Conversation took place before Anurag Jain realized anatta.
- tsSorpdoen 4bp61,er584tSe3eu2i12001002m6ui2tt61 1Shared with Your friendsThe Original Pure LandPadmasambhava 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 MastersBy Erik Pema Kunsang)
250 Comments
Anurag JainSounds very Advaitic Soh - Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 1y
- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Reply
- 1y
- Edited
- Remove Preview
- 1y
- 1y
- Edited
- Remove Preview
- 1y
- 1y
- Edited
- 1y
- Edited
- Remove Preview
- 1y
- Does past, present and future exist simultaneously? Is Time an Illusion?YOUTUBE.COMDoes past, present and future exist simultaneously? Is Time an Illusion?
- Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism meets Western Philosophy; The Nature of Matter & Mind Neutral MonismYOUTUBE.COMAdvaita Vedanta and Buddhism meets Western Philosophy; The Nature of Matter & Mind Neutral Monism
- Remove Preview
- 1y
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](https://external-syd2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?w=196&h=196&url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FYz5etGfyB6Q%2Fhqdefault.jpg&cfs=1&ext=emg0&utld=ytimg.com&_nc_oe=703f8&_nc_sid=505865&_nc_o2e=1&ccb=3-6&_nc_hash=AQFuqEVnMeOsD604)
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.BLOGSPOT.COM
Acarya Malcolm on Dzogchen and Advaita Vedanta
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.
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
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 ![🙂](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/teb/2/16/1f642.png)
![🙂](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/teb/2/16/1f642.png)
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.
Anurag Jain
Wait, wait, let me spoil some of your utter joy and bliss ![🙂](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/teb/2/16/1f642.png)
![🙂](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/teb/2/16/1f642.png)
Collin Wong
Nice weiyu keep it up !
Anurag Jain
Please read this refutation from Shankara
Anurag Jain
Part 2 of the refutation
Robert Dominik Tkanka
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.
Robert Dominik Tkanka
There is no faultless position.
Robert Dominik Tkanka
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 ![😉](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/tf6/2/16/1f609.png)
![😉](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/tf6/2/16/1f609.png)
Anurag Jain
Hi Robert Dominik. Who is the refuter? Lol! We are back in the game ![🙂](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/teb/2/16/1f642.png)
![🙂](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/teb/2/16/1f642.png)
Thomas Arta
Anurag Jain yawn.
Robert Dominik Tkanka
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?
Robert Dominik Tkanka
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
![🙂](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/teb/2/16/1f642.png)
Anurag Jain
I am a veteran. So......
Robert Dominik Tkanka
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.
Anurag Jain
I hope I answered you. If I know the game it bores me ![🙂](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/teb/2/16/1f642.png)
![🙂](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/teb/2/16/1f642.png)
Anurag Jain
That's fine. Remember we can drink a cup of tea ![🙂](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/teb/2/16/1f642.png)
![🙂](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/teb/2/16/1f642.png)
Anurag Jain
Thanks Robert ! Take Care.
Soh Wei Yu
Refutations of independently and inherently existent 'seeing' or 'awareness' can be found in
![Investigation into Movement](https://external-syd2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?w=196&h=196&url=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-fhDka_KL-J8%2FT8sSVsC4ZSI%2FAAAAAAAAAFA%2FPTCxfF6kLnw%2Fs1600%2Fchansmallerjz1.png&cfs=1&ext=emg0&utld=blogspot.com&_nc_oe=703f9&_nc_sid=505865&_nc_o2e=1&ccb=3-6&_nc_hash=AQHIFM2xz4Iw8F6u)
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.BLOGSPOT.COM
Investigation into Movement
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.
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.
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 ![🙂](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/teb/2/16/1f642.png)
![🙂](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/teb/2/16/1f642.png)
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?!!!
![🙂](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/teb/2/16/1f642.png)
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 !
![🙂](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/teb/2/16/1f642.png)
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.
Alan Smith
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 ![🙂](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/teb/2/16/1f642.png)
![🙂](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/teb/2/16/1f642.png)
Alan Smith
Just drink some water.
