei Yu Soh, what happened to dependent origination in your self experiencing appearances?

    • Soh Wei Yu
    "The anatta insight not only sees through background but directly perceives dependent origination, both afflictive and non-afflictive. Self is that afflictive dependent origination that arises from ignorance. It is that formation. The general dependent origination becomes the effortless spontaneous presence when ignorance is not in action. Both are directly experienced in real-time. So with anatta insight, no-self is authenticated. Afflictive D.O. chain is authenticated, general D.O. is authenticated, the purpose of vipassana is authenticated from moment to moment in real-time. What doubt is there?” - John Tan, 2019


    • Jackson Peterson
    Soh Wei Yu But, haven’t assigned ignorance an inherent existence that actually has causative powers?






    • Soh Wei Yu
    Fire does not 'burn itself' as there is no 'itself' to burn. Fire is just another word for burning.


    • Anurag Jain
    Soh, burning, shining and blowing are all felt and experienced.


    • Anurag Jain
    You don't experience them in deep sleep. You need a mind to experience them.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    As explained in the link above, there is no seeing besides seen, nor seen besides seeing. Just like there is no mover besides movement, no fire besides burning.


    • Anurag Jain
    You did not explain my point Soh. Without the senses and the mind there is no seeing and no feeling. All this is absent in deep sleep.


    Anurag Jain
    I guess Piotr is laughing in his sleep. Lol !


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Yes and your point is? There is no independent seeing.
    Then you postulate that there is an awareness behind deep sleep. I say that too is just another manifestation, although you will not agree now.


    Thomas Arta
    Soh Wei Yu you’re being very patient here. I applaud you. But I’m not convinced this dude is interested in real debate, ie. debating with the intention to refine view. Sounds like he just wants to bang his drum.







    • Anurag Jain
    Well, you have jumped the argument 🙂 But how can there be a manifestation behind formless, unmanifest sleep?!!!


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Even if one is in a state of total cessation, that state too is merely an empty state. Even if it is the unconditional cessation of nirvana -- the ceasing of passions, aggression and delusion, that too is merely conventional and not pointing to some substance. It is taught in Mahayana scriptures that were there to be something higher than Nirvana, that too will be illusory. It's all illusory and empty from top to bottom.


    • Anurag Jain
    I agree 🙂 No states are real !


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Formless, unmanifest sleep is just another state. And there is no something behind..
    Fire needs something else to illuminate implies that it is an object 'in front' being seen by awareness behind. As if fire is an inert object existing out there, and awareness is some sentient subject behind. These assumptions can be seen through.

    • Reply
    • 1y
    • Edited

    • Mr./Ms. AS
    Relevant:
    A Hindu challenged the Buddhists, “ If there
    is no distinction between what realizes and what is realized, what is used as proof?” No one could answer this challenge, so the Buddhists were declared the losers in debate. Later the Buddhist canonical master of Tang came to the rescue of the doctrine:
    “When knowledge and principle merge, environment and mind unite, it is like when drinking water one spontaneously knows whether it is cool or warm.”
    54
    What about the travels of my late teacher calling on teachers— why did he later say he questioned an aged grandfather?
    What about selling and buying oneself— what is that? You should realize there is no excess; what the man of old said is all you.
    He also said, “ I have never had a single statement to reach
    you. If I had a statement to reach you, what use would it be?”
    Do you want your feeling of doubt broken? You too must be like my late teacher once before you can accomplish it.
    -Foyan


    • Anurag Jain
    How does one distinguish between fire and water Soh?


    • Anurag Jain
    “When knowledge and principle merge, environment and mind unite, it is like when drinking water one spontaneously knows whether it is cool or warm.”
    Yah ! 'one' knows that water is cool or warm. Water itself does not know it 🙂


    Mr./Ms. AS
    Just drink some water.

    • Reply
    • 1y
    • Edited

    • Mr./Ms. AS
    Is there a self that knows? Or just cool water. Thus.


    • Anurag Jain
    Mr./Ms. AS cool water does know that it is cool.


    • Mr./Ms. AS
    Your separating the experience of the water, from one drinking the water, from the knowing if it is cool or not. Just drink the water and find out.


    • Anurag Jain
    And that is why you have to insist me to drink it so that my senses can say that it is cool. Also coolness is quite relative. On a hot day cool water may be experienced as differently cool to me than on a winter day.


    • Mr./Ms. AS
    And thus 1,000 things are constructed in all directions. Papanca. Just because words work a certain way it does not make it thus.

    • Reply
    • 1y
    • Edited

    • Mr./Ms. AS
    Cool water!







    • Soh Wei Yu
    Your statement "one distinguish between fire and water" carries the false assumption that there is a self that distinguishes fire and water. Instead, the sight of fire is one instance, the sensation of water is one instance, and based on these a third instance arise - the mental activity of distinguishing. All these dependently originates without agency nor an unchanging substratum.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    But to speak normally, I say, "I distinguished", merely conventionally.


    • Anurag Jain
    Soh, so you are talking of momentary instance consciousness. Right? Well there are refutations for that too 🙂

