Is Buddhism a form of mysticism?

[Papoon]

Holding the view of having no self is just as much a fetter as holding the view of having self.

"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.​

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html

For me, 'self' is shorthand for who or what is experiencing phenomena.

And already I can hear pundits ranting about how the phenomena and the experience are inextricably bundled, etc etc,
blah blah blah
Maha blah
Svaha !

 

[Papoon]

That's a silly position.

Why ?

 

[Papoon]

Because it is arbitrary. Usually, arbitrary /statements/, are reserved for 'purpose' positions/paradigms. ie ,''our guru can't do such and such', so it's impossible,' etc.

sorry, that's a messy analogy, but I think it might work

You are absolutely correct.

It is a messy analogy.

 

[Desert Snake]

You are absolutely correct.

It is a messy analogy.

Lol

 

[Papoon]

I have read some praiseworthy speculations from legiononomamoi. Praiseworthy because they are not dogmatic, serve a didactic purpose, and apply scientific perspective whilst maintaining respect for poetic expression.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

For me, 'self' is shorthand for who or what is experiencing phenomena.

What do you make of this passage from the Bahiya Sutta, which seems to promote the experience of non-duality?

"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Holding the view of having no self is just as much a fetter as holding the view of having self.

Yes, though it's also the case that self-view and the conceit "I am" are fetters, so...?

 

[Papoon]

What do you make of this passage from the Bahiya Sutta, which seems to promote the experience of non-duality?

"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html

Yes, I am familiar with that quote. I am also familiar with that state. Forgive the use of 'I am...' and ',state', LOL.

I take this as meaning no conventionally deluded you there. I.e. without the manas and ahamkara being asserted/active. Not taking aggregates as self entity.

These kind of statements are necessarily approximations. They are useful for indicating what nirvana, freedom from suffering, actually means in real life.

 

[Papoon]

I suggest Moonbeams of Mahamudra by Namgyal ,( I think...will check later,) for further clarification. It is a book used to teach teachers.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

My point was precisely that speculations on self and consciousness make fools of those who speculate.

Indeed, the point is these things need to be carefully observed and investigated. Explored with an open mind. Anatta is a pointer, not a belief to be adopted.

 

[Aupmanyav]

For me, 'self' is shorthand for who or what is experiencing phenomena.
blah blah blah
Maha blah
Svaha !

I think your question has been adequately answered by Crossfire. Once you start on this there is no end. It is OK for us Hindus, we have discussed this non-stop for more than 3,000 years and are not going to stop anytime soon. But Buddha smartly side-stepped it.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Once you start on this there is no end. It is OK for us Hindus, we have discussed non-stop for more than 3,000 years and are not going to stop anytime soon. But Buddha smartly side-stepped it.

Yeah, but you guys have the atman, so it's easier for you.

 

[Papoon]

Moonbeams of Mahamudra, translated by Traleg Rinpoche. It was the book he used to teach his ngondro group, and also the basis of his annual retreat teaching. As he taught and answered our questions, he took notes which informed this translation.
It is a wonderful book.

“In Mahamudra, we meditate on the nature of mind to attain the kind of realization that is genuine, immediate, and uncontaminated by conceptual understandings.” Dakpo Tashi Namgyal

From Shogam.com -

"The Mahamudra path of direct perception is the pre-eminent method of the Dakpo Kagyu tradition. This definitive manual systematically explains its approach to meditation, complete with definitions, pointing-out instructions, and advice for the many pitfalls and errors that beset practitioners. Central to these errors is our failure to acknowledge the difference between understanding and experience, and our tendency to fixate on meditative experiences and mistake them for realisation."

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yeah, but you guys have the atman, so it's easier for you.

We guys also have the Brahman, 'atman' is not always necessary (at least for me).

 

[Papoon]

I think your question has been adequately answered by Crossfire. Once you start on this there is no end. It is OK for us Hindus, we have discussed this non-stop for more than 3,000 years and are not going to stop anytime soon. But Buddha smartly side-stepped it.

I don't recall asking a question, or speculating on the imponderables, in this thread. Perhaps my posts are magically changing in front of your eyes

 

[Rick O'Shez]

We guys also have the Brahman, 'atman' is not always necessary (at least for me).

Brahman and atman, sheer luxury!

 

[Papoon]

Hang on...I did ask q konn "why ?"

 

[Papoon]

We guys also have the Brahman, 'atman' is not always necessary (at least for me).

Not always ?
Now I have asked a question, or at least terminated an observation with a question mark. Please answer if you consider it a question. Or elucidate if you consider it an observation worthy of response,

 

[Aupmanyav]

I don't recall asking a question, or speculating on the imponderables, in this thread. Perhaps my posts are magically changing in front of your eyes

Quote a sutra where Gautama states definitively that there is no self. His consistently misinterpreted teaching is that the aggregates are not self. Anatta. No way does that translate as 'no self'.

You wanted a debate. Buddha said this is useless since it does not help in cessation of sorrow.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Not always ?
Now I have asked a question, or at least terminated an observation with a question mark. Please answer if you consider it a question. Or elucidate if you consider it an observation worthy of response,

Yes, for me it is a question. And the answer is 'Since everything in the universe is/was Brahman, right from the Big-Bang energy ball to the Ganges sand today, there is no need for any additional 'atman', everything is that.'

I reply because I am not a Buddhist. But ideas like Bodhikāyā, Buddha-dhātu or Tathāgatgarbha are there in Buddhism. I do not understand them clearly but that is OK (since I already got Brahman and that is sufficient for me).

Brahman and atman, sheer luxury!

Oh yes, it does not add years to my age. But I can afford it, otherwise I might be carrying bricks on my head.