Atman, Other-Emptiness, and other Buddhists

[crossfire]

Luis, the motivation is not evil, surely.

But as you dislike my pointing a finger at the common thread running through the dharma, I will stop conversing .. at least with you. Still, I will for the last time request you to consider the purport of sattva in bodhisattva.

Bodhisattva's wisdom seems to be unconscious, instinctual. Not all Bodhisattvas are awakened or are aware of this innate/instinctive wisdom, but others can be awakened by it. When the Bodhisattva become awakened, they really aren't Bodhisattvas anymore.

Here's a great story about a Bodhisattva to illustrate this:

The Cucumber Sage

 

[Straw Dog]

I think a lot of us get confused in the extremes of either having an eternal self or having no self at all. Wouldn't a transitory, dynamic sense of self be the middle way?

 

[atanu]

---
Anyone who has heard a bell has fully experienced the sutra.

I agree. But I may not fully agree on the 'anyone' part. 'Om' is the bell for me.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

What is called atman in Buddhism references emptiness of which the dynamics are essentially "permanent". It's not really there, yet it is.

Anyone who has heard a bell has fully experienced the sutra.

Good point. We have to remember the middle way, and avoid the extremes of either/or.

Bodhisattva's wisdom seems to be unconscious, instinctual. Not all Bodhisattvas are awakened or are aware of this innate/instinctive wisdom, but others can be awakened by it. When the Bodhisattva become awakened, they really aren't Bodhisattvas anymore.

Here's a great story about a Bodhisattva to illustrate this:

The Cucumber Sage

The Diamond sutra does a good job at explaining these points too.

 

[atanu]

Bodhisattva's wisdom seems to be unconscious, instinctual. Not all Bodhisattvas are awakened or are aware of this innate/instinctive wisdom, but others can be awakened by it. When the Bodhisattva become awakened, they really aren't Bodhisattvas anymore.

Here's a great story about a Bodhisattva to illustrate this:

The Cucumber Sage

Thank you.

What we call unconscious/instinctual is actually called prajnanam, in Hindu as well as Buddhist scripture. The perfect wisdom is the full prajnanam.

Prajnanam is pre-jnanam. And jnanam is plain awareness.

Jnanam is manifest awareness because of duality, because of contrasts. Whereas, the pre-jnanam (the prajnanam) is not manifest awareness because there is no contrast, no duality in it. We think it is dark, unconscious sleep. But an awakened Seer sees the prajnanam by prajnanam (by perfect wisdom).

Sorry for the rambling.:sorry1:

 

[crossfire]

Thank you.

What we call unconscious/instinctual is actually called prajnanam, in Hindu as well as Buddhist scripture. The perfect wisdom is the full prajnanam.

Prajnanam is pre-jnanam. And jnanam is plain awareness.

Jnanam is manifest awareness because of duality, because of contrasts. Whereas, the pre-jnanam (the prajnanam) is not manifest awareness because there is no contrast, no duality in it. We think it is dark, unconscious sleep. But an awakened Seer sees the prajnanam by prajnanam (by perfect wisdom).

Sorry for the rambling.:sorry1:

Thank you. I don't think that is rambling. I agree that it can be tricky developing discernment within non-dual awareness, but it can be done. If you cling to it, you can quickly develop delusional "discernment," instead of clear insight.

Growing up can be tough.

 

[Jainarayan]

I get from this that Self is our Buddha-nature:

there does exist an eternal true self, which is in fact none other than the Buddha himself in his ultimate nirvanic nature. This is the "true self" in the self of each being, the ideal personality, attainable by all beings due to their inborn potential for enlightenment. Positive teachings on the ātman in Mahāyāna Buddhism

It seems there are many interpretations of what Self/Atman is, seen through different lenses and personal biases (bias not used pejoratively).

 

[atanu]

Thank you Dhyana Prajnanam.

The realization of anatta, if I'm not mistaken, would be one of the last realizations before nirvana. Both can be experienced in the here and now, and one doesn't need to be a bodhisattva in order to do so. Remember, these are attainments on the arhat path as well.

Agree.

Prajna paramita is the experience/attainment of sunyata. Mind sense skandha, like the others, disappear with sunyata. So perfect wisdom is the absence of the skandhas.

Agree. And the point that I would like to make here is that there is prajnanam, apart from the vijnanam that rises with the skandas. Without prajnanam (the Pre-jnanam), the Nirvana would not be discerned since there would be no risen consciousness (vijnana).

Sattva means being. It's meant to differentiate bodhisattvas from ordinary beings. Bodhisattvas are beings bound for enlightenment, but who hold off in order to lead other beings to the other shore (the actual meaning of paramita).

I agree. In Hinduism, one key understanding is that sattva (the existent) never changes to a-sattva (non-existence) and a-sattva never can become sattva. In fact, the doctrine of no birth-no death is derived from this.

Hopefully this helps some. And remember, I could be way off.

You have been very helpful. Thanks.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

It has nothing to do with Buddhism "caving". It has to do with your misstatement that Jesus did not come to teach anyone but the Jews. But Jesus has nothing to do with this thread to begin with.

"I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

No misstatement. He simply updated his ministry to reach a wider audience, distancing himself from what was one a Jew-only message.

And by analogy it has everything to do with this thread.

 

[Jainarayan]

"I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

No misstatement. He simply updated his ministry to reach a wider audience, distancing himself from what was one a Jew-only message.