    • Reply
    • 1y
    • Edited

    • Anurag Jain
    The Hinayana doctrine that any object in the external world has only momentary existence is refuted as follows:-
    (i) It is contradictory to the Hinayana doctrine of cause –effect relationship (“karya-karana sambandha”). If Hinayana philosophers want to maintain karya karana sambandha, they have to give up the idea of momentary existence of objects or vice versa, because the essential nature of a cause continues to inhere in the effect; for example, clay continues to exist when pot shape is given to a lump of clay and certain chemical elements of milk continue to exist when milk turns into curd.
    (ii) Our experience is – and science also tells us – that matter is never totally destroyed. It only changes from one form into another (law of conservation of energy and matter.)
    (iii) Buddhism also believes in rebirth and the cycle of samsara. And it talks of deliberate destruction (“prasankyayana nirodha”) of samsara by the seeker pursuing certain spiritual practices (“sadhana”). If samsara like everything else has only momentary existence, and will in any case die a natural death, in a moment, where is the question of deliberate destruction through sadhana? So, the doctrine of momentary existence of objects and the concept of sadhana do not go together.
    (iv) If it is said that every object has only momentary existence, it is tantamount to saying that every object is created out of nothing; such creation is contrary to experience. If nothingness is the cause of objects, since cause inheres in effect, we should be experiencing only nothingness everywhere, but we say ‘pot is ‘ , tree is’ etc. If nothing is required for producing something, to accomplish a thing, no effort would be needed.
    (v) The fact that for growing a mango tree, we sow mango seed and not cocoanut seed proves that a specific material transforms into a specific product. This proves continued existence of an object in a different form, not momentariness.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Actually study MMK and it will reveal clearly that dependent origination does not require essence. The notion that clay remains the same implies clay have some ultimate existence. But they too can be analyzed, etc. In the end, nothing is ultimately un-analyzable and all are proven to be empty.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    "will in any case die a natural death, in a moment, where is the question of deliberate destruction through sadhana? So, the doctrine of momentary existence of objects and the concept of sadhana do not go together. "
    --> this author clearly doesn't understand buddhism teaches rebirth? And rebirth is another momentary chain of dependent origination. Just Buddhism 101.


    • Anurag Jain
    Well the author is telling that Buddhism does teach rebirth !


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Then I don't see why he uses 'die a natural death' as a reason to reject the validity of practice.


    • Anurag Jain
    Because the samsara dies a death every moment anyways 🙂


    • Anurag Jain
    So there is no need to do any spiritual practice


    • Soh Wei Yu
    He is confusing momentariness with annihilation. The chain of dependent origination is like a cycle. As long as ignorance is not removed, the cycle of suffering keeps going on. Karma has its effects. The effect is neither the same nor different from the cause, like one candle lighting another candle.


    Anurag Jain
    Soh, the underlying essence of effect inheres in the cause. You do not use a stone to light another candle.







    • Anurag Jain
    So that's it. You are coming to the chain of cause and effect....which continues through discrete moments??!! What?


    Soh Wei Yu
    Not sure I understand your question


    • Mr. RDT
    Domino


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Also, continues/continuum is also conventional, as Mipham post below pointed out.
    Buddhism and MMK rejects the Samkhya notion of self-production that the author above is holding.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Apple seed does not 'continue' into an apple tree (although a continuum can be conventionally expressed), there is no same underlying essence that is transforming into various shapes.

    • Reply
    • 1y
    • Edited

    • Soh Wei Yu
    An apple seed is also not self-sufficient cause and requires many other conditions like water, sunlight, nutriment, right temperature, and so on.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    But there is a continuum in the sense that things do not just suddenly stop. Samsara 'continues' in the sense of dominoes. As long as condition is, manifestation is.

    • Reply
    • 1y
    • Edited

    • Anurag Jain
    Soh, an apple seed does not produce a banana tree. The effect inheres in the cause so you cannot say this, "there is no same underlying essence that is transforming into various shapes."

    • Reply
    • 1y
    • Edited

    • Soh Wei Yu
    That notion of self-production is refuted in MMK, many books, including that article I provided


    • Anurag Jain
    I am not talking of self-production. I am talking of an essence of effect that inheres in a cause. The chain of cause and effect would make sense only then.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    That is what is meant by self-production.
    "According to the Saṃkhyas who assert self-production, in the same way that different manifestations, such as vases, can be created from the single nature of clay, seeds and so on are of a single nature, and abandon their seed-like manifestation as they are transformed into the manifestation of a sprout." - https://www.lotsawahouse.org/.../four-great-logical...
    Four Great Logical Arguments of the Middle Way
    LOTSAWAHOUSE.ORG
    Four Great Logical Arguments of the Middle Way
    Four Great Logical Arguments of the Middle Way

      • Reply
      • Remove Preview
      • 1y






    • Four Great Logical Arguments of the Middle Way
    LOTSAWAHOUSE.ORG
    Four Great Logical Arguments of the Middle Way
    Four Great Logical Arguments of the Middle Way

    • Reply
    • Remove Preview
    • 1y

    • Soh Wei Yu
    As I said, study MMK, it easily refutes all those positions


    Anurag Jain
    All positions of MMK have been refuted in the points I have provided.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Just that short passage in that article already refuted all the points you provided.


    • Anurag Jain
    Soh, my comment was that how can chain of cause and effect continue through momentary consciousness. How can a continuity move through discontinuous discrete moments?


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Even a continuum is conventional. As I quoted, Mipham: "a “continuum” is merely an imputation based on the uninterrupted resemblance of momentary phenomena, and does not really exist."


    • Soh Wei Yu
    There is nothing "moving through". There is no agent. There is no medium underlying anything. Nothing is transferred.

    • Reply
    • 1y
    • Edited

    • Soh Wei Yu
    “Empty phenomena ~ Nagarjuna
    All beings consist of causes and effects,
    In which there is no ‘sentient being’ at all.
    From phenomena which are exclusively empty,
    There arise only empty phenomena.
    All things are devoid of any ‘I’ or ‘mine’.
    Like a recitation, a candle, a mirror, a seal,
    A magnifying glass, a seed, sourness, or a sound,
    So also with the continuation of the aggregates —
    The wise should know they are not transferred.
    Nagarjuna
    The Heart of Dependent Origination, verse 4 & 5”


    • Anurag Jain
    Soh, this verse does not deny the chain of cause and effect. It is only denying inherent self.


