Is there an observer?

[Nakosis]

I think all three in some proportions. Three kinds of human conscious states, namely, waking, dreaming, and sleeping are known to everyone. But Mandukya Upanishad teaches that the three states are witnessed by Turiya (fourth) which is one indivisible whole. Mandukya Up. also teaches us that the goal is to know the Turiya.

Do you know the Turiya?

What has been said about it seems to relate to what I experienced. The other three states should be obvious to any human.

I just don't see how man could with any amount of analytical evaluation determine the existence of Turiya.

 

[EndlessArising]

I agree. The view of Endless and Eternal seem to be the minority view.

The view that Buddhism rejects the existence of an inherent seer is not the minority view, lol. I really urge you to go on Dharmawheel.net forum and ask the lay and ordained practitioners there what they think. If it is your contention that I am holding a false and minority view, why not ask some other Buddhists what they think?

 

[YmirGF]

Empty of self does not mean inert or lacking discernment. Knowing is, no knower. Knowing is the vivid cognizance that is empty of substantiality, permanency, independence, self-hood. Cognizant yet empty, empty yet cognizant, the luminosity and emptiness is inseparable. This inseparability of emptiness, luminosity, and uninterrupted appearances is given names like 'Buddha-nature' and so on.

A quaint example of pretzel logic at work.In theory, if there is "knowing" then one cannot say that there is emptiness. Would it be more helpful to say empty of all but knowing? This isn't how I would describe it, but rather an attempt to distill your somewhat clumsy explanation. Likewise, if it is "luminous" then how can it be empty? It's luminous for Pete's sake. Ok, OK, OK... so it is empty aside from being luminous and that sense of knowing... but... it's empty.... aside from those qualities.

You don't need to personally experience the insights of anatta and dependent arising to understand this. It can be understood through studying Buddhist philosophy, like the early teachings which are nicely summarized in the book What the Buddha Taught (can be found free online). The first noble truth is Right View, so it's important to study and understand anatta intellectually.

It is my opinion, that though conceivably helpful (to a point), this idea could simply end up being a coffin. In the long run, it is not helpful to have structured ideas about aspects of reality that are outside the general awareness of the human animal. It is better to have no idea and discern for yourself once you are tantalized by experience.

 

[YmirGF]

The only alternative meaning I can think of is "I exist," which is also a given. I don't see what other revelation there is.

Hmmmm. How to put this. First we are not talking about an "ordinary" experience. The "I AM" state is an emergent state rising out the experience of the void, or emptiness, wherein there is no awareness of self, per se. You are experiencing consciousness at this point from a relatively obscure aspect of being that is not focused on any conventional sense of self that can be discerened.

The "I AM" state, regardless of what others are saying, LOL, emerges from this state as triumphant recognition. It is an exultant, ecstatic, supercharged response in tremendous contrast to the emptiness previously gleaned. The experience is usually accompanied by what can be loosely described as rather spectacular inner fireworks, somewhat like the birth of a new star. In a sense, out of the Void, the individual is "reborn" or "born anew" AS LIGHT/ENERGY. That perspective becomes the focus of "I AM"... as in "I am Energy", "I am Light" (as opposed to "I am a man/woman" or "this body", of which, the individual is only dimly aware of at that point). This sense of "I AM" is in recognition of having existence beyond the confines of the physical realm.

"I exist" could conceivably apply, I suppose, but it never did in my case, lol. This experience directly explains WHAT you are with the added - incredibly expanded - inner senses that were dormant from the conscious perspective prior to the "event". It is only quite awhile after this period of revelry where one begins to ponder "WHO am I" as the individual is usually too immersed in the joy of recognition to give it much thought - at first. The answer to "Who am I" quickly becomes a loaded question in the light of Oneness.

 

[Orias]

All those people who think they will attain awakening withotu understanding Buddha's actual teachings on this subject are deluded.[/I]

This is just complete and utter nonsense.

Do I need to support my position?

 

[no-body]

A quaint example of pretzel logic at work.In theory, if there is "knowing" then one cannot say that there is emptiness. Would it be more helpful to say empty of all but knowing? This isn't how I would describe it, but rather an attempt to distill your somewhat clumsy explanation. Likewise, if it is "luminous" then how can it be empty? It's luminous for Pete's sake. Ok, OK, OK... so it is empty aside from being luminous and that sense of knowing... but... it's empty.... aside from those qualities.

