Could Nothingness Be Another Dimension In And Of Itself?

[Rick O'Shez]

Some of the religious teachings confirm my own insight as being correct.

It's very clear that you have no insight, just a strong attachment to your beliefs.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I said that the suttas indicate a number of different consciousnesses.

They are all dependently arising and conditional. You are just scrabbling around here, your ego can't allow you to admit that you are wrong and misguided.

 

[godnotgod]

I think we've talked before about your tendency to project.

Oh, you mean project stupid idiotic ideas, such as 'new age hinduism'?

 

[godnotgod]

They are all dependently arising and conditional.

So you admit there are several, as I stated, and which the link discusses.

 

[godnotgod]

They are all dependently arising and conditional.

Apparently you have a problem with reading comprehension: consciousnessess that are dependently arising and conditional are those of perceptual reality; that by which the Buddha recognizes them as such is via Ultimate Reality.

 

[godnotgod]

It's very clear that you have no insight, just a strong attachment to your beliefs.

This is just so much knee jerky hot air.

Answer the question: Was the Buddha's enlightenment an experience in consciousness?

You can't, because your tradition hasn't the scope required to know what this is about, as Mahayana does.

 

[godnotgod]

W.Y. Evans-Wentz in his pioneering book on Dzogchen, The Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation (1954), writes, "Our present treatise, attributed to Padmasambhava, which expounds the method of realizing the Great Liberation of Nirvana by yogic understanding of the One Mind, appertains to the Doctrine of the Great Perfection of the Dhyana School.
Between it and the Treatise on Achieving Pure Consciousness (Ch'eng Wei Shih Lun) upon which the Pure Consciousness Sect of China is based, there is a very close doctrinal relationship. Both treatises alike set forth the doctrine that the only reality is mind or consciousness, and that no living thing has individualized existence, but is fundamentally in eternal and inseparable at-one-ment with the universal All-consciousness."

http://vajranatha.com/articles/dzogchen-chinese-buddhism-and-the-universal-mind.html

Here, in a nutshell, is precisely what the Buddha stated as regards self as being empty of abiding nature, or 'individualized existence', (ie 'Sunyata') and so it follows that if there is no self, or individualized existence, the only other possibility is that consciousness is universal in nature.

There is really no conflict amongst the various teachings as Spiny would have it. You just have to know how to read them. The only conflict is within the conditioned mind, which clings to this idea or that. Universal Mind is not conditioned mind. It is Unborn, Ungrown, and Uncondtioned.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So you admit there are several, as I stated, and which the link discusses.

It's just another red herring. The point is that in the Buddhist suttas consciousness is always dependently arising and conditional, that is confirmed by the Heart Sutra which is probably the best-known Mahayana teaching.
So in Buddhist teaching consciousness is not a fundamental property of the universe as you are trying to suggest. As I said your beliefs are much more in line with Advaita than Buddhism, so I'm still puzzled as to why you would even want to drag Buddhist ideas into your muddled new-age Hindu bodge-up.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Apparently you have a problem with reading comprehension: consciousnessess that are dependently arising and conditional are those of perceptual reality; that by which the Buddha recognizes them as such is via Ultimate Reality.

Nonsense, you're just making stuff up again. I can always tell because you use one of those PPNs ( Pretentious Proper Nouns ). You haven't a clue what "Ultimate Reality" is, it's just another of your meaningless buzz-word cliches, something to hide behind.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

http://vajranatha.com/articles/dzogchen-chinese-buddhism-and-the-universal-mind.html

Have you actually practised in Dzogchen and Tibetan Buddhist schools? I have, and this is a load of obscure, convoluted nonsense. Again you're just scrabbling around in desperation, anything but admit that Buddhism doesn't support your pseudo-Hindu beliefs. Trying to pretend that Buddhism is that same as Hinduism, which it clearly is not. Trying to twist Buddhist teachings to suit your agenda. It's tiresome and boring.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Oh, you mean project stupid idiotic ideas, such as 'new age hinduism'?

Well, that is what you are doing. Unfortunately it seems that you haven't the self-awareness to understand your own beliefs and attachments. Though it is all rather a muddle.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Was the Buddha's enlightenment an experience in consciousness?

It's a meaningless question.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You can't, because your tradition hasn't the scope required to know what this is about, as Mahayana does.

I have practised in all the main Buddhist schools over the last 35 years, and I'm tired of your misrepresentations and silly games.

Back onto ignore you go.

 

[godnotgod]

I have practised in all the main Buddhist schools over the last 35 years,

So why do you continue to cling to ignorance? Any real Buddhist can tell you that how many years one has practiced is completely irrelevant.

Apparently you jump from one teaching to the other, thinking that the grass must be a bit greener just on the other side of that hill. What you fail to realize is that Buddhism is not about accumulation of knowledge, but the shedding of attachments.