    • Anurag Jain
    Soh, see this, "From phenomena which are exclusively empty,
    There arise only empty phenomena. All things are devoid of any ‘I’ or ‘mine’.…
    See more


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Nobody said deny cause and effect or dependent origination.
    What is rejected however are "production from self, production from other, production from both, and production without cause" - explained in article


    • Anurag Jain
    Well, even Advaita denies any production from Self. This world is a superimposition caused due to an error, not something produced.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Can end up with both extremes of nihilism and eternalism -- nihilism on the side of conventional, eternalism on the side of ultimate.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    What dependently originates is ultimately free from real production, coming and going. Conventionally we do not deny dependent origination, although when ultimately analyzed nothing can be found to have inherent production, coming and going, etc.

    • Reply
    • 1y
    • Edited

    • Anurag Jain
    I dont see any problem with landing on anything ultimate. This is a criteria for Buddhism not for us.


    • Anurag Jain
    Soh, the very word dependent origination implies "origination".


    • Anurag Jain
    Soh, From where do the five aggregates come?


    • Soh Wei Yu
    The insight of the middle way is that precisely because all phenomena dependently originates, they do not truly originate.
    Nagarjuna:
    What arises in dependence is not born;
    That is proclaimed by the supreme knower of reality 😊 Buddha).
    Candrakirti:
    (The realist opponent says): If (as you say) whatever thing arises in dependence is not even born, then why does (the Madhyamika) say it is not born? But if you (Madhyamika) have a reason for saying (this thing) is not born, then you should not say it "arises in dependence." Therefore, because of mutual inconsistency, (what you have said) is not valid.)
    (The Madhyamika replies with compassionate interjection:)
    Alas! Because you are without ears or heart you have thrown a challenge that is severe on us! When we say that anything arising in dependence, in the manner of a reflected image, does not arise by reason of self-existence - at that time where is the possibility of disputing (us)!


    • Soh Wei Yu
    "From where" is a wrong notion. What dependently originates does not come from where, nor go to where, just like a burning flame does not come from north, south, east, west, nor does it go off into north, south, east, west.
    When all the conditions are present, fire burns.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    “I pay respect to the best among speakers who, having attained Enlightenment, has taught relative origination (Pratītyasamutpāda) which is no-cessation, no-origination, no- annihilation, no-abiding, no-one-thing, no-many-thing, no-coming-in, no-going-out; being the termination of linguistic description (Prapañcopashamam), it is the good (Shivam)” - Nagarjuna [Ram Candra Pandey & Mañju, 1999, pp.1].


    • Anurag Jain
    Soh, the five aggregates. From where do they come, arise etc. ?


    • Soh Wei Yu
    I believe I answered you above. But to make it even clearer, these texts are very good:
    The Bhagavān replied, “Sister, birth does not come from anywhere. Aging does not come from anywhere. They do not go anywhere. Sister, sickness does not come from anywhere. Death does not come from anywhere. They do not go anywhere. Sister, form does not come from anywhere. Sensation, notions, formative factors and consciousness do not come from anywhere. They do not go anywhere. Sister, the earth element does not come from anywhere. The water element, the fire element, the wind element, the space element and the element of consciousness do not come from anywhere. They do not go anywhere. Sister, the eye does not come from anywhere. The ear, the nose, the tongue, the body and the mind do not come from anywhere. They do not go anywhere.
    “Sister, it is as follows: as an analogy, a fire arises based on a stick to rub with, a stick to rub on, and and also a person’s effort to generate it. That fire, moreover, once it has burnt the grass and wood, will have no more causes and will die. Sister, where do you think the fire comes from and where does it go?”
    She answered, “O Bhagavān, that fire comes into being owing to the power of a collection of causes. It ceases and dies when it lacks the collection of causes.”
    The Bhagavān said, “Sister, likewise, all phenomena [F.311.b] come into being owing to the power of a collection. They cease and die when they lack the collection. Whatever the phenomena, they do not come from anywhere, nor do they go anywhere. Sister, it is as follows: although the eye consciousness arises based upon the eye and form, the eye consciousness does not have a producer, nor anything that makes it cease. Nowhere is it brought together at all. The aggregates do not come from anywhere, nor do they go anywhere. When one has accumulated karma through the conditions of the consciousnesses, the fruits manifest as the results of three types1 in the three realms. That fruit is empty too. It has no coming. It has no going. No one makes it arise. It is not stopped by anybody. Sister, all phenomena have stopped due to their very natures.
    “Likewise, although the mental consciousness arises based upon the ear and sound, the nose and smell, the tongue and taste, the body and touch, and the mind and phenomena, the mental consciousness2 does not have a producer nor has it anything that makes it cease. Nowhere is it brought together at all.3 The aggregates do not come from anywhere, nor do they go anywhere either. When one has accumulated karma through the condition of mental consciousness, the fruits manifest as the results of three types in the three realms. That fruit is empty too. It has no coming. It has no going. No one makes it arise. It is not stopped by anybody. Sister, all phenomena are inherently stopped.
    - Mahallikā­paripṛcchā (Toh 171, Degé Kangyur, vol. 59, folios 310.b–314.a.)
    The Questions of an Old Lady | 84000 Reading Room
    READ.84000.CO
    The Questions of an Old Lady | 84000 Reading Room
    The Questions of an Old Lady | 84000 Reading Room