Alan Smith
Is there a self that knows? Or just cool water. Thus.
Anurag Jain
Alan Smith cool water does know that it is cool.
Alan Smith
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.
Alan Smith
And
thus 1,000 things are constructed in all directions. Papanca. Just
because words work a certain way it does not make it thus.
Alan Smith
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 ![🙂](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/teb/2/16/1f642.png)
![🙂](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/teb/2/16/1f642.png)
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 ![🙂](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/teb/2/16/1f642.png)
![🙂](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/teb/2/16/1f642.png)
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
Robert Dominik Tkanka
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.
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.
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."
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](https://external-syd2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?w=196&h=196&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lotsawahouse.org%2FImages%2FJamgon_Mipham_Rinpoche.jpg&cfs=1&sx=0&sy=29&sw=240&sh=240&ext=emg0&utld=lotsawahouse.org&_nc_oe=703f9&_nc_sid=632586&_nc_o2e=1&ccb=3-6&_nc_hash=AQGaJ13NnK_6csvl)
LOTSAWAHOUSE.ORG
Four Great Logical Arguments of the Middle Way
Soh Wei Yu
Mipham:…
See more
![Four Great Logical Arguments of the Middle Way](https://external-syd2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?w=196&h=196&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lotsawahouse.org%2FImages%2FJamgon_Mipham_Rinpoche.jpg&cfs=1&sx=0&sy=29&sw=240&sh=240&ext=emg0&utld=lotsawahouse.org&_nc_oe=703f9&_nc_sid=632586&_nc_o2e=1&ccb=3-6&_nc_hash=AQGaJ13NnK_6csvl)
LOTSAWAHOUSE.ORG
Four Great Logical Arguments of the Middle Way
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.
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.
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).
![😊](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/t1e/2/16/1f60a.png)
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](https://external-syd2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?w=196&h=196&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcached-fe.84000.co%2Fimgs%2Flogo-stacked-sq.jpg&cfs=1&ext=emg0&utld=84000.co&_nc_oe=703f8&_nc_sid=505865&_nc_o2e=1&ccb=3-6&_nc_hash=AQFVLorCtGtIw-oE)
READ.84000.CO
The Questions of an Old Lady | 84000 Reading Room
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.
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.
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.
"
![🙂](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/teb/2/16/1f642.png)
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
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.
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 ![🙂](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/teb/2/16/1f642.png)
![🙂](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/teb/2/16/1f642.png)
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 ![🙂](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/teb/2/16/1f642.png)
![🙂](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/teb/2/16/1f642.png)
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 ![🙂](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/teb/2/16/1f642.png)
![🙂](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/teb/2/16/1f642.png)
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 ![🙂](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/teb/2/16/1f642.png)
![🙂](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/teb/2/16/1f642.png)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Robert Dominik Tkanka
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.
Robert Dominik Tkanka
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.
Robert Dominik Tkanka
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.
Robert Dominik Tkanka
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
Robert Dominik Tkanka
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
Robert Dominik Tkanka
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](https://external-syd2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?w=196&h=196&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dhammatalks.org%2Fimages%2Ffb-logo.png&cfs=1&ext=emg0&utld=dhammatalks.org&_nc_oe=703f8&_nc_sid=505865&_nc_o2e=1&ccb=3-6&_nc_hash=AQGas7jC-coIzIsg)
DHAMMATALKS.ORG
MN 1 Mūlapariyāya Sutta | The Root Sequence
Robert Dominik Tkanka
Soh Wei Yu thank you
![🙂](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/teb/2/16/1f642.png)
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 ![🙂](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/teb/2/16/1f642.png)
![🙂](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/teb/2/16/1f642.png)
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.
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.
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.
![No Awareness Does Not Mean Non-Existence of Awareness](https://external-syd2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?w=196&h=196&url=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-fhDka_KL-J8%2FT8sSVsC4ZSI%2FAAAAAAAAAFA%2FPTCxfF6kLnw%2Fs1600%2Fchansmallerjz1.png&cfs=1&ext=emg0&utld=blogspot.com&_nc_oe=703f9&_nc_sid=505865&_nc_o2e=1&ccb=3-6&_nc_hash=AQHIFM2xz4Iw8F6u)
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.BLOGSPOT.COM
No Awareness Does Not Mean Non-Existence of Awareness
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.