I should have said it was an evolution or expansion of his teaching. Maybe when he thought he planted the seed for a reform of the Judaism of the time, it was time to spread those seeds.

Anyway...

And by analogy it has everything to do with this thread.

I don't see how, though it's not unlikely I missed something along the way.

 

[crossfire]

Agree. And the point that I would like to make here is that there is prajnanam, apart from the vijnanam that rises with the skandas. Without prajnanam (the Pre-jnanam), the Nirvana would not be discerned since there would be no risen consciousness (vijnana).

I don't know if you know anything about yogacara. Prajnanam would be like yogacara's Alaya (eighth consciousness,) and vijnanam is like yogacara's sixth consciousness. Would jnanam be like the sensory consciousnesses (the first five consciousness in yogacara?) Where does the "I-making" (yogacara seventh consciousness) fit into this? The Atman?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I don't see how, though it's not unlikely I missed something along the way.

In short, Buddhism has steadfast values. Breaking them to become more inclusive to others can lead to all sorts of degradation.

As Luis and crossfire have detailed repeatedly.

 

[atanu]

I don't know if you know anything about yogacara. Prajnanam would be like yogacara's Alaya (eighth consciousness,) and vijnanam is like yogacara's sixth consciousness. Would jnanam be like the sensory consciousnesses (the first five consciousness in yogacara?) Where does the "I-making" (yogacara seventh consciousness) fit into this?

No Cross, IMO, the Alaya is still the vijnana (the jnana associated with contrasts, with duality). Prajnana is not vijnana. Vijnana rises. Prajnana has no risings. It is revealed on cessation of desires etc.

 

[crossfire]

I don't know if you know anything about yogacara. Prajnanam would be like yogacara's Alaya (eighth consciousness,) and vijnanam is like yogacara's sixth consciousness. Would jnanam be like the sensory consciousnesses (the first five consciousness in yogacara?) Where does the "I-making" (yogacara seventh consciousness) fit into this? The Atman?

Actually, this sorta makes sense. In yogacara, the I-making consciousness is innately fallacious, but can be purified along with the sixth consciousness by the sixth consciousness logically refuting the fallacy of the seventh consciousness. This is one of the ways the concept of anatta is employed in Buddhism: to refute the fallacious assumptions of the I-making (seventh) consciousness. Another aspect of anatta is the tathata experience: appreciation of the uniqueness of each given moment of the ever-changing state of sunyata/interconnectiveness.

 

[atanu]

Actually, this sorta makes sense. In yogacara, the I-making consciousness is innately fallacious, but can be purified along with the sixth consciousness by the sixth consciousness logically refuting the fallacy of the seventh consciousness. This is one of the ways the concept of anatta is employed in Buddhism: to refute the fallacious assumptions of the I-making (seventh) consciousness.

May be. But alaya vijnana is still vijnana. It is not prajnana. But let us give it a burial for the time being.

 

[crossfire]

No Cross, IMO, the Alaya is still the vijnana (the jnana associated with contrasts, with duality). Prajnana is not vijnana. Vijnana rises. Prajnana has no risings. It is revealed on cessation of desires etc.

Alaya is not intellect (the eighth consciousness is not the sixth consciousness) Alaya is associated with non-dual awareness.

Maybe these two systems really don't fit each other.

 

[crossfire]

May be. But alaya vijnana is still vijnana. It is not prajnana. But let us give it a burial for the time being.

Alrighty.

 

[Jainarayan]

In short, Buddhism has steadfast values. Breaking them to become more inclusive to others can lead to all sorts of degradation.

As Luis and crossfire have detailed repeatedly.

Crossfire also stated that she considers anyone who keeps the Four Seals to be Buddhist. I'd say the Four Seals, Three Jewels, Four Noble Truths, Eightfold Path, Six Perfections and Five Precepts are the core of Buddhism. I don't know what "breaking them to become more inclusive to others" refers to. If it's something like animal sacrifice to incorporate some Shakta sects, for example, yes, that's breaking the rules. If "inclusive of others" does not entail violating any of the foregoing, I don't see a problem. With all due respect to them, Crossfire and Luis are not the final arbiters of what constitutes Buddhism and what does not because they also see it through their own lenses, as does even HHDL.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Crossfire also stated that she considers anyone who keeps the Four Seals to be Buddhist. I'd say the Four Seals, Three Jewels, Four Noble Truths, Eightfold Path, Six Perfections and Five Precepts are the core of Buddhism. I don't know what "breaking them to become more inclusive to others" refers to. If it's something like animal sacrifice to incorporate some Shakta sects, for example, yes, that's breaking the rules. If "inclusive of others" does not entail violating any of the foregoing, I don't see a problem. With all due respect to them, Crossfire and Luis are not the final arbiters of what constitutes Buddhism and what does not because they also see it through their own lenses, as does even HHDL.

This entire thread is about violated Anatta, isn't it?

And no, I did not say they were the source of all Buddhist truth or whatever. I was attempting to show that what I have been trying to say can be found in their arguments as well.

Maybe when this is all over with we'll agree with the Baha'i that Buddha was a prophet of the One True God. After all, all we have are dirty lenses.

 

[crossfire]

Crossfire and Luis are not the final arbiters of what constitutes Buddhism and what does not because they also see it through their own lenses, as does even HHDL.

I agree. That's why the four seals were adopted acrossed all of the different schools of Buddhism, long before I came around. It's not about me. It's about what Buddha taught.