    • Reply
    • Remove Preview
    • 1y

    • Soh Wei Yu
    “Sister, it is as follows: as an analogy, the sound of a drum arises based on wood, hide and a stick, and also on a person’s effort to make it arise. The past sound of that drum was empty, the future sound will be empty and the sound that arises at present is empty. The sound does not dwell in the wood, neither does it dwell in the hide, nor does it dwell in the stick, nor does it dwell in the person’s hand. However, because of these conditions, it is termed sound. That which is termed sound is also empty. It has no coming. It has no going. No one makes it arise. It is not stopped by anybody. Sister, all phenomena are inherently stopped.
    “Sister, likewise, all phenomena depend solely on conditions, i.e., ones such as ignorance, craving, karma and consciousness. When these latter phenomena are present, the terms death and birth are designated. [F.312.a] That which is designated death and birth is also empty. It has no coming. It has no going. No one makes it arise. It is not stopped by anybody. Sister, all phenomena are inherently stopped.
    “Sister, in this way, whoever understands the nature of a drum’s sound well also understands emptiness well. Whoever understands emptiness well, understands nirvāṇa well. Whoever understands nirvāṇa well has no attachment to any entity, and despite designating conventional things with all sorts of terms—‘this is mine,’ or ‘that is me,’ or ‘sentient being,’ or ‘life force,’ or ‘living being,’ or ‘man,’ or ‘person,’ or ‘born of Manu,’ or ‘son of Manu,’ or ‘agent,’ or ‘inciter of action,’ or ‘appropriator,’ or ‘discarder’—he teaches Dharma without attachment to these. He teaches Dharma well. He teaches the final reality. He teaches the final reality well.
    - Mahallikā­paripṛcchā (Toh 171, Degé Kangyur, vol. 59, folios 310.b–314.a.)
    “Mañjuśrī, whenever not much rain falls from the atmosphere and the sky above, all the sentient beings in Jambūdvīpa think, ‘Here there is not a cloud.’ But when, Mañjuśrī, a lot of rain falls on the great earth from the atmosphere and the sky above, they say: ‘Oh, a great cloud [F.282.b] is pouring down water, satisfying the great earth.’
    “However, Mañjuśrī, when this happens there is neither a cloud, nor anything that can be designated as a cloud. Mañjuśrī, a large mass of water is generated by the wind, and then it falls from the atmosphere above. Mañjuśrī, the mass of water disappears in the atmosphere itself, due to the ripening of sentient beings’ previous karma. [42]
    “Mañjuśrī, that cumulus of water above in the atmosphere, stirred by the wind and releasing water, is designated a cloud due to the maturation of sentient beings’ previous karma. However, Mañjuśrī, no cloud can be found there, nor anything that could be designated a cloud. Mañjuśrī, the cloud is non-arisen and non-ceasing; it does not enter the way of mind, and it is free from coming and going.
    “In the same way, Mañjuśrī, for bodhisattva great beings who have accumulated previous roots of what is wholesome; for other sentient beings who wish for the awareness of a hearer or a pratyekabuddha; and for those sentient beings who have accumulated roots of what is wholesome and possess the causes to be shown the path to nirvāṇa, the Tathāgata, the Arhat, the Perfect and Complete Buddha with unobstructed brilliance comes to be counted as arisen in the world.
    “Whatever he says is thus (tathā), undistorted, thus and not otherwise. Therefore, he was given the name Tathāgata among gods and men. [44] Mañjuśrī, this word appears among gods and men: Tathāgata. However, Mañjuśrī, there is no Tathāgata to be found. The Tathāgata, Mañjuśrī, is not a sign, and he is free from signs. [F.283.a] He is not placed in any of the primary or intermediate directions. He is unreal, non-arisen, and non-ceasing.
    “On the other hand, Mañjuśrī, the appearance of the Tathāgata satisfies and entertains this world, including the gods, through the Dharma. And then, due to the ripening of previous karma of beginner bodhisattvas and immature, ordinary people who are guided by means of nirvāṇa, it appears that the Tathāgata is no more to be seen. They think, ‘The Tathāgata has passed into complete nirvāṇa.’ However, Mañjuśrī, the Tathāgata neither arises nor ceases. The Tathāgata, Mañjuśrī, is non-arisen and non-ceasing. Mañjuśrī, the Tathāgata, the Arhat, the Perfect and Complete Buddha is primordially in complete nirvāṇa.
    “Mañjuśrī, when some water is taken as a point of reference for an unreal cloud that has not arisen nor ceased, and is non-existent, the designation ‘cloud’ is established in the world. In the very same way, Mañjuśrī, when the teaching of the Dharma is taken as a point of reference for an unreal tathāgata who has not arisen nor ceased, and who is non-existent and primordially unborn, the designation ‘the Tathāgata, the Arhat, the Perfect and Complete Buddha’ becomes established in the world. [46]
    - The Ornament of the Light of Awareness that Enters the Domain of All Buddhas (Toh 100, Degé Kangyur, vol. 47, folios 276.a–305.a.)


    • Anurag Jain
    The sound does not dwell anywhere in any part of the drum but it cannot arise without the drum and the sticks. They are the cause of the sound. So then one asks from where do the drum and sticks ome.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    A reflection of the moon does not "come from" the moon, no real moon arrived from somewhere like a passenger arriving from a taxi from outer space, rather there is simply an empty and lucid appearance that dependently originates. Nothing 'goes' or comes out from the surface of the pond when the conditions change, e.g. cloud covers. Further we all know that a reflection is merely illusory, not inherently existing somewhere nor can it be found. That reflection, being merely appearing yet not existent, cannot be said to be produced or born - for what merely reflects as an illusion in dependence on a host of conditions and disappears without them, how can it be said that something is truly produced or born anywhere at all? Yet we cannot say the appearance arose without a cause -- clearly without a clear surface of a pond in a cloudless night and clear moon in the sky, the reflections could not have occurred. All phenomena when investigated are like that -- appearing and yet not existent, merely in dependence.
    Furthermore, if we say that the drum, the stick, the person hitting the stick on the drum, the vibrations of the air, the ears, so on and so forth are the causes of hearing, or we say that sound originated from somewhere, then exactly which elements of these does the sound originate from? Each of these elements are not a self sufficient cause, but collectively then the sound manifest, does it mean there is a producer somewhere responsible for producing it? We find that it is a completely agent-less process of dependent origination.
    Dogs see black and white flower, humans see red roses, other animals may see other colors never seen by humans or something else entirely, does the redness of rose originate from the rose or from the human mind? If it arise from human mind then a rose would not have been necessary, you can just close your eyes and you should see red flowers, or you should continue to see and smell the red flower when someone removes it from your sight. We know that is not true. But if it arise from the rose itself or is inherently produced by the rose or the redness exists inherently in the rose as its characteristic, then why does a dog and other animal not see the same thing? So on and so forth. In the end, we can only talk about conditionality and dependencies, but not inherent causation, origins, agents, producers, and inherent production.
    From this we know that "coming from", "going to", does not apply. Real production from self and other does not apply as explained in the article. We can only say "dependently originates", and what dependently originates are ultimately empty, non-originating, and illusory.
    Only conventionally do we establish causes and effects, and those cause and effect are also not inherently produced by self or other -- they merely arise interdependently.