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?
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.
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 ![🙂](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/teb/2/16/1f642.png)
![🙂](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/teb/2/16/1f642.png)
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.
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."
- Mipham, same article https://www.lotsawahouse.org/.../four-great-logical...
![Four Great Logical Arguments of the Middle Way](https://external-syd2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?w=196&h=196&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lotsawahouse.org%2FImages%2FJamgon_Mipham_Rinpoche.jpg&cfs=1&sx=0&sy=29&sw=240&sh=240&ext=emg0&utld=lotsawahouse.org&_nc_oe=703f9&_nc_sid=632586&_nc_o2e=1&ccb=3-6&_nc_hash=AQGaJ13NnK_6csvl)
LOTSAWAHOUSE.ORG
Four Great Logical Arguments of the Middle Way
Kyle Dixon
Good thread ![👍](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/t9b/2/16/1f44d.png)
![👍](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/t9b/2/16/1f44d.png)
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.
Anurag Jain
And as far as Soh
and his team of followers are concerned I have never been able to get
an answer to my questions. Soh claims to have Brahman realization and
then move on to Buddhist realization of emptiness from there. This is
simply impossible.
After
Brahman realization, the whole of body/mind/intellect becomes an object
to Awareness. How can Soh the thinker remain after Brahman realization
to think Buddhism except as an object in Awareness. All of Soh's
thinking of Buddhism would hav ebeen nothing but objects to Awareness.
All experiences and insights too would be objects to Awareness. Even the
sleep state is an object to Awareness.
Hence it would be appropriate if Soh and his team of followers stick to Buddhism rather than talking of Brahman and Advaita.
Soh Wei Yu
Your whole paradigm of brahman as ultimate subject and everything else as object is totally a dualistic delusion.
How can you ever realise and taste everything to be Presence with such a hopeless view?
Soh Wei Yu
Buddhist realisation of anatta is non inferential and direct. Cannot be any more direct.
Anurag Jain
Soh,
just answer my question logically. Don't keep beating around the bush
all the time. Say something more than the fact that Brahman is a
delusion.
Anurag Jain
Soh, Buddhist insight is based on mind and reasoning. Come on.
Soh Wei Yu
Your whole post is based on a completely delusional premise that Brahman is a subject and everything else is an object.
This is realised to be a complete delusion, so I am saying your whole question is based on a false premise.
When that delusion is seen through, everything is Presence, but there is no Presence in and of itself.
Soh Wei Yu
There is no thinker, no observer, no Brahman.
All manifestation is presencing without agency in total exertion
Anurag Jain
Soh, it's a delusion for people who have not realized Brahman.
Soh Wei Yu
Actually realising anatta allows me to see conditions and conditionality.
And I do not see any conditions for this conversation to develop any further constructively.
I shall stop here
Anurag Jain
Soh, I think you should speak of Buddhism and it's realizations rather than Brahman because you know absolutely zilch about it.
Soh Wei Yu
Well, I have realised Brahman before. Its just luminous Presence distorted with a deluded paradigm.
Anurag Jain
Soh, the person who says that Brahman is such and such is a thinker who is an object to Brahman. Got it.
Soh Wei Yu
Subject and object is a completely dualistic delusion. Good night
Anurag Jain
Soh, subject and object are both objects to Awareness. The thinker/doer/experiencer are objects to awareness. Good night ![🙂](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/teb/2/16/1f642.png)
![🙂](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/teb/2/16/1f642.png)
Anurag Jain
Even the one who says that such and such is a delusional paradigm is a thinker that is object to Awareness.
André A. Pais
The thinker is not an object of Brahman; Brahman is an object of thinking.
André A. Pais
Buddhism
does cover the deep sleep state. Check dream yoga. Reasoning is used as
an aid to meditation. Anything less than direct perception is,
ultimately, worthless in Buddhism.
