Is there an observer?

[apophenia]

If there was an observer, this would mean that mind exists separately from phenomena. This is a dualistic view. No observer can be found. It is merely a habit based on an assumption.

Rubbish.

You are contradicting yourself. You are saying that phenomena exist, and that these phenomena are in fact mind. You are most concerned with maintaining an ideal logic -

Well, we have to be careful here. If we say they are discrete, then that means they are individually separate, which would suggest inherent existence. But since all phenomena are impermanent and not self-caused, they cannot be discrete. The same with being one continuous phenomenon. If all phenomena were actually one phenomenon, this would mean that there is some underlying self-caused essence. This goes against Buddhist logic. Well, maybe Buddhist logic is wrong then, but no such essence can be found through direct experience, so there's no reason to assume it exists.

Read carefully, what you are saying here is that your view is determined by what you call Buddhist logic.

This is not realisation speaking - it is a mechanised dialectic.

When challenged as to whether these "phenomena" are discrete or continuous, you find that your logic cannot allow either ! So you call "paradox" and consider that sufficient !

Sloppy.

 

[AnEternalNow]

I had earlier shown this:

Kena Upanishad

II-3. It is known to him to whom It is unknown; he to whom It is known does not know It.

Yes, as I already said, the I AM is not seen as an object of observation but a pure subject. It can however be directly realized and is not an inferrential matter.

 

[atanu]

Yes, as I already said, the I AM is not seen as an object of observation but a pure subject. It can however be directly realized and is not an inferrential matnever experter.

If you are seeing "I Am" you are not seeing it at all. Thus, the same upanishad teaches:

II-1. If you think, ‘I know Brahman rightly’, you have known but little of Brahman’s (true) nature. What you know of His form and what form you know among the gods (too is but little). Therefore Brahman is still to be inquired into by you.

Therefore, I said (as taught by Shri Ramana) that the enquiry should continue in "I AM". In fact, as Ymir said, the "Who Am I?" makes sense only in "I AM".

Ramana teaches that when encountered with the luminous mind, one must enquire.

 

[apophenia]

Different scripture and person has diferrent explanation of the term. "I Am" means the Self for Ramana Maharshi and myself, not mind or ego. It is seen as Turiya.

Turiya = I AM/the Witness. It is seen as the unchanging background behind three states. Then comes Turiyatita, when even the Witness collapses when objectivity is deconstructed. This is One Mind.

What exactly do you mean by the bolded phrase "when objectivity is deconstructed" ?

How is this deconstruction done ? Mentally ? Logically ? Or are you asserting that the deconstruction is 'experiential' ?

 

[EndlessArising]

Rubbish.

You are contradicting yourself. You are saying that phenomena exist, and that these phenomena are in fact mind. You are most concerned with maintaining an ideal logic -


Read carefully, what you are saying here is that your view is determined by what you call Buddhist logic.

This is not realisation speaking - it is a mechanised dialectic.

When challenged as to whether these "phenomena" are discrete or continuous, you find that your logic cannot allow either ! So you call "paradox" and consider that sufficient !

Sloppy.

You're pretty rude. I doubt I'll continue this conversation much longer.

I am telling you what can be actually experienced. The logic is a tool/device to experience directly and also serves as a conceptual description.

Phenomena are neither discrete or continuous, as I tried to explain. The logic does not allow either because neither make sense logically and experientially. Buddhist logic is air tight.

I said: "If all phenomena were actually one phenomenon, this would mean that there is some underlying self-caused essence. This goes against Buddhist logic. Well, maybe Buddhist logic is wrong then, but no such essence can be found through direct experience, so there's no reason to assume it exists."

If there were a self-caused essence, this would go against the logic that everything is caused by everything else and nothing is self caused. IF you insist that this logic is wrong (which the Advaitins do), then you have to find this self-causing essence in your experience. You can't, so there's no reason to assume it exists.

I am not going to spoon feed you. What I said before was pretty clear. What's sloppy is your comprehension. I had the mistaken assumption you were honestly asking questions, but clearly you weren't since you didn't even carefully read what I said.

You are contradicting yourself. You are saying that phenomena exist, and that these phenomena are in fact mind.

There is no contradiction. There is no duality between mind and phenomena. They are not separate.

 

[AnEternalNow]

A couple of observations:

1. How can it be said in same breath that a) All these, the exerienced and the experiencer, are void of essence and b) My path is higher, my realisation has reached the ultimate. My understanding is better and perfect. Is not the latter view/thought a dream, void of any essence?