    • Reply
    • 1y
    • Edited

    • Soh Wei Yu
    When you are asking "from where", just like the question "who", it is another self-enquiry method trying to trace back all perceptions to the Source. I understand this method very well, in fact, I advocate it in my AtR guide - https://app.box.com/s/157eqgiosuw6xqvs00ibdkmc0r3mu8jg
    But it only leads to the initial realization of Awareness, aka 'Thusness Stage 1'. Further realisation is needed to remove faulty frameworks and views that obscures the full blossoming of Presence in all manifestations in a completely freed, nondual, intense, vibrant, free from any referencepoints, centricity, boundaries, effortless, full-blown, uncontrived, unobstructed, self-liberating, way. Asking "from where" is just as irrelevant as "to whom" at a certain point.

    • Reply
    • 1y
    • Edited

    • Soh Wei Yu
    That is when the whole subject-object, source-manifestation, producer-production, arising and cessation, objects and characteristics and so on are seen to be false views that are cast aside or released.
    Or as John Tan said in 2009,
    "
    "For Case 2 practitioners, they are in a better position to appreciate the doctrine of anatta. When insight of Anatta arises, all experiences become implicitly non-dual. But the insight is not simply about seeing through separateness; it is about the thorough ending of reification so that there is an instant recognition that the ‘agent’ is extra, in actual experience it does not exist. It is an immediate realization that experiential reality has always been so and the existence of a center, a base, a ground, a source has always been assumed.
    To mature this realization, even direct experience of the absence of an agent will prove insufficient; there must also be a total new paradigm shift in terms of view; we must free ourselves from being bonded to the idea, the need, the urge and the tendency of analyzing, seeing and understanding our moment to moment of experiential reality from a source, an essence, a center, a location, an agent or a controller and rest entirely on anatta and Dependent Origination.
    Therefore this phase of insight is not about singing eloquently the non-dual nature of an Ultimate Reality; contrary it is deeming this Ultimate Reality as irrelevant. Ultimate Reality appears relevant only to a mind that is bond to seeing things inherently, once this tendency dissolves, the idea of a source will be seen as flawed and erroneous. Therefore to fully experience the breadth and depth of no-self, practitioners must be prepared and willing to give up the entire subject-object framework and be open to eliminate the entire idea of a ‘source’. Rob expressed very skillfully this point in his talk:
    "One time the Buddha went to a group of monks and he basically told them not to see Awareness as The Source of all things. So this sense of there being a vast awareness and everything just appears out of that and disappears back into it, beautiful as that is, he told them that’s actually not a skillful way of viewing reality. And that is a very interesting sutta, because it’s one of the only suttas where at the end it doesn’t say the monks rejoiced in his 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."
    What then is the view that Buddhism is talking about without resorting to a ‘source’? I think the post by Vajrahridaya in the thread ‘What makes Buddhism different’ of your forum succinctly and concisely expressed the view, it is well written. That said, do remember to infinitely regress back into this vivid present moment of manifestation – as this arising thought, as this passing scent – Emptiness is Form. 🙂"

    • Reply
    • 1y
    • Edited

    • Soh Wei Yu
    Or as Greg Goode said well in this passage:
    “Steve, Madhyamika interprets the "thingness" gestalt as a type conception, a way of reacting or conceptualizing words or concepts or sensations, as if there were existence involved. Maybe some words seem to invite this kind of reifying conceptualization more than others - we usually feel that more physical-sounding, more concrete words entail a more independent kind of existence. But Madhyamika would refute this kind of existence across the board.
    Does "dependent arising" require there is (A) something dependent that arises, and (B) something that A is dependent on? Even though Madhyamika itself refutes this?
    Not according to Madhyamika itself. When A is said to be dependent, the meaning is that it is not INdependent. It is not self-sufficient, it has no essence or true nature.
    What does "dependent" mean? Dependence is usually broken down into three types. Phenomenon A relies on pieces and parts, on conditions, and on conceptual designation.
    But none of these things (pieces + parts, conditions, conceptual designation) is an inherent, self-standing thing. Each of these things itself dependent.
    This kind of dependency is not linear, tracing back to an original first cause or universal stopping point. It's more like a web of dependencies. It's not arboreal, it's rhizomatic.” - Greg Goode

    • Reply
    • 1y
    • Edited

    • Anurag Jain
    Soh, Advaita too is not talking of source or subject-object duality.


    • Anurag Jain
    Soh, what Advaita does say that all the analysis that is done in Buddhism is done by the mind. But there is no mind in deep sleep. So it fails to account for all the reality.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Analysis is just a means to penetrate, see through, deconstruct the false view of inherent existence. At first it is an inferential process, eventually a direct realization occurs, of anatman, and emptiness. At that point one becomes an arya. This equipoise on the ultimate nature of reality is then trained or meditated upon, until it becomes constant and without effort, then one reaches the final stage of non-meditation. At this point one does not leave equipoise in all three states, be it waking or sleep.

    • Reply
    • 1y
    • Edited

    • Anurag Jain
    Soh, Sankhya is not Advaita. You have it figured all wrong if you think so. Advaita is Ajativada. The world was never born....so there is no question of source.