André A. Pais
If
Brahman is truly inconceivable and ultimate, it cannot be conceived as
some type of observer, or as having some type of quality like
permanence, independence, etc.
Anurag Jain
André,
did not see these comments. Brahman is You. You cannot see yourself as
an object. As explained in my comments in another thread, Brahman is not
an observer. Brahman becomes an observer only when conditioned with
mind. In deep sleep state there is no observer or observed but Brahman
still exists.
Anurag Jain
Regarding
reasoning in Buddhism, it is considered to be one of the means of
knowledge. All means of knowledge including direct perception will fall
in the three states. Brahman is the substrate of these three states.
Anurag Jain
Brahman as a concept is an object of thinking to the thinker, and the thinker is the object to Brahman.
Billy Odenfield
Anurag Jain this is Kyle.
The
primary forms of authoritative knowledge in Buddhism are (i) direct
perception [pratyaksa], (ii) inference [anumana], and (iii) the
testimony of reliable persons and doctrine [sabda].
Thus “reasoning and inference” are not primary.
Billy Odenfield
I agree with Soh
that not only is the proposition of brahman dualistic because it is
considered ultimately real. But it is also positing an actual ultimate
nature, which is not done in Buddhism.
Billy Odenfield
It is done rhetorically but not actually.
André A. Pais
How
can continuity move through discontinuous discrete moments? Have you
watched a wave? Or a tornado? Is there anything moving forward there? No
water is moving forward, no wind is moving forward. It's just a motion
that appears, without any substance actually moving.
The question is actually how could continuity and change happen having as its basis unchanging and permanent entities?
Anurag Jain
André,
this is very ludicrous. In a wave, the water is moving. In a placid
lake, there is no water movement and no wave, and in a tornado the air
is moving. Stand in the way of a tornado if you want to feel the air
movement ![🙂](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/teb/2/16/1f642.png)
![🙂](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/teb/2/16/1f642.png)
Anurag Jain
André,
change can only be perecieved against a changeless background the way a
film is projected on a screen which is unchanging and permanent. The
screen exists before the movie, during the movie and after the movie
gets over.
André A. Pais
The
water is only moving up and down, not forward. The only thing in common
in the various stages of the wave is its appearance, not any substance
(as water). That's why we're not carried by a wave, we only go up when
it passes. The tornado I don't know so well, but I assume it's not the
same air that's traveling around, only the circular energy of the
tornado picking up new air as it moves.
André A. Pais
There's no self going from life to life, or unchanging awareness, only the movement of karma, information or conditioned energy.
An
unchanging background can't know anything, because it doesn't change in
order to update itself with the new information / appearance /
landscape / experience.
Anurag Jain
An
unchanging background is light. It lights up all phenomena. It does not
need to know anything. All information is like a negative film
superimposed on the light.
André A. Pais
There's an intrinsic separation between light and its objects. There can't be any separation between a knower and a known.
Anurag Jain
André,
you are continuously repeating the same logic which I have explained
several times. Brahman is not a knower. It makes no contacts with any
objects.
Anurag Jain
You,
Brahman become a knower only when the mind is superimposed on You. In
sleep state, the mind is dormant and hence there is no knower present in
sleep state, yet You as Brahman exist. In the dream and waking states
where mind becomes active, the mind refracts Brahman into the knower and
the known like a prism refracts white light into seven colours.
André A. Pais
Doesn't Brahman know the deep sleep state?
If Brahman makes no contact with objects, what is it good for, in our objective experience?
André A. Pais
How can the mind refract Brahman into knower and known if Brahman is untouched by any object?
Anurag Jain
André,
Brahman witnesses the deep sleep state just like light illuminates an
object. As Witness, Brahman can exist without any objects (but objects
cannot exist without Brahman.) and there is no change in the status of
Witness ever. It is constant in all three states. It is never absent. It
also does not increase or decrease in any way. The Witness illuminates
both knower and known.
On
the other hand the knower and known are a pair possible only in a
phenomenal duality. Knower and known cannot exist without each other.
The status of knower and known keeps changing in the three states. The
knower of dream state changes on waking state. The knower does not exist
at all in the deep sleep state. The knower can know more or know less.