Originally there is no higher or lower, but a sentient being's delusion is deep - with different levels of dualistic and inherent view obscuring our true nature, the inseparability of luminosity and emptiness. Even having whatever glimpses of pristine awareness is not going to resolve these obscuring views, unable to overcome our ignorance and clinging. There needs to be a number of realization to break through all these views.

Also on an unrelated note, it is better to experience what this Advaita writer said:

http://www.nonduality.com/perfect_brilliant_stillness.htm

After the jungle, there is an intensely odd and very beau-tiful quality to the experience of life. In one sense I can only describe everything, all experience, as having a certain emptiness. This is the sense in which everything used to matter, to be vital and important, and is now seen as unreal, empty, not important, an illusion. Once it is seen that the beyond-brilliance of Sat Chit Ananda is all that is, the dream continues as a kind of shadow. Yet, at the same moment that all of what appears in the dream is experi-enced as empty, it is also seen as more deeply beautiful and perfect than ever imagined, precisely because it is not other than Sat Chit Ananda, than all that is. Everything that does not matter, that is empty illusion, is at the same time itself the beyond-brilliance, the perfect beauty. Somehow there is a balance; these two apparently opposite aspects do not cancel each other out but complement each other. This makes no 'sense,' yet it is how it is.

There is one tradition within Advaita which says that maya, the manifestation of the physical universe, is over-laid or superimposed on Sat Chit Ananda. I'm no scholar of these things, and can only attempt to describe what is seen here; and the Understanding here is that there is no question of one thing superimposed on another. Maya, the manifestation, the physical universe, is precisely Sat Chit Ananda, is not other than it, does not exist on its own as something separate to be overlaid on top of something else. This is the whole point! There is no maya! The only reason it appears to have its own reality and is commonly taken to be real in itself is because of a misperceiving, a mistaken perception which sees the appearance and not What Is. This is the meaning of Huang Po's comment that "no distinction should be made between the Absolute and the sentient world." No distinction! There is only One. There is not ever in any sense two. All perception of distinction and separation, all perception of duality, and all perception of what is known as physical reality, is mind-created illu-sion. When a teacher points at the physical world and says, "All this is maya," what is being said is that what you are seeing is illusion; what all this is is All That Is, pure Being Consciousness Bliss Outpouring; it is your perception of it as a physical world that is maya, illusion.

 

[AnEternalNow]

If you are seeing "I Am" you are not seeing it at all. Thus, the same upanishad teaches:

II-1. If you think, ‘I know Brahman rightly’, you have known but little of Brahman’s (true) nature. What you know of His form and what form you know among the gods (too is but little). Therefore Brahman is still to be inquired into by you.

Therefore, I said (as taught by Shri Ramana) that the enquiry should continue in "I AM". In fact, as Ymir said, the "Who Am I?" makes sense only in "I AM".

Ramana teaches that when encountered with the luminous mind, one must enquire.

There is no dualistic seeing at all. There is no 'I am seeing it'. There is no seer-seeing-seen. There is only BEING. This BEING is simply existence-consciousness-presence, an undoubtable certainty of Being. I wrote this in my book very clearly. What I describe as Self-Realization is exactly what Ramana Maharshi described there.

That is why I said earlier, this I AM is non-dual. But it is then captured as an image, an ultimate background, and you fail to see that every manifestation shares the same 'taste' of non-dual Presence.

 

[atanu]

Originally there is no higher or lower, but a sentient being's delusion is deep -

With that delusion, delusional concepts of "I know the truth" although "There is no I" are created and sustained.

I will prefer to watch you flounder while answering the precise questions of apophenia. You are the villain in the film. And apophenia the protagonist.

opcorn:

 

[Orias]

Namaste,

I am trying to follow Buddhism, and it seems that the most important practice is meditation. But I am confused because when you meditate, as in observe thoughts, there is an observer. But in Buddhism, there is no self in the permanent sense. So I get confused as to who is observing thoughts. This affects my meditation practice.

I'd appreciate some insights on this.

Thanks,
Chisti

When you meditate you are not supposed to think just become a sponge in the wave of your own thoughts.

And I might like to add, there are many constraints that Buddhism and other religions put on such concepts, simply because it is the permanent self that alleviates the non-self.

States of mind, however, are not really permanent.

 

[AnEternalNow]

With that delusion, delusional concepts of "I know the truth" although "There is no I" are created and sustained.

I will prefer to watch you flounder while answering the precise questions of apophenia. You are the villain in the film. And apophenia the protagonist.

opcorn:

I was not talking to apophenia.

"I know the truth" - I wonder where you see me said that? But anyway yes, whever I realized, I have realized and am undoubtable. This is again like I said, merely worldly parlance.