    • Anurag Jain
    Soh exactly so it is a state to be attained. In Advaita we do not talk about attainment of any state.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    I know Samkhya is not Advaita. The person you quoted is holding the Samkhya sort of view and asserts self-production. But even Advaita is not really correct from Buddhism's point of view, and falls into both extremes, as I explained.


    • Anurag Jain
    Advaita talks about already being the ultimate reality, just ignorance about it needs to be removed. There is no need for training and practicing.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    It is the cessation of ignorance. The nature of mind and phenomena is not produced.


    • Anurag Jain
    Soh Wei Yu Advaita is least concerned with views as they all belong to the realm of mind 🙂


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Buddhism is much more concerned with views because we understand how inherent view is the source of subtle clinging, identification and bondage even while disguised as bliss, and so on.


    • Anurag Jain
    Soh, in Advaita cessation of ignorance does not require action but knolwedge.


    • Anurag Jain
    Soh Wei Yu , Buddhism is concerned with views because it is ultimately dualistic 🙂
    In duality one speaks of right view and wrong view.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Buddhism does not teach the nihilistic "nonduality" that rejects right and wrong, cannot tell left from right, etc.
    We simply reject the erroneous extremes/duality of existence and non-existence, eternalism and nihilism, subject and object, etc.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Buddhism also teaches that cessation of ignorance comes from knowledge. Prajna.


    • Anurag Jain
    Nihilism is also a view. All these are concepts of mind.


    • Anurag Jain
    All views are limited as the mind is limited 🙂


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Brahman is a view. It is a wrong view.
    Actually Buddhism does not teach "no view", it teaches to be free from the view of existence and non-existence or substantiality.
    As John Tan said years ago, "I am not into no view… but actualization of right view.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Malcolm wrote:
    He states in the VV that he has no propositions/thesis concerning svabhāva as defined by his opponents. He does not say he has no views at all. For example, he clearly states in the MMK that he prefers the Sammitya view of karma.
    Your claim is similar to the mistaken assertion made by some who claim that Candrakirti never resorts to syllogisms, which in fact he clearly does in the opening lines of the MAV. What Candra disputes is not syllogistic reasoning in its entirety, but rather, syllogistic reasoning applied to emptiness.
    Likewise, he clearly asserts the view in the VV that there is no svabhāva in phenomena. Madhyamaka is not a simple minded "I have no view" proposition.
    ...
    "Madhyamaka is not a simple minded "I have no view" proposition."


    • Anurag Jain
    Brahman is a view for those who don't know Brahman 🙂


    • Soh Wei Yu
    You will not know it is a wrong view until you realise its error.
    Before you realise it, you will see it as ultimate reality


    • Anurag Jain
    All views are of the mind. Brahman is not of the mind. And please understand Soh, you did not realize Brahman. No person who realizes Brahman talks about it as an experience.


    • Anurag Jain
    And after you realize Brahman, there simply cannot be any person left to do any further investigation like you did because the person- the thinker/doer/experiencer becomes an object to actionless Awareness.


    • Anurag Jain
    And please don't get Greg into the picture too because he too did not follow Advaita. The Direct Path is not Advaita.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    I know Brahman is not an experience. It is a realization, as I wrote in my books, and John Tan said it to you, etc.
    All I speak from my realization in my 'journey'.
    Still, it is misinterpreted and misunderstood.

    • Reply
    • 1y
    • Edited

    • Soh Wei Yu
    Ok, I gtg sleep, nice chat


    • Anurag Jain
    Soh, Brahman is not a realization amongst many realizations. There is no journey left after Brahman realization except in illusion. All views, thoughts, feelings, experiences and states are objects to Brahman. The whole body-mind-intellect apparatus becomes an object to Brahman. You can't have Brahman realization and then go on to further realize an error because even this error or realization would be an object to Brahman. Brahman being beyond time and space and therefore being beyond all forms, thoughts, views and realizations.
    Advaita engages in dialectics with other schools only as an illusion. Brahman can never be known through reasoning or dialectics. You can know it only through a teacher who is a knower of Brahman and who is versed with the scriptures. Brahman can be known only through the scriptures and not by any form of mental reasoning (except that which follows the method of scriptures), as all mental reasoning happens in the field of ignorance. After Brahman is known, the scriptures, the student and the teacher are all seen as constructs of Maya or ignorance.

    • Reply
    • 1y
    • Edited

    • Soh Wei Yu
    What you describe is just how I described I AM in my e journal
    The funny thing is, each phases can, and will be be seen as final and ultimate, but is not.
    The I AM is definitely seen as the ultimate reality, source and substratum of all phenomena when realised. I speak personally with knowledge as it was seen that way.
    Many see I AM as ultimate, but i realised it is not. Some see one mind (adi da, etc) as ultimate, but I realised it is not. Some see anatta as final (actual freedom, etc) but i realised it is not, and so on.
    Everything that is seen as an ultimate is seen through and yet integrated in the next realisation.

    • Reply
    • 1y
    • Edited

    • Anurag Jain
    Soh Wei Yu you are too caught up to see what I wrote. Please read what I have written again.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Yes, as I said, no different from what I call I AM.


    • Anurag Jain
    When you say, " I realized it is not". This is where you flunk the test of Brahman realization. Because any thinking after Brahman realization is an object to Awareness.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    The very notion Brahman is the subject and everything else is an object is completely dualistic and can be seen through, realised.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    But I shall stop discussing because I don’t think you are willing to contemplate on this matter.


    • Anurag Jain
    The one who sees through or realizes is an object to Brahman.


    • Anurag Jain
    All contemplation post-Brahman realization is object to Self/Awareness/Witness. The entire body/mind/intellect becomes an object to Brahman. The subject Brahman is not an individual knowing subject.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Yes, I know. At the I AM phase, Self is not individual, it is infinite, transpersonal, etc. Everything else comes and goes within it.


    • Anurag Jain
    Including the thinking mind


    • Anurag Jain
    Including all acts and experiences.


    • Anurag Jain
    And actually, it is not "within" it. They all are superimposed on it due to ignorance.