The knowet can know the Witness or be ignorant of and conceal the
Witness.
Anurag Jain
Brahman
is of no use for objective experience. All experience of phenomenal
world is an illusion just like a snake superimposed on the rope due to
an error of perception. Brahman misperceived appears as the phenomenal
world of experience. The phenomenal world is the cause of fear and
suffering. Brahman being non-dual, eternal amd changeless is beyond fear
and suffering and thus knowing Brahman is liberation.
Anurag Jain
Mind
refracting Brahman into knower and known was just a shorthand
explanation. My apologies for that. The actual explanation in Advaita is
that of reflection. Just as the sun is reflected in muddy water and
clear water differently, Brahman appears as knower and known according
to the phenomena in which it is reflected. All phenomena are made of
varying degrees of sattva, tamas and rajas: the three gunas. Brahman
reflected in sattva predominant phenomena appears as the knower and
Brahman reflected in rajas and tamas predominant matter appears as the
known.
Jackson Peterson
Soh said..
“Actually realising anatta allows me to see conditions and conditionality”.
Who or what is this “me” that sees conditions and conditionality?
And what entity says:
“I shall stop here”...?
According
to your view, all the letters and words in “I ...shall ...stop
...here...” are single appearances which are fully complete in their
mode as meaningful appearances expressed by what???
Soh Wei Yu
I don't know why do you keep repeating this question when I have always answered you the same answer each time:
Would an arahant say "I" or "mine"?
Other
devas had more sophisticated queries. One deva, for example, asked the
Buddha if an arahant could use words that refer to a self:
"Consummate with taints destroyed,
One who bears his final body,
Would he still say 'I speak'?
And would he say 'They speak to me'?"
This
deva realized that arahantship means the end of rebirth and suffering
by uprooting mental defilements; he knew that arahants have no belief in
any self or soul. But he was puzzled to hear monks reputed to be
arahants continuing to use such self-referential expressions.
The Buddha replied that an arahant might say "I" always aware of the merely pragmatic value of common terms:
"Skillful, knowing the world's parlance,
He uses such terms as mere expressions."
The
deva, trying to grasp the Buddha's meaning, asked whether an arahant
would use such expressions because he is still prone to conceit. The
Buddha made it clear that the arahant has no delusions about his true
nature. He has uprooted all notions of self and removed all traces of
pride and conceit:
"No knots exist for one with conceit cast off;
For him all knots of conceit are consumed.
When the wise one has transcended the conceived
He might still say 'I speak,'
And he might say 'They speak to me.'
Skillful, knowing the world's parlance,
He uses such terms as mere expressions." (KS I, 21-22; SN 1:25)
![Teacher of the Devas](https://external-syd2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?w=16&h=16&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.accesstoinsight.org%2Fimg%2Fhome3.png&cfs=1&ext=emg0&utld=accesstoinsight.org&_nc_oe=703f9&_nc_sid=505865&_nc_o2e=1&ccb=3-6&_nc_hash=AQEohAA2F3H3rNqu)
ACCESSTOINSIGHT.ORG
Teacher of the Devas
Soh Wei Yu
There has never been a trace of the delusion of subject-object duality or agent or agency here for almost 10 years.
All usage of such conventions are mere parlance.
Jackson Peterson
Soh Wei Yu
no my point is being missed: those words are arising in a pattern
that leads to a meaning which can be understood. What is directing that
pattern of words to have a specific and coherent meaning?
Soh Wei Yu
John Tan:
The logic that since there is no agency, hence no choice to be made is no different from "no sufferer, therefore no suffering".
This is not anatta insight.
What
is seen through in anatta is the mistaken view that the conventional
structure of "subject action object" represents reality when it is not.
Action does not require an agent to initiate it. It is language that
creates the confusion that nouns are required to set verbs into motion.
Therefore the action of choosing continues albeit no chooser.
"Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found;
The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there;
Nibbāna is, but not the man that enters it;
The path is, but no traveler on it is seen."