This is what the Buddha said:

Ariyapariyesana Sutta: The Noble Search

'All-vanquishing, all-knowing am I, with regard to all things, unadhering. All-abandoning, released in the ending of craving: having fully known on my own, to whom should I point as my teacher? [4] I have no teacher, and one like me can't be found. In the world with its devas, I have no counterpart. For I am an arahant in the world; I, the unexcelled teacher. I, alone, am rightly self-awakened. Cooled am I, unbound. To set rolling the wheel of Dhamma I go to the city of Kasi. In a world become blind, I beat the drum of the Deathless.'



Notice that "I" is spoken many times by the Buddha who taught anatta, but again like I said and like he said, it is merely worldly parlance. He doesn't see any existing self.

 

[atanu]

I am not talking to apophenia at this moment.

"I know the truth" - I wonder where you see me said that? But anyway yes, whever I realized, I have realized and am undoubtable. This is again like I said, merely worldly parlance.

This is what the Buddha said:

Ariyapariyesana Sutta: The Noble Search

'All-vanquishing, all-knowing am I, with regard to all things, unadhering. All-abandoning, released in the ending of craving: having fully known on my own, to whom should I point as my teacher? [4] I have no teacher, and one like me can't be found. In the world with its devas, I have no counterpart. For I am an arahant in the world; I, the unexcelled teacher. I, alone, am rightly self-awakened. Cooled am I, unbound. To set rolling the wheel of Dhamma I go to the city of Kasi. In a world become blind, I beat the drum of the Deathless.'

Notice that "I" is spoken many times by the Buddha who taught anatta, but again like I said and like he said, it is merely worldly parlance. He doesn't see any existing self.

Take your time man. Had a nice time with you. Now I prefer that you answer questions.

 

[AnEternalNow]

What exactly do you mean by the bolded phrase "when objectivity is deconstructed" ?

How is this deconstruction done ? Mentally ? Logically ? Or are you asserting that the deconstruction is 'experiential' ?

There is teachings that does teach mental, and logical reasoning, and then it comes down to one's own experiential investigation.

Why don't you read Greg Goode's work on the Advaita teacher Sri Atmananda's teachings. There's a book out there called the Direct Path, but here's a short version (taken down from their website because it is a very early article and far than do justice to his work, but nonetheless): Awakening to Reality: The Teachings of Atmananda and the Direct Path

 

[Breathe]

Why would it makes sense for the Buddha to teach that which basically negates all the previous teachings? The Nirvana Sutra only makes sense within its context. It is not actually negating the previous teachings but trying to teach the same principles to eternalists (those who already cling to a true self doctrine). The actual meanings of the words used in the sutra are inverted. It's also a teaching that's useful to nihilists who deny the luminosity or clarity. By saying "there is, in truth, the Self in all phenomena," the sutra is saying that phenomena are luminous.

I thought you would say this. So, you think Buddha is a liar and a manipulator. Okay, cool. Whatever floats your boat. If you have trouble with accepting Buddha was denying "the Self of the common mortal", and think he was a mereological nihilist, that's fine. I disagree, but it's your choice.

"When the Tathagata speaks of Self, in no case are things thus. That is why he says: 'All things have no Self.' Even though he has said that all phenomena [dharmas] are devoid of the Self, it is not that they are completely/ truly devoid of the Self. What is this Self? Any phenomenon [dharma] that is true [satya], real [tattva], eternal [nitya], sovereign/ autonomous/ self-governing [aisvarya], and whose ground/ foundation is unchanging [asraya-aviparinama], is termed 'the Self' [atman]."

Either you misunderstand them, which I think is the case, or they have misunderstandings. Not all teachers are created equal. Tibetans seem to be the most clear in their view. I would consult some Tibetans to clarify if you are interested. Also, the book The Way to Buddhahood by the Venerable Yin-shun is amazing. He's one of the great Chinese Buddhist masters of the modern age.

Or, option c) you have no idea about what I believe and are too focused on terminology, not focusing on skilful means.

Who am I most likely to believe? The ones who have instructed me (who are several) who are ordained, or a few laypeople on the internet who claim to be wiser and more enlightened than the ones who have taught me?

Also, my mentor is from a Tibetan school.

 

[EndlessArising]

I thought you would say this. So, you think Buddha is a liar and a manipulator. Okay, cool. Whatever floats your boat. If you have trouble with accepting Buddha was denying "the Self of the common mortal", and think he was a mereological nihilist, that's fine. I disagree, but it's your choice.