    • Mr. RDT
    Well nobody can prove or show Brahman as it is an assumption superimposed on reality.
    Anurag Jain is trying to prove Brahman by "who is watching this lack of proof" or who is seeing fire. But if he had no objects to say "they are seen" to assume his Brahman on them. So that only proves his Brahman is dependently orginated and so not ultimate. Because he needs to point to something and say that is seen. But hes claiming that there are no objects so his position is based on contradiction he is not brave enough to see.
    Also when Soh's is saying that fire is selfradiant all we have is instance of fire. Anurag is assuming it must be experienced by knower but this is imputation, inference - hasnt been proven. Anurag is making an assumption but is not willing nor ready to admit he does it because he clings to it.
    Brahman is just an imputation by deluded. A spiritual sickness which makes one even unable to do simple contemplation. Therefore Brahman limits ones capacities and does not free from limitations. It binds rather than frees.
    That is all from me.

    • Reply
    • 1y
    • Edited

    • Mr. RDT
    Psychologically speaking Brahman allows one cling to reference point. One last vantage point of ego. Brahman is actuality pure form of ego disidentified with the phenomena. But ego nevertheless. Anurag Jain cannot look to where you are pointing at because hes afraid of his Brahman nonexistence. Afraid of loosing his last only reference point. So he will not do it but bang his drum and put up this charade for now.


    • Mr. RDT
    But there never was any Brahman and never was any self/Self. Ultimately then Anurag with his ignorance is doing only disservice to himself and is spiritually proud enough to not be able to listen to people who had his realization but went further - assuming vainly to be knower of ultimate reality and not able to run a simple analisys contrary to his beloved Advaita.
    So the difference is that Soh realised both Advaita and Buddhadharma. Anurag is stuck with Advaita.
    Fortunately enough having some weak connection to Buddhadharma and Brahman being false - Anurag will sooner or later (maybe next lives) let go of false Brahman being completely free. Even from Brahman.

    • Reply
    • 1y
    • Edited

    • Mr. RDT
    Anurag Jain I know your stuck and will just be saying about seeing that what I wrote and asking who is aware of that like a broken record. So please note Im not saying that to argue with you as it is pointless because you will be just hammering your assumption. Im only planting future seed for you so when your karma of this advaitic ignorance burns up you will have positive causes to learn Buddhadharma. Until then you are incurable

    • Reply
    • 1y
    • Edited

    • Mr. RDT
    So this everything from me on the subject. I wont add anything further nor respond to anything as I dont see point in exchange with a somebody playing a broken record xD

    • Reply
    • 1y
    • Edited

    • Mr. RDT
    Would like to know the name of the text Soh Wei Yu where monks did not rejoice.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    MN1
    Ven Thanissaro commentary above also good
    MN 1  Mūlapariyāya Sutta | The Root Sequence
    DHAMMATALKS.ORG
    MN 1  Mūlapariyāya Sutta | The Root Sequence
    MN 1  Mūlapariyāya Sutta | The Root Sequence

    • Reply
    • Remove Preview
    • 1y



    • Anurag Jain
    Robert Soh has never been able to answer my question that after Brahman realization, the entire body/mind/intellect become an object to Awareness so how Soh could do any Buddhist thinking and it never was an object to his Awareness beats me .

    • Reply
    • 1y
    • Edited

    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, yes I shall play the broken record because truth does not keep on changing. But unlike you I am not attempting any conversions.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Everything as an object to awareness was a phase I went through - the I AM phase. It was later realised to be completely dualistic.


    • Anurag Jain
    Soh, you said you would not reply to me in another thread. But it seems you can't give up responding 🙂
    Every realization is an object to Brahman. Brahman is the Witness to the waker and the waking world, to the dreamer and the dream world and to the sleep state. All realizations would occur in any of these three states which are objects to Brahman. The realization, the realizer and the realized are objects to Brahman.
    You did not realize Brahman Soh.
    You talk about "I Am", whatever that means to you to be a "phase". Which means it was just a mental state for you. All mental phases and states are objects to Brahman.

    • Reply
    • 1y
    • Edited

    • Soh Wei Yu
    I did realize Brahman. During that period it appeared as Absolute, ultimate reality, and everything appears as objects to Brahman. Exactly as you said. But that whole view and paradigm is flawed and deluded, which is precisely why it can be seen through and dropped. Were it not flawed and deluded, then it couldn’t be seen through, but it is precisely because that paradigm that establishes an ultimate source and substratum, subject and object, is fundamentally flawed and deluded, that further breakthroughs can occur by realising the non existence of such an ultimate Subject. The realisation that Presence is not some unchanging background, there is nothing behind, no background, no container whatsoever or besides the ongoing vivid manifestation. Basically Brahman only appears to be ultimate but is not actually ultimate, and is fundamentally flawed with ignorant view. This wouldn’t sound nice to you but this is what I have realised.
    You are stuck with your view, dogma and doctrines, so anyone else that says even that view of Brahman can be seen through is simply unacceptable to you. Brahman appears to you as the ultimate Subject to which everything else appears as objects, so you say that cannot be refuted and you are unwilling to investigate and question this paradigm, even if you may not even admit or realise that it is merely a paradigm, a false paradigm. Therefore there is no way this conversation can move forward.

    • Reply
    • 1y
    • Edited

    • Soh Wei Yu
    This conversation is really pointless as you either realise what I realise or do not. You are either willing to contemplate on this matter or do not. Words don’t matter.