I personally find the word space better than empty. The void illuminates the something.

Anyways mystical language is all pointers and guide posts so there will always be paradoxes and what is correct in some situations might change in others.

 

[Orias]

Language tends to be a mysterious thing, especially if you are unfamiliar with the tongue being spoken.

 

[Twilight Hue]

A quaint example of pretzel logic at work.In theory, if there is "knowing" then one cannot say that there is emptiness. Would it be more helpful to say empty of all but knowing? This isn't how I would describe it, but rather an attempt to distill your somewhat clumsy explanation. Likewise, if it is "luminous" then how can it be empty? It's luminous for Pete's sake. Ok, OK, OK... so it is empty aside from being luminous and that sense of knowing... but... it's empty.... aside from those qualities.


It is my opinion, that though conceivably helpful (to a point), this idea could simply end up being a coffin. In the long run, it is not helpful to have structured ideas about aspects of reality that are outside the general awareness of the human animal. It is better to have no idea and discern for yourself once you are tantalized by experience.

The two rebuttals here alone sums up what is the case firsthand, and effectivly addresses the OP's inquiry.

 

[EndlessArising]

Hmmmm. How to put this. First we are not talking about an "ordinary" experience. The "I AM" state is an emergent state rising out the experience of the void, or emptiness,

You are not talking about Buddhist emptiness, but rather a formless experience.

Greg Goode:

It is easy to misunderstand emptiness by idealizing or reifying it by thinking that it is an absolute, an essence, or a special realm of being or experience. It is not any of those things. It is actually the opposite. It is merely the way things exist, which is without essence or self-standing nature or a substratum of any kind. Here is a list characteristics of emptiness, to help avoid some of the frequent misunderstandings about emptiness, according to the Buddhist Consequentialists:

Emptiness is not a substance
Emptiness is not a substratum or background
Emptiness is not light
Emptiness is not consciousness or awareness
Emptiness is not the Absolute
Emptiness does not exist on its own
Objects do not consist of emptiness
Objects do not arise from emptiness
Emptiness of the "I" does not negate the "I"
Emptiness is not the feeling that results when no objects are appearing to the mind
Meditating on emptiness does not consist of quieting the mind

The "I AM" state, regardless of what others are saying, LOL, emerges from this state as triumphant recognition. It is an exultant, ecstatic, supercharged response in tremendous contrast to the emptiness previously gleaned. The experience is usually accompanied by what can be loosely described as rather spectacular inner fireworks, somewhat like the birth of a new star. In a sense, out of the Void, the individual is "reborn" or "born anew" AS LIGHT/ENERGY. That perspective becomes the focus of "I AM"... as in "I am Energy", "I am Light" (as opposed to "I am a man/woman" or "this body", of which, the individual is only dimly aware of at that point). This sense of "I AM" is in recognition of having existence beyond the confines of the physical realm.

No one is denying your experience. Most people experience it eventually after continued meditation/contemplation. But this realization isn't final, and there is further to go. This is why understanding the dharma is important and not getting stuck in this stage.

[*]3]A quaint example of pretzel logic at work.In theory, if there is "knowing" then one cannot say that there is emptiness.
Would it be more helpful to say empty of all but knowing? This isn't how I would describe it, but rather an attempt to distill your somewhat clumsy explanation. Likewise, if it is "luminous" then how can it be empty? It's luminous for Pete's sake. Ok, OK, OK... so it is empty aside from being luminous and that sense of knowing... but... it's empty.... aside from those qualities.

Empty does not mean absent or nothing or lacking in attributes or properties. It means lacking inherent existence. i.e. nothing whatsoever, even non-things like mental states are self-caused, self existing, and independent

It is my opinion, that though conceivably helpful (to a point), this idea could simply end up being a coffin. In the long run, it is not helpful to have structured ideas about aspects of reality that are outside the general awareness of the human animal. It is better to have no idea and discern for yourself once you are tantalized by experience.

Anatta and emptiness are not merely structures. In the end, reality is completely beyond concepts. But right view is important since it serves as a mental deconstruction. The two non-verbal mental habits are dualism and inherency. Right view eradicates both habits so that clear seeing can occur.

 

[YmirGF]

You are not talking about Buddhist emptiness, but rather a formless experience.

I see. How terribly edifying.