![Choosing](https://external-syd2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?w=196&h=196&url=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-fhDka_KL-J8%2FT8sSVsC4ZSI%2FAAAAAAAAAFA%2FPTCxfF6kLnw%2Fs1600%2Fchansmallerjz1.png&cfs=1&ext=emg0&utld=blogspot.com&_nc_oe=703f9&_nc_sid=505865&_nc_o2e=1&ccb=3-6&_nc_hash=AQHIFM2xz4Iw8F6u)
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.BLOGSPOT.COM
Choosing
Soh Wei Yu
<-- although this post is about choosing, it also applies to your post above and everything else
Soh Wei Yu
Also, specific and coherent meaning arising from words are just languages and learnt knowledge.
Soh Wei Yu
“9/5/2012
11:51 PM: John: [A reified] Aware intelligence is the problem. Just say
I have been told to understand immense intelligence not as if someone
is there to act and direct, rather as total exertion of the universe to
make this moment possible; then all appearances are miraculous and
marvelous.” - John Tan, 2012
“(7:53
PM) Thusness: XX Rinpoche makes a good statement but that is before
understanding stage 5 and 6. That is, without the source, nothing
happens. However in Buddhism, insight is to see, penetrate and
investigate and become thoroughly clear that the idea of a source, an
essence is unnecessary. Once you experience and arise the insight of
anatta, you begin open to happening without source, without the need of
an essence. This is then the beginning of Buddhism.” - John Tan, 2009
“7/9/2012
11:23 PM: John: For anatta, opening will be realized as action… this
manifestation. But for those that practice non-dual awareness, they
always trace back to the source. For anatta, there is no source to
trace, it is fully manifested as the immediate moment of manifestation
or as this flow of action. Until this view is fully integrated into
moment to moment of experience... Then you start practicing
concentration
10/27/2012
8:20 PM: Soh Wei Yu: But he ask about the source, where does thoughts
come from, where does cause and effect come from, who am i
10/27/2012
8:22 PM: John: One day got the opportunity tell why zen is become one
with action is because of the realization that source is not necessary” -
Conversation with John Tan, 2012
Soh Wei Yu
-- all these quotes can be found in Awakening to Reality: A Guide to the Nature of Mind https://app.box.com/s/157eqgiosuw6xqvs00ibdkmc0r3mu8jg
APP.BOX.COM
Box
Jackson Peterson
Soh Wei Yu
you guys are missing Einstein’s “block universe” of special theory of
relativity. This view includes all dependencies as a single,
non-dynamic block of past, present and future.
Soh Wei Yu
Single? Non-dynamic? That sounds very dead and fixed.
All
fixed views and referencepoints block the totally spontaneous, dynamic,
fluid and yet total exertion of all times and all directions.
Soh Wei Yu
"According
to the block universe theory, the universe is a giant block of all the
things that ever happen at any time and at any place. On this view, the
past, present and future all exist — and are equally real.Sep 1, 2018"
-- all realist doctrines are rejected in Madhyamaka
Jackson Peterson
Jackson Peterson
I found a really intriguing book and subject you should enjoy!
A Complete Theory of Everything regarding Physics and Consciousness?
I
highly recommend this book as it brings a mathematic and scientific
view of the “block universe” of Special Relativity, through physics,
together with consciousness.
The last chapter is especially revealing. A quote:
“Accepting
neutral monism as described here means accepting there is one thing
that isn’t relational or contextual, one thing that is intrinsic and
fundamental, and that is Presence. Presence is neither physical nor
mental as these are typically characterized. It isn’t a thing,
substance, entity, property, law, qualia, event, or representation.
Presence doesn’t exist in space and time, it is the adynamical basis for
them. Everything is grounded in Presence.”
“This
book is likely to become a crucial resource for future scientific
revolutions, despite (or due to) its daring speculative proposals.
Indeed, it offers no less than a complete redefinition of science and
explanation, abandoning causality in favor of global consistency. By
involving consciousness from the outset, instead of vainly wondering
what is its ‘material cause’, it paves the way to a truly complete view
of the world. No aspect of ‘what there is’ is left aside in this
comprehensive book that synergizes physics with philosophy, our
knowledge of nature with our knowledge of ourselves.” Michel Bitbol,
CNRS/ENS, Archives Husserl, Paris, France
Video from the author: Professor Michael Silberstein
The Block Universe:
The Book:
Jackson Peterson
Soh Wei Yu this is 21 century science not 200 a.d. theories.
Soh Wei Yu
"one thing that is intrinsic and fundamental, and that is Presence"
This is what is seen through in anatta.
[9:23
AM, 6/3/2020] John Tan: Now if luminosity is intrinsic and inherent in
all cognitive states of our continuum, how can it b prasangika?
“What
is presence now? Everything... Taste saliva, smell, think, what is
that? Snap of a finger, sing. All ordinary activity, zero effort
therefore nothing attained. Yet is full accomplishment. In esoteric
terms, eat God, taste God, see God, hear God...lol. That is the first
thing I told Mr. J few years back when he first messaged me
If a mirror is there, this is not possible. If clarity isn't empty,
this isn't possible. Not even slightest effort is needed. Do you feel
it? Grabbing of my legs as if I am grabbing presence! Do you have this
experience already? When there is no mirror, then entire existence is
just lights-sounds-sensations as single presence. Presence is grabbing
presence. The movement to grab legs is Presence.. the sensation of
grabbing legs is Presence.. For me even typing or blinking my eyes. For
fear that it is misunderstood, don't talk about it. Right understanding
is no presence, for every single sense of knowingness is different.
Otherwise Mr. J will say nonsense... lol. When there is a mirror, this
is not possible. Think I wrote to longchen (Sim Pern Chong) about 10
years ago.” - John Tan
![😂](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/t6f/2/16/1f602.png)
“An
interesting comment Mr. J. After realization… Just eat God, breathe
God, smell God and see God… Lastly be fully unestablished and liberate
God.” - John Tan, 2012
Jackson Peterson
Soh Wei Yu
I guess John didn’t know the experience offered by Douglas Harding.
One is experienced as being an empty presence in which and from which
the universe appears. It is only possible in the total absence of any
identity or self definition. Only then is there enough room for
everything to fit within perfectly. ![😉](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/tf6/2/16/1f609.png)
![😉](https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/tf6/2/16/1f609.png)
Soh Wei Yu
Jackson Peterson
All those are still stuck at the Brahman and one mind stage and have not realised anatta.
Excerpt:
Session Start: Saturday, March 14, 2009
(11:50 PM) AEN: 'Nevertheless it is a very key phase'
u mean very important key phase?
(11:51 PM) Thusness: yeah
(11:52 PM) AEN: icic..
btw wats the difference between stage 4 and 5 other than stabilizing non dual
(11:54 PM) Thusness: u need to face the problem to know
it is not in words
(11:55 PM) Thusness: because u have not experienced non-division
(11:55 PM) Thusness: so u do not know what is non divison
(11:55 PM) Thusness: what is no-doership and what is no agent in experience
(11:56 PM) Thusness: and it is difficult to know what is that 'marks' that prevent the experience of spontaneity
(11:56 PM) AEN: oic..
(11:58 PM) Thusness: there is a difference seeing thinker/thoughts as one
(11:58 PM) Thusness: and hearer/sound as one
then sound is awareness, no hearer
(11:58 PM) Thusness: stage 4 is more like hearer/sound as one
(11:59 PM) Thusness: that is why i said one thought, then another thought
just like u, u said u feel like an open space
(11:59 PM) Thusness: then u hear sound
sound and awareness seem to be one
(11:59 PM) AEN: oic..
(12:00 AM) Thusness: indistinguishable but u cannot have that experience that there is only sound
only in logic u have but not in experience
(12:00 AM) Thusness: until one day u mature that experience
(12:01 AM) AEN: icic..
just now i saw a website from truthz's blog lists
i mean not truthz's blog but the blog link appeared in his
(12:02 AM) AEN: http://buddhaspace.blogspot.com/
Correct
Understanding - the first of the eight aspects of the Noble Eightfold
Path - arises out of noticing the impermanent, unsatisfactory, and
impersonal nature of sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and tactile
objects. When all these phenomena are realized to be not self, the mind
will turn inwards, seeking out what it might cling to as ‘me’. But if it
looks with absolute clarity it will find emptiness. Behind sensations,
feelings, thoughts, and consciousness, there lies clear, endless space. I
sometimes call it ‘Buddha Space’.