I didn't say Buddha was a liar. This sutra probably has nothing to do with the historical Buddha. Even so, all of the dharma consists merely of methodologies. Of course it's manipulation, but the basis is compassion not some selfish ill will.

Why do you think that no-self is nihilistic? I never denied awareness. I said before that Buddhanature is defined as the union of luminosity and emptiness. Luminosity is another word for awareness.

"When the Tathagata speaks of Self, in no case are things thus. That is why he says: 'All things have no Self.' Even though he has said that all phenomena [dharmas] are devoid of the Self, it is not that they are completely/ truly devoid of the Self. What is this Self? Any phenomenon [dharma] that is true [satya], real [tattva], eternal [nitya], sovereign/ autonomous/ self-governing [aisvarya], and whose ground/ foundation is unchanging [asraya-aviparinama], is termed 'the Self' [atman]."
.

I realize how confusing this sutra can be if you do not see it in context. But honestly, Nirvana Sutra is not better or deeper than other sutras.. and frankly in my experience with many Buddhists and scholars, it has caused a lot of unnecessary confusion. There are much better sutras to study IMO. No sutra is definitive, superceding the rest of the dharma. No matter what any teacher may say. Venerable Yin-shun says this very same thing in his preface to Way to Buddhahood.

I really do think that if there is a certain sutra which contradicts the rest, it is not something deep and profound but a misunderstanding of some sort on your part, and I do not mean that to be an insult. Human existence is full of countless misunderstandings, and no one is immune to that.

Who am I most likely to believe? The ones who have instructed me (who are several) who are ordained, or a few laypeople on the internet who claim to be wiser and more enlightened than the ones who have taught me?

I think you are relying on authority a bit too much and not using your own discernment. Ordained does not mean enlightened, and there are several ordained teachers who have taught contradicting views. You should use your discernment.

Also, my mentor is from a Tibetan school.

A Tibetan who teaches true self? Strange. Well, even Tibetans are human too. For the most part though, Tibetan teachers are very clear, like HH Dalai Lama, Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche, Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche, Traleg Kyabgon Rinpoche, etc. These are recognized masters, and if you study their teachings carefully, you will not find any contradictory views. I guess I should reiterate - Nyingma, Kagyu, Sakya, and Gelugpa Tibetans are very clear in view.

 

[Breathe]

Why do you think that no-self is nihilistic?

Because of how I view Self, and I feel that what passes for anttā now is missing the point.

I really do think that if there is a certain sutra which contradicts the rest, it is not something deep and profound but a misunderstanding of some sort on your part, and I do not mean that to be an insult. Human existence is full of countless misunderstandings, and no one is immune to that.

You're allowed your thoughts. I think you're misunderstanding the meaning, but that's okay.

I think you are relying on authority a bit too much and not using your own discernment. Ordained does not mean enlightened, and there are several ordained teachers who have taught contradicting views. You should use your discernment.

You think wrong.
I also use my discernment. I do not take scriptures as literal or inerrant truths. I am also aware of the time frame that they were written in.

A Tibetan who teaches true self? Strange. Well, even Tibetans are human too.

It's not very ethical to insult people whom you disagree with.

For the most part though, Tibetan teachers are very clear, like HH Dalai Lama, Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche, Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche, Traleg Kyabgon Rinpoche, etc. These are recognized masters, and if you study their teachings carefully, you will not find any contradictory views. I guess I should reiterate - Nyingma, Kagyu, Sakya, and Gelugpa Tibetans are very clear in view.

I don't care for these schools very much.

 

[EndlessArising]

Because of how I view Self, and I feel that what passes for anttā now is missing the point.

Anatta is no different than it was 2500 years ago.

I don't care for these schools very much.

So you care for a fringe minor school and don't care for the main schools? Not sure if you are aware, but it's no secret that Jonang school is seen by majority of Tibetan Buddhists as having wrong view by clinging to inherent Self. Using your discernment, do you think the major Tibetan schools are mistaken? All the great Dzogchen and Mahamudra masters who reject such a view as false are wrong? Do you think the early Buddhist teachings are mistaken also? Was Buddha a nihilist? What about Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti? Shantarak****a? Asanga and Vasubandhu? What about Dogen or Huineng of the Zen tradition? Countless Buddhist masters, including the historical Buddha from the Pali suttas, have taught anatta and rejected any inherent self.

While you hold a minority school to be definitive, I hold the majority of teachers to be definitive. You are of course free to have whatever views you wish, but do not be mistaken: my views are mainstream and not in the minority at all. Don't believe me? Go to Dharmawheel.net, post a thread, and ask around. That forum is full of seasoned practitioners and scholars, both lay and ordained. You will find the majority agreeing with everything I have said.