Greg Goode:

It is easy to misunderstand emptiness by idealizing or reifying it by thinking that it is an absolute, an essence, or a special realm of being or experience. It is not any of those things. It is actually the opposite. It is merely the way things exist, which is without essence or self-standing nature or a substratum of any kind. Here is a list characteristics of emptiness, to help avoid some of the frequent misunderstandings about emptiness, according to the Buddhist Consequentialists:

Emptiness is not a substance
Emptiness is not a substratum or background
Emptiness is not light
Emptiness is not consciousness or awareness
Emptiness is not the Absolute
Emptiness does not exist on its own
Objects do not consist of emptiness
Objects do not arise from emptiness
Emptiness of the "I" does not negate the "I"
Emptiness is not the feeling that results when no objects are appearing to the mind
Meditating on emptiness does not consist of quieting the mind

This, in a nutshell, is the kind of "thinking" that explains my growing disdain of Buddhist "thought".

No one is denying your experience. Most people experience it eventually after continued meditation/contemplation. But this realization isn't final, and there is further to go. This is why understanding the dharma is important and not getting stuck in this stage.

I rather expect that most individuals would see this on their own without the need for a roadmap.

Empty does not mean absent or nothing or lacking in attributes or properties. It means lacking inherent existence. i.e. nothing whatsoever, even non-things like mental states are self-caused, self existing, and independent

I'm afraid that you are clutching at straws. Your thinking might actually get quite interesting once you toss out the Buddhist dogma.

Right view eradicates both habits so that clear seeing can occur.

Reality is interesting in that it will warp itself to however you wish to view it.

 

[apophenia]

Anatta and emptiness are not merely structures. In the end, reality is completely beyond concepts. But right view is important since it serves as a mental deconstruction. The two non-verbal mental habits are dualism and inherency. Right view eradicates both habits so that clear seeing can occur.

Your explanation of emptiness is too wordy, which generates confusion.

Emptiness means relativity.

A simple example is up and down as I suggested in a lighthearted way earlier - there is no inherent quality or object of up or down, the terms are always relative. That is what emptiness means in buddhist philosophy.

I used the comedy of Firesign Theatre to express this - "That's not the sun going down, it's the horizon moving up !"

Labouring the point does nothing to clarify such a simple meaning.

Similarly with anatta - keep it simple son. Use a mundane example like a car - there is no inherently existing object called 'car', it is a compound of wheels, motor, gearbox etc.

Attachment to ancient scripture can lead to obscuration of very simple ideas, not because the scripture is wrong, but because of the accretions by association with varieties of metaphysical arguments over centuries. If it can be said in simple English, say it in simple English. And it can be said in simple English.

Meanwhile, on the subject of clear seeing, there are some things which you are not seeing clearly at all. Whilst you have a basic grasp of the notions of emptiness and anatta, you seem to have very undeveloped social sensitivities. You may have noticed that you are getting little or no support for your posts. Perhaps you are entirely unaware of why this is, so to help you along, I will explain the situation to you.

Religiousforums (RF) is a social forum. There is discussion of most every kind of belief and religion here. There are some fundamentals of etiquette observed, and generally, unlike many social forums, the folk here are accustomed to being tolerant and sharing their ideas within the context of mutually enjoyable conversation. Proselytising is not welcome, although to some degree of course unavoidable, humans being humans.

You arrived here on April 23, and so far have not spent any time getting to know the community, nor presenting the ordinary human aspect of your existence so that the community may get to know you. You have basically presented as though you are now the resident guru giving darshan.

I haven't communicated about this with any other posters, because, like them, I have been watching to see where this position you have taken will lead. It has led to a pointless argument. The argument is not so much about dharma IMO, it is about a response to what is seen as your antisocial arrogance.

What is revealing to me personally here is that you have not sensed correctly what my understanding is, or attempted to understand what motivates the kind of questions and comments which I have posted.

You are so eager to achieve victory in debate and establish yourself as an authority that you have made no attempt to engage me in a serious discussion, which would include spending some time considering my points and what may motivate the form of expression I have chosen. Rather, your responses are all reflex action, and often quite condescending and patronising. And after all that condescension you called me rude, and suggested that you may stop communicating with me ! Ah, the irony ...

Just FYI, my root lama is Beru Khyentse Rinpoche, I studied Mahamudra with Traleg Rinpoche, and along the way received Dzogchen teachings from Ponlop Rinpoche, and teachings and empowerments from Ribur Rinpoche, Ringu Tulku, Tulku Pema Wangyal and others in the Tibetan tradition. I have also studied with Theravadin teachers, notably Ayya Khema.

