Atman, Other-Emptiness, and other Buddhists

[crossfire]

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.

This post:

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

This post:

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

...and this post:

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.

All from this thread. You can get the Pali by clicking on the link near the right above the title of each sutta.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

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

As the Heart Sutra says, there's no Nirvana, nothing to attain.

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

Yes, but you seem to assume that non-dualism inherently implies an atman, which is not the case.

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

That's what you're implying. Has the debate finally come full-circle, where you're finally starting to see what the Buddha actually taught?

That I think is the problem.

I had something else in mind. (See Luis' post #307)

 

[atanu]

I am sorry Crossfire. There is no indication of what I asked.

OTOH. The following quote of dreadfish is what we are saying. It is not the vijnana (associated with individual) that is the real seer/knower but it is the prajnana, which being non-dual does not host any individual self.

"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."

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

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

As crossfire pointed out, the suttas are clear. It might be a question you want answered, and have a belief regarding that question/answer, and that's fine. But know it's not what the Buddha taught.

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

I second that.

There were assertions and/or implications that consciousness generated of skandha-s was all that was.

The Buddha taught that consciousness is an aggregate. Then, to further drive the point home, he declared that the consciousness could be divided into six parts, and that they are all aggregate, therefore empty. You may not like it, but it is what the Buddha taught.

 

[atanu]

As the Heart Sutra says, there's no Nirvana, nothing to attain.

That is seeing and teaching.

That's what you're implying. Has the debate finally come full-circle, where you're finally starting to see what the Buddha actually taught?

We had no confusion then and no confusion now.

Although it has been shown time and again that Vijnananam is not the real discernment power, some however still hold that there is no consciousness apart from the skandha-s. That much only I opposed.

And in this regard, since your name sports a word called prajna, I will request you humbly to explain what you mean by it.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

That is seeing and teaching.

Which is necessary in the realm of samsara, but not of nirvana.

Although it has been shown time and again that Vijnananam is not the real discernment power, some however still hold that there is no consciousness apart from the skandha-s. That much only I opposed.

As I pointed out in my previous post, and as others have pointed out on this thread: that is what the Buddha taught. If you have issues with it and believe something else, that is fine. But if you say it's buddhadharma, that's where the issue comes in.

And in this regard, since your name sports a word called prajna, I will request you humbly to explain what you mean by it.

Gnosis.

 

[atanu]

The Buddha taught that consciousness is an aggregate. Then, to further drive the point home, he declared that the consciousness could be divided into six parts, and that they are all aggregate, therefore empty. You may not like it, but it is what the Buddha taught.

That is vijnanam -- the divided consciousness, not prajnanam, which is the subject of so many sutras.

Claiming that vijnana was the only source of knowledge/awareness has led to proliferation of this thread. If vijnana (caused by khandha-s etc.) alone was responsible for knowledge then in khandha- free realm there would be no consciousness and no teaching of those realms.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

not prajnanam, which is the subject of so many sutras.

I'm not sure what you mean by prajnanam. Kindly define it please, then tell us how and where in the sutras your position is supported.

Claiming that vijnana was the only source of knowledge/awareness has led to proliferation of this thread. If vijnana (caused by khandha-s etc.) alone was responsible for knowledge then in khandha- free realm there would be no consciousness and no teaching of those realms.

I think we have different understanding of what vijnana is.

 

[Poeticus]

As I understand it, prajñānām is the genitive plural
of prajña, which means wise, prudent. In relation to
vijñānām, which is the genitive plural of vijña - this
second term refers to a savant, a sage. Both of them
are nouns. However, there are verbs that sound very
similar: prajñā and vijñā. The former means to know,
understand, discern, distinguish, inquire - in relation
to it being a mode of action, of conduct. And, the
latter refers to pretty much the same thing, meaning:
to discern, entertain the thought, distinguish, know,
ascertain, to have the right knowledge*. prajñā is
based around the idea of becoming acquainted with
something, whereas vijñā is more specific - in regards
to learning something in particular.

If I am reading the posts correctly, is Atanu talking
about vyajñāpayiṣyata - to become manifest ?
____________________
* What passes as "right knowledge"? I don't know - it's
subjective, in my opinion.​

 

[Quagmire]

***Mod Post***

Thread closed for review. ​