 

[atanu]

Contrary to what Seyorni says, IMO, the Hindu texts of Upanishads are simpler than most Buddhist texts, especially regarding Consciousness.

Some Buddhists agree.

Spoiler: Three states

http://www.nembutsu.info/hsrconsciousness.htm
Because of the confusions that have arisen from such jargon, which means different things to different psychologists and philosophers, it seems better to use the Indian terms, which possess the advantage of clarity, simplicity, and closeness to natural human experience. So let us rather speak of the waking state (jagrat), in which we are aware of the 'outer' world; the dream state (svapna), in which we are aware of the 'inner' world; and the state of deep dreamless sleep (sushupti), in which we are no longer conscious of the distinction between the outer and the inner worlds but only of their undifferentiated unity. This corresponds to the unqualified Shunyata of Mahayana Buddhism. Finally turiya, which means simply the fourth state, designates that Infinite Consciousness which interpenetrates and subsumes the other three and resists all formulations of word or thought. This corresponds to the Buddhist Bodhi, or Enlightenment, attained by ascending through the hierarchical stages of contemplation. It might be paradoxically described as being fully awake and aware of the images of everything in the Universe while attached to nothing and enjoying the bliss of being fast asleep.

Buddhism developed the concept of 8 Consciousnesses: 5 of senses, ideation, manas, and store-house. All these 8 are vijnAnas, the last one being AlAyavijñAna.

Upanishads, including the oldest Brihadaraynaka and Chandogya, analyse consciousness in terms of three states of existence: waking (jAgrat), dreaming (taijjassa) ), and deep sleep (shUshUpti). The first two states correspond to vijnAnas -- sensual-experiential. The shushupti, however, is not similar. The consciousness in this state is called prajna ghana (dense consciousness). Being dense and being devoid of any contrast, nothing is perceived in this state. But this state carries the seeds that sprout in dreams and in waking state. This state is also called the sarvesvara - all Lord.

Easiest to understand this theme is to study Mandukya Upanishad.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/vedanta-dir/109924-mandukya-upanishad-text.html

I feel that appreciation of differences between waking/dreaming consciousness and the shushupti consciousness is required for deeper appreciation of any scripture. In other words an appreciation of what prajna ghana is goes a long way.

 

[Breathe]

Anatta is no different than it was 2500 years ago.

Allegedly so, anyway. Buddha is alleged to have said his dharma would last 500 years, which would coincide with the creation of the beginning of the sūtras.

While you hold a minority school to be definitive, I hold the majority of teachers to be definitive. You are of course free to have whatever views you wish, but do not be mistaken: my views are mainstream and not in the minority at all

Majority does not automatically equal definitive; just so you are aware. The loudest, even group doesn't automatically become the correct one.

As for joining DharmaWheel, no thanks: why would I bother? I have this forum to hang out on, and I have more enough know-it-alls and enlightened-being-claimants on this forum to last me. I'm aware of what most Buddhists teach as orthodoxy; at no point have I said I'm in the majority, nor do I wish to tell people what they can or cannot believe.

However, I do believe that they are missing the meaning, as I may if I so wish.

 

[atanu]

What is Beyond all coming and going?

 

[atanu]

However, I do believe that they are missing the meaning, as I may if I so wish.

I agree. The view of Endless and Eternal seem to be the minority view.
http://www.rinpoche.com/teachings/buddhanature.htm

Venerable Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche

​

​

The Buddha Nature

The three phases of impurity, both purity and impurity,
And of complete purity are respectively:
(The phases) of beings, Bodhisattvas, and the Tathagatas.
Though this is what is said, Buddhahood is not newly created.
As it was before, it is the same after.
It is the changeless Buddha nature.
The “change” is becoming free of the stains.

If someone has the negative view
That the Buddha qualities have no cause,
Or conceive them not to be within oneself,
But created by external causes and conditions,
What difference is there between that and the eternalist and nihilist views of non-Buddhists?
------
If one states that (wisdom) has attachment for its own appearances,
Then a mirror that has appearances within it
Would (also) have thoughts of attachment
-------
Wisdom is the three permanences:
Permanence of nature is the dharmakaya;
Permanence of continuity is the sambhogakaya;
Uninterruptedness is the nirmanakaya.

There are three impermanences:
Mentally fabricated emptiness is impermanent;
The mind of moving thoughts is impermanent;
The composite six consciousnesses are impermanent.

However, the three permanences are present.
The three impermanences are stains.
The three permanences are wisdom.
-------