I am not uneducated in buddhist theory, and have been a meditator since well before you were born. So you are not establishing any goodwill or empathetic connection by attempting to teach your grandfather to suck eggs.

A red light turns on when someone is claiming understanding of Transcendent Reality, but has no clue about ordinary human communication.

I hope this advice helps you to achieve some insight.

Tashe delek

 

[YmirGF]

I am not uneducated in buddhist theory, and have been a meditator since well before you were born.

I chuckled when I saw this, as I almost wrote earlier that I had "been at this" for 16 years longer than he has been alive, this time around.

So you are not establishing any goodwill or empathetic connection by attempting to teach your grandfather to suck eggs.

*snort* Again, I almost wrote earlier, "you seek to instruct me?"

ROTFLMAO...

A red light turns on when someone is claiming understanding of Transcendent Reality, but has no clue about ordinary human communication.

Someone mentioned earlier that the real sign of a seasoned vet is that they can describe complex things in plain, simple language and I would add, that they also tend not to blow a gasket when others disagree. Not that he has, but he does get a bit lippy on occasion.

I hope this advice helps you to achieve some insight.

Awesome post, apophenia -- as usual...
: hamster :: hamster :: hamster :
​

 

[atanu]

Do you know the Turiya?

What has been said about it seems to relate to what I experienced. The other three states should be obvious to any human.

I just don't see how man could with any amount of analytical evaluation determine the existence of Turiya.

All beings are experiencing Turiya all the time. Turiya actually cannot be experienced and talked about. But just as we tell about deep sleep, I sense that Turiya can also be told about. If you read Mandukya Upanishad a few times, you will see that indeed a lot can be understood mentally that can help one to meditate towards the goal called Turiya, which is goal as taught in the upanishad. Knowledge of Turiya, the upanishad says, confers deathlessness (And, no, I do not know it ).

Before realising Turiya, one has to settle in prajna, which is homegeneous and empty because of dense awareness, devoid of any contrast. IOW, one must abide in differenceless prajna ghana. And here I feel that the prajnaparamita and vedantic prajna ghana teachings/meditations have similarities and similar goal, although at surface the upAyAs always will have differences.

Whatever name we may give to the primeval changeless wisdom (which is not being denied in at least the Mahayana schools), it does not change its nature and become different for different people -- except in people's minds, perhaps. And removal of these mental fabrications is the goal in Buddhism and in Hindusim (and I believe in other isms also).

 

[atanu]

All beings are experiencing Turiya all the time. Turiya actually cannot be experienced and talked about. But just as we tell about deep sleep, I sense that Turiya can also be told about. If you read Mandukya Upanishad a few times, you will see that indeed a lot can be understood mentally that can help one to meditate towards the goal called Turiya, which is goal as taught in the upanishad. Knowledge of Turiya, the upanishad says confers deathlessness (And, no, I do not know it ).

Before realising Turiya, one has to settle in prajna, which is homegeneous and empty because of dense awareness, devoid of any contrast. IOW, one must abide in differenceless prajna ghana. And here I feel that the prajnaparamita and vedantic prajna ghana teachings/meditations have similarities and similar goal, although at surface the upAyAs always will have differences.

Whatever name we may give to the primeval changeless wisdom (which is not being denied in at least the Mahayana schools), it does not change its nature and become different for different people -- except in people's minds, perhaps. And removal of these mental fabrications is the goal in Buddhism and in Hindusim (and I believe in other isms also).

Just wished to add:

Ghana means dense. prajna ghana means dense awareness without any contrast. Being devoid of contrast, nothing is sensed but it is unbroken light. This dense awareness gives rise dreams, as per pre-dilections, wherein the unbroken light becomes light-shadow (subject-object). In dream, the creation begins.

One can only strive to meditate the prajna ghana. Turiya is beyond effort.

 

[atanu]

Emptiness means relativity.

A simple example is up and down as I suggested in a lighthearted way earlier - there is no inherent quality or object of up or down, the terms are always relative. That is what emptiness means in buddhist philosophy.

I used the comedy of Firesign Theatre to express this - "That's not the sun going down, it's the horizon moving up !"

Lucid explanation. :clap

Now. Is the knowing (that all phenomenon is realtive) also relative?

 

[atanu]

Spoiler: The essence

Venerable Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche


The Buddha Nature​

Instructