Atman, Other-Emptiness, and other Buddhists

[dyanaprajna2011]

No problem with Buddha-Nature equals Emptiness. None whatsoever.

However, why we do not acknowledge the point that the sunya has a sunya Seer. And the sunya also is able to sprout a teacher, who is the embodiment of compassion.

Sunyata is the emptiness of self-identity, which is the emptiness of the aggregates and the sense bases. If you acknowledge a 'seer' of sunyata, then you acknowledge the presence of the aggregates in sunyata, which goes against Buddhist teaching.

We have to remember that initial experience of sunyata does require a 'seer', even though this 'seer' is just an illusion. Final sunyata, parinirvana, does not require a 'seer', as the 'seer' falls away, and all that's left is sunyata, nirvana. The Buddha differentiated two different types of nirvana for this very purpose.

The Buddha did not teach either annihilationism or eternalism, the human mind simply cannot wrap itself around this concept, it's not possible. It's pointless to try to attempt to describe it, or conceptualize it. What we can say, however, is what the Buddha said: it's not what we would call atman. Atman suggests the presence of the aggregates and sense bases, which are sunyata. What's left is something the Buddha refused to answer, saying that knowing such a thing is not important, and could even be detrimental, to the holy life.

 

[DreadFish]

Again, I dont remember the sutta, but there is a sutta about self-views where the Buddha refutes the view that one's self is the one that observes what is happening.

 

[Straw Dog]

I'm not sure that those who do not hold to the Four Seals (or at least the three marks of existence) can really be called Buddhists, as these are the distinguishing teachings of the Buddha. The Three Marks of existence are held all acrossed the schools of Buddhism, and they have been used for a long time to distinguish Buddhism from "sorta looks like Buddhism." People can believe what they want to. Can they call themselves Buddhists if they don't follow the Buddha's teachings?

The Four Dharma Seals -- The Four Dharma Seals Define Buddhism

I agree with this.

Pseudo-Buddhism always confuses me, but when reflecting upon the core teachings, it becomes much clearer again what Buddhism actually is.

 

[crossfire]

Again, I dont remember the sutta, but there is a sutta about self-views where the Buddha refutes the view that one's self is the one that observes what is happening.

There are numerous suttas regarding this. Here's just one example:

Phagguna Sutta: To Phagguna

 

[crossfire]

Again, I dont remember the sutta, but there is a sutta about self-views where the Buddha refutes the view that one's self is the one that observes what is happening.

There are numerous suttas regarding this. Here's just one example:

Phagguna Sutta: To Phagguna

Buddha directed away from asking "who?" and back to concentrating on the context of dependent co-arising:

Avijjapaccaya Sutta: From Ignorance as a Requisite Condition

 

[LuisDantas]

namaste :namaste



I agree that all should be treated as ......"Thus have I heard......."

but what makes one turning if the wheel or one flowering of the dharma more valid or less valid than any other ?

therefore I stand in defence of the mahayana sutras

You realize, of course, that you have raised the question without actually answering it.

 

[LuisDantas]

Answers in this thread are as if coming out of automatons. I know that not a minute will be devoted to contemplate on this post. I request reader to kindly read and sleep over it, before making a reply. This is a humble request.

(...)

And that is what you all are doing.

I don't know if it is obviously prowess in acquiring academic knowledge on the matter you talk about, but you seem to be very boldly certain that somehow Buddhism "secretly" teaches the concept of Atman despite itself.

Is it that difficult to accept your understanding is not the end-all of Buddhism? That others may legitimally disagree with it?

At least right after making a humble request?

(...) Is impermanence watching impermanence?

Of course. You seem to expect "no" as an answer, but it is in fact a very unlikely answer.

Can impermanence keep record of the impermanence?

Most certainly.

An impermanent record, to be sure. But an impermanent record is still a real, honest-to-sunyata record.

For the impermanence to be known, you require an unchanging intellect. An approximate metaphor is a cinema screen on which characters play out their roles. The screen is not impermanent.

That is what you believe. I accept that.

I do not think you have established it as Buddhist teaching to our satisfaction, and I do not think you should attempt to do so in a Buddhist DIR either.

(...)

(...)

That again is your assumption, which contradicts the Two Truths view.

With all due respect, it is simply not your place to tell anyone in the Buddhist DIR that what we state contradicts the Two Truths view, much less to call our statements "assumptions" just like that.

It really jeopardizes your requests to consider your statements as humble.

I would suggest that such statements better fit on Same Faith Debates, but then, you do not even claim to be a Buddhist, so I suppose we will have to settle to General Religious Debates and/or plain Religious Debates.

 

[atanu]

Hello. No problem with Buddha-Nature equals Emptiness. None whatsoever.

However, why we do not acknowledge the point that the sunya has a sunya Seer. And the sunya also is able to sprout a teacher, who is the embodiment of compassion.

Experience of the prajnanam is sunya, and the Seer too is sunya, without any landing for the awareness. Buddha nature means that which pertains to knowledge material: such as prajnanam (pre-awareness -nondual), buddhi (intellect), and mind (dual).

Maybe in Hinduism, but not in Buddhism.

This is Hindu Dharma, not Buddha Dharma.

Perhaps, so we should then say that Buddha was not a Seer. He did not see. Avalokitesvara too did not see anything.

 

[crossfire]

Perhaps, so we should then say that Buddha was not a Seer. He did not see. Avalokitesvara too did not see anything.

Actually, Buddha saw into things beyond identity views and bliss:

Mulapariyaya Sutta: The Root Sequence

 

[atanu]

Sunyata is the emptiness of self-identity, which is the emptiness of the aggregates and the sense bases. If you acknowledge a 'seer' of sunyata, ---

That I think is the problem.

The whole point is that the 'drishti', the seeing, is not related to eyes alone and not related to the risen vijnanam alone.

There is no self identity in prajnanam, which is non-dual .. I have repeated it two or three times above.

If there was no seeing in this non dual realm, then Nirvana would not be discerned and taught. The sunya will not be discerned and taught.

Kindly do not bring in the superposition of the concept of individual self seeing the sunya. That is not the sunya then.

....................

Can anyone kindly explain in their own word as to what prajnanam is? What is this support that monks use? I humbly ask this.

 

[atanu]

Actually, Buddha saw into things beyond identity views and bliss:

Mulapariyaya Sutta: The Root Sequence

Yes. Please see the above post. Thanks.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram :namaste

Perhaps you misunderstood the answer.

Emptiness of self is fullness of wisdom.

then finaly you agree in plain simple terms :namaste

now to the question of the embodiment of wisdom and the manifestations of wisdom ?

 

[crossfire]

That I think is the problem.

The whole point is that the 'drishti', the seeing, is not related to eyes alone and not related to the risen vijnanam alone.

There is no self identity in prajnanam, which is non-dual .. I have repeated it two or three times above.

If there was no seeing in this non dual realm, then Nirvana would not be discerned and taught. The sunya will not be discerned and taught.

Kindly do not bring in the superposition of the concept of individual self seeing the sunya. That is not the sunya then.

....................

Can anyone kindly explain in their own word as to what prajnanam is? What is this support that monks use? I humbly ask this.

There are several states of consciousness/modes of awareness that I have experienced for which I have no vocabulary to name. What do you mean by prajnanam? Do you mean the dissolution between subject and object? Do you mean something resembling what is written about in the Hsin Hsin Ming?
Do you mean kenshō? The word prajnanam holds no meaning for me.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram :namaste

You realize, of course, that you have raised the question without actually answering it.

yes dear freind I put a question forward for yours , and any others contemplation .

what would be gained here if only statements were made ?


prehaps you would like to comment on the question raised .....

I agree that all should be treated as ......"Thus have I heard......."

but what makes one turning if the wheel or one flowering of the dharma more valid or less valid than any other ?

please may I rephrase the question ....

do you belive all turnings of the wheel of dharma to be equaly valid ?

do you beleive all turnings of the wheel to be a true flowering of dharma?

this was only asked as there seems to be some schools , or practitioners of some schools , that do not accept mahayana as a valid turning where as mahayana schools acept all turnings as equaly valid .

what are your veiws on this ?

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram dyanaprajna ji :namaste

Sunyata is the emptiness of self-identity, which is the emptiness of the aggregates and the sense bases. If you acknowledge a 'seer' of sunyata, then you acknowledge the presence of the aggregates in sunyata, which goes against Buddhist teaching.

yes , emptiness of self identity , emptiness of aggregates ....but by acknowledging a seer (if I understand atanu's use of the word)...we are acknowledging that where sunyata is empty of self identity , empty of aggregates , ...it is full of all pervasive wisdom , inteligence , Buddhi

We have to remember that initial experience of sunyata does require a 'seer', even though this 'seer' is just an illusion. Final sunyata, parinirvana, does not require a 'seer', as the 'seer' falls away, and all that's left is sunyata, nirvana. The Buddha differentiated two different types of nirvana for this very purpose.

prehaps either you or I are missunderstanding the use of the word 'seer'

Atanu please help us in what sence did you intend seer ? ...

in english a seer is one with gifted sight , one who sees into the future , a visionary ...
I was assuming atanu to mean seer as in muni , rishi , ...an all knowing one (one whois in full knowledge and is beyond self)