(12:05 AM) Thusness: yeah
that is wrong view.
(12:05 AM) AEN: oic..
(12:06 AM) Thusness: it is very difficult to see the truth of this until our insight matures
even at stage 4, it can be difficult but it is already the first steps towards anatta
(12:06 AM) AEN: difficult to what
see anatta?
(12:06 AM) Thusness: yeah
(12:06 AM) AEN: oic
(12:07 AM) Thusness: u must see the no agent
not only no division
(12:07 AM) Thusness: like i told u there are 3 stages
(12:08 AM) Thusness: later into just this non-dual luminosity
(12:09 AM) Thusness: if u ask non-dualists, they will not realise that they are an arising thought
(12:09 AM) Thusness: like what jeff foster said
(12:09 AM) AEN: oic..
(12:10 AM) Thusness: they will feel damn ultimate
(12:10 AM) AEN: ic..
like brahman
(12:11 AM) Thusness: yes so they see self
not events, process phenomena
(12:12 AM) AEN: oic..
(12:12 AM) Thusness: they see brahman, not sunyata
(12:12 AM) Thusness: even the experiences are very similar
the insight has not matured into anatta
(12:13 AM) Thusness: like shingon sort of practice, the experience can be said to be maha like
but it is not the maha sort of experience i am talking about
(12:13 AM) Thusness: it is oneness sort of experience
but it is a stage
(12:14 AM) Thusness: what i said is oneness is always there
(12:14 AM) Thusness: when one realises that presence is always a manifestation and full embodiment of interconnectedness
(12:15 AM) Thusness: no effort needs to be done to induce a maha experience
(12:23 AM) Thusness: there are few conditions to experience maha as a ground
(12:23 AM) Thusness: 1. mature in non-dual experience
2. DO (dependent origination)
(12:24 AM) Thusness: 3. experience and understand that 'interconnectedness' is the universe itself
then 'self' and even non dual becomes quite irrelevant
(12:25 AM) Thusness: in fact now presence is not understand as non-dual to me.
(12:26 AM) Thusness: but as DO
(12:26 AM) Thusness: where non-dual is already included
.......
2008:
(11:46 PM) Thusness: Does ken (Ken Wilber) talk about anatta
Etc
![Difference Between Thusness Stage 4 and 5 (Substantial Non-duality vs Anatta)](https://external-syd2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?w=196&h=196&url=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-fhDka_KL-J8%2FT8sSVsC4ZSI%2FAAAAAAAAAFA%2FPTCxfF6kLnw%2Fs1600%2Fchansmallerjz1.png&cfs=1&ext=emg0&utld=blogspot.com&_nc_oe=703f9&_nc_sid=505865&_nc_o2e=1&ccb=3-6&_nc_hash=AQHIFM2xz4Iw8F6u)
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.BLOGSPOT.COM
Difference Between Thusness Stage 4 and 5 (Substantial Non-duality vs Anatta)
Jackson Peterson
Soh Wei Yu try this!
The Essence of Zen Liberation
Read,
understand and implement what’s taught here, and instantly the search
is over and all suffering will be absent; even the seeker and
practitioner disappear.
When
consciousness or awareness is vividly present, in absence of ALL
concepts, ALL thinking and ALL self-referencing, then that consciousness
can’t be found to be apart from the Totality. Without thoughts, It
can’t differentiate itself from the non-dual Wholeness of Reality.
That is Zen Mind. The Mind of the Buddha.
![A Teaching From Zen Master Jinen](https://external-syd2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?w=196&h=196&url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FAPjXpUnHw20%2Fhqdefault.jpg&cfs=1&ext=emg0&utld=ytimg.com&_nc_oe=703f8&_nc_sid=505865&_nc_o2e=1&ccb=3-6&_nc_hash=AQHbzcgm2Lgsr41C)
YOUTUBE.COM
A Teaching From Zen Master Jinen