Your ego just wants to let everyone know how wise you must be to have spent so many years in your search, never realizing that what you seek is right under your nose.

Jack of all Trades, master of none. Better for you that you focus on a single blade of grass as your guru.

 

[godnotgod]

It's a meaningless question.

Sure, because you haven't a clue. Actually, you do, but choose instead to ignore (as in 'ignorance') the moon in favor of the pointing finger. There is a reason why you do this; I know why, but you still don't. Once you find out, you will be liberated. Until then, you will never see the moon.

 

[godnotgod]

Well, that is what you are doing. Unfortunately it seems that you haven't the self-awareness to understand your own beliefs and attachments. Though it is all rather a muddle.

You call it a 'muddle' since that is what is in your own mind. You see differences; divisions; whereas I see relationships, all of which comprise The One. Your mind is a compartmentalized entity seeing only 'this' and 'that' and as such, is still steeped in duality.

 

[godnotgod]

...this is a load of obscure, convoluted nonsense. ...

Obscure to you, maybe; clear as a bell to me, as I have pointed out that what the Buddha said and what Wentz is saying re: Dzogchen is exactly the same thing. You, OTOH, have pointed out nothing because you choose to stick your head in the sand in total ignorance, refusing to admit the bare truth.

Trying to pretend that Buddhism is that same as Hinduism, which it clearly is not.

You have misunderstood completely: I have never, ever said that they are the same. Only a simpleton would come to that conclusion in light of everything I HAVE said.

You may go to your room, now, but there will be no pudding for desert. Remain there until you receive further instructions.

 

[godnotgod]

Nonsense, you're just making stuff up again. You haven't a clue what "Ultimate Reality" is, it's just another of your meaningless buzz-word cliches, something to hide behind.

You, who claims 35 years in Buddhism, are ignorant of what anyone who is on the spiritual path would know about, again a clue to your narrow, provincial, stagnant backwater Hinayanist views.

"Religions denote Ultimate Reality in various ways. If one contrasts the personal God of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism with the impersonal Absolute of Hindu Vedanta, one may infer that each religion has its distinctive way of apprehending the Absolute. However, it is more accurate to consider a variety of images of the Absolute even though important distinctions are to be made between similar images in different religions. A seven-part typology is helpful for understanding how these passages from various scriptures have been put together.

First, we may speak of one image of Ultimate Reality as a personal God; this image is central to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, and to the theistic traditions of Hinduism. Second, there is the image of Ultimate Reality as an impersonal transcendent Being, the ultimate source of all existence: this is Brahman in some Hindu traditions, the Primal Unity or Tao of Chinese tradition, the Christian philosophical image of God as the Unmoved Mover, the Sikh One Without Attributes, the Mahayana Buddhist concept of Suchness (Tathata). Third, there is also an image of Ultimate Reality as immanent within each person: this is the Hindu Atman which has an eternal substance, the Mahayana Buddhist Enlightening Mind or Buddha Mind (bodhi) or Womb of the Tathagata (tathagatagharba) which dwells in Liberation and has no substance, and Christian concepts of the indwelling Spirit. Fourth is an image of Ultimate Reality as the ultimate goal or blessed state; here is the Buddhist goal of Liberation ( Nirvana) an d the Jain ideal of the soul in its most purified, divine stage (paramatman). Fifth, religions which recognize many spiritual beings may image Ultimate Reality as their common solidarity which works with a single purpose: the Shinto kami and the Taoist deities and the Native American spirits (Sioux: wakan) may be called "Heaven" or "divinity" in the singular. Yet a sixth image establishes Ultimate Reality based upon the manifestation of the Founder; this is the Buddhist image of the Absolute as the Buddha in his eternal, cosmic manifestation (Dharmakaya), the Christian image of the cosmic Christ on his heavenly throne, as in the Book of Revelation, or again the Jain paramatman as revealed through the Tirthankara. Finally, Ultimate Reality may be depicted as eternal law, as Hindu Dharma or Rita, Taoism's Tao, Buddhist Dhamma, Christianity's Word (logos), Jewish Torah, etc.

Although this typology can distinguish the several different ways of imaging Ultimate Reality, in fact the concepts typically overlap."

http://www.unification.net/ws/intch1.htm

There. You see? Not' making stuff up', as you claim. If you want to see the Sun, you've got to come out of your cave.

 

[godnotgod]

It's just another red herring. The point is that in the Buddhist suttas consciousness is always dependently arising and conditional, that is confirmed by the Heart Sutra which is probably the best-known Mahayana teaching.
.

I don't disagree, but what you fail to understand is how the Buddha is able to recognize them as being what they are, and why he is The Buddha, and others are not.

 

[Runewolf1973]

How do the "higher illusions" appear out of pure nothingness?