    • Reply
    • 1y
    • Edited

    • No Awareness Does Not Mean Non-Existence of Awareness
    AWAKENINGTOREALITY.BLOGSPOT.COM
    No Awareness Does Not Mean Non-Existence of Awareness
    No Awareness Does Not Mean Non-Existence of Awareness

    • Reply
    • Remove Preview
    • 1y

    • Anurag Jain
    Soh Wei Yu sorry but any "contemplation" post Brahman realization is an object to Brahman. All "paradigms" are objects to Brahman. All "realizations" are objects to Brahman. All "views" are objects to Brahman. All "questioning" and "investigations" are objects to Brahman. All these are mind. The whole body/mind/intellect.....the thinker/doer/experiencer is an object to Brahman.
    Either you realize what I am saying or you don't. You did not realize Brahman. Period.

    • Reply
    • 1y
    • Edited

    • André A. Pais
    Anurag, that everything is an object to Brahman is a view like any other. You can question it or accept it, like any other view.
    Is Brahman permanent and independent? If so, how does it observe objects? How does it interact with appearances? Any function, even mere perception, implies change in that which functions. Is Brahman functional? If so, how is it permanent? If not, what's the use of such a notion?

    • Reply
    • 1y
    • Edited

    • Anurag Jain
    André Brahman is not an experiencer. It exists even in the sleep state in which there is no experience.
    It becomes an experiencer only in the presence of superimpositions. It is like light. When there are no objects it just simply is light. When there are objects, light comes to be known as illuminator. Light does not change while illuminating objects. And it remains the same when no objects are there for it to illuminate.

    • Reply
    • 1y
    • Edited

    • Anurag Jain
    André, that everything is an object to Brahman is also a view to Brahman. After Brahman realization, all thoughts including the thought of Brahman is a thought. The knower of Brahman becoomes Brahman.....that to which the body/mind/intellect appears as objects.


    • André A. Pais
    Light and objects are distinguishable, at least in theory. How are knower and known distinguished in direct experience? What evidence is there of an independent Brahman in direct experience?


    • Anurag Jain
    André for that you have to become a student of Advaita 🙂


    • Anurag Jain
    All objects are changing. All objects which occur as waking state, dream state and sleep are changing. Brahman is the unchnaging substrate which witnesses all these states.


    • André A. Pais
    Wouldn't the same reasoning apply to you? Wouldn't you have to become a student of Buddhism to truly understand anatta?


    • Anurag Jain
    I gave the answer to your question...anyways.


    • Anurag Jain
    The 'I' by which one means the thinker/doer/experiencer is an object to Awareness. Whatever I think now is all thought appearing as object to Awareness.


    • Anurag Jain
    When you talk of any "reasoning applying to me" it is all objects to Awareness.


    • André A. Pais
    How is such unchangingness observed in an ever changing experience? How does an unchanging witness observe changing appearances? Light remains (supposedly) unchanging as it illumines because it doesn't know anything. A consciousness, if it is to be able to know, must change, or be "colored", according to what is known.


    • Anurag Jain
    André Brahman does not know. It is Brahman conditioned as mind that knows.


    • Anurag Jain
    There is no knowing in sleep state. No distinction between knower and known in sleep state.


    • André A. Pais
    "Objects of awareness" is a thought. By itself, it is unable to prove any awareness or any characteristics of it.


    • Anurag Jain
    André it is a thought for one who does not know Brahman.


    • André A. Pais
    Brahman does not know. But it witnesses? What's the difference?


    • Anurag Jain
    Awareness is self revealing. It is known when all objects are negated and the ignorance that conceals Awareeness is destroed by knowledge.

    • Reply
    • 1y
    • Edited

    • Anurag Jain
    I already told you, Witness exists even in deep sleep, not the knower.


    • Anurag Jain
    Witness is not about knowing. Witness is like light. It just lights up objects.







    • Anurag Jain
    Well why does an apple seed not produce a banana trees then?


    Soh Wei Yu
    "In the same way that barley and flowers, stones and so on cannot be included within the same continuum as the cause of a rice sprout or be said to be of ‘similar type’, so too, the barley seed and its sprout, if they are established as truly ‘other’ from the perspective of ultimate analysis, cannot ultimately belong to the same continuum.
    Even though this does not affect the ultimate conclusion that it is wholly unacceptable for a thing’s own producers to belong to its same continuum, it is acceptable to classify a producer as belonging to the same continuum on the conventional level, based on the ultimately incontrovertible point that things are not inherently ‘other’, but arise in interdependence."
    Four Great Logical Arguments of the Middle Way
    LOTSAWAHOUSE.ORG
    Four Great Logical Arguments of the Middle Way
    Four Great Logical Arguments of the Middle Way

      • Reply
      • Remove Preview
      • 1y

    • Kyle Dixon
    Good thread 👍


    • Billy Odenfield
    These two views cannot be reconciled. All that can be done is an agreement to disagree.
    Advaita is a totally reductionist ontology. With a singular, transpersonal nature that is established as legitimate.
    There is nothing like this in the buddhadharma.


    • Billy Odenfield
    On the one hand the buddhadharma is an epistemology.
    And then Advaita is apparently claiming to be an epistemology, but that epistemic insight belongs to an ontological nature.
    That is the point of departure.
    These are two completely different languages, completely different worldviews.
    Even when Gaudapada adopted the dialectics which became ajātivāda, it became a reductionist ontology, and essentially betrayed the import of the dialectics the view was borrowed from. Advaita simply cannot escape this implication, and maybe it doesn’t have to if people are content with that sort of view.... it doesn’t speak to me personally, but to each their own.


    • Anurag Jain
    Billy, perhaps you need to know more about Advaita. Gaudapada did not need to borrow any dialectics from Buddhism. Advaita insight, unlike Buddhism does not consider reasoning and inference to be the primary means of knolwedge. For Advaita, the primary means of knowledge is shabda pramana or the words of the scriptures. Advaita engages in dialectics only to refute the views of opponents. How much of Gaudapada have you read? In his Mandukya Karika the first three chapters are entirely based on the Upanishads. Only the last chapter has Buddhist terms including redutation of Buddhists.
    Since Buddhism is based on mind and reasoning, it is not comprehensive as it does not cover the sleep state in which no mental activity or reasoning takes place.