The Buddha did not teach either annihilationism or eternalism,

because he diddnt want to confuse our small minds ....
what small self centered mind can comprehend such greater truth without first divesting it self of all conceptual notions such as an individual and seperate self

the human mind simply cannot wrap itself around this concept, it's not possible. It's pointless to try to attempt to describe it, or conceptualize it. What we can say, however, is what the Buddha said: it's not what we would call atman. Atman suggests the presence of the aggregates and sense bases, which are sunyata. What's left is something the Buddha refused to answer, saying that knowing such a thing is not important, and could even be detrimental, to the holy life.

not aggregates as we know it , but all pervading wisdom ....no we do not need to understand it but we should resist the temptation to deny its being purely because Buddha did not teach on it .

a childs first reading book starts ....A is for Apple ....it makes no mention of quantum mecanics , however we may come to that understanding later , or we may not depending on its relevance to our lives , but havaing not been taught on it dosent invalidate its relevance .

 

[crossfire]

namaskaram dyanaprajna ji :namaste



yes , emptiness of self identity , emptiness of aggregates ....but by acknowledging a seer (if I understand atanu's use of the word)...we are acknowledging that where sunyata is empty of self identity , empty of aggregates , ...it is full of all pervasive wisdom , inteligence , Buddhi

Actually Buddha instructed to steer clear of this line of reasoning.
Maha-punnama Sutta: The Great Full-moon Night Discourse

Saying, "Very good, lord," the monk... asked him a further question: "Knowing in what way, seeing in what way, is there — with regard to this body endowed with consciousness, and with regard to all external signs — no longer any I-making, or my-making, or obsession with conceit?"

"Monk, one sees any form whatsoever — past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near — every form, as it actually is with right discernment: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

"One sees any feeling whatsoever... any perception whatsoever... any fabrications whatsoever...

"One sees any consciousness whatsoever — past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near — every consciousness — as it actually is with right discernment: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'"

"Monk, knowing in this way, seeing in this way, there is — with regard to this body endowed with consciousness, and with regard to all external signs — no longer any I-making, or my-making, or obsession with conceit."

Now at that moment this line of thinking appeared in the awareness of a certain monk: "So — form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self. Then what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self?"

Then the Blessed One, realizing with his awareness the line of thinking in that monk's awareness, addressed the monks: "It's possible that a senseless person — immersed in ignorance, overcome with craving — might think that he could outsmart the Teacher's message in this way: 'So — form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self. Then what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self?' Now, monks, haven't I trained you in counter-questioning with regard to this & that topic here & there? What do you think — Is form constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"
​

I think I see what the problem is here. Buddha taught that asking "who is seeing?" is an invalid question, not be asked. He tossed out this entire technique as not leading to unbinding, but to leading to further propagation of aggregates, and not to try to get around this teaching. (I've posted a couple of suttas regarding this in this thread already.)

This is a major difference between Hindu dharma and Buddha dharma, as I see it, and why there is so much strife/misunderstanding regarding it, imo.

 

[Poeticus]

This is a major difference between Hindu dharma and Buddha dharma, as I see it, and why there is so much strife/misunderstanding regarding it, imo.

Mate, one small correction: vedānta dharma,
not Hindu dharma. This whole conversation
about ātman is making me quite nauseous...​

 

[crossfire]

Mate, one small correction: vedānta dharma,
not Hindu dharma. This whole conversation
about ātman is making me quite nauseous...​

Thank you for the clarification.

Buddha was a heretic in his day, in that he rejected major portions of the vedānta dharma of the time, as well as other prevailing cultural norms/practices of the time.

 

[atanu]

I think I see what the problem is here. Buddha taught that asking "who is seeing?" is an invalid question, not be asked. ---.

Is this valid for the monk in sunya avastha (state)? Can we see the original context?

May I also request that the thread, if possible, be moved to more appropriate forum for smooth animosity free discussion.

 

[atanu]

There are several states of consciousness/modes of awareness that I have experienced for which I have no vocabulary to name. What do you mean by prajnanam? Do you mean the dissolution between subject and object? Do you mean something resembling what is written about in the Hsin Hsin Ming?
Do you mean kenshō? The word prajnanam holds no meaning for me.

Do you not think that while appreciating the Heart Sutra one should also appreciate as to what exactly the prajna is? Don't you think that otherwise Buddhism and materialism may have little difference?

There were assertions and/or implications that consciousness generated of skandha-s was all that was. It was then pointed out that if that was the case then it would not be possible to discern the realms that have no skandhas -- no eyes, no ears, no body etc. etc. The point about prajna comes up then. BTW, I know nothing about Hsin Hsin Ming or Kenshō. Heart Sutra uses prajna, so I think that must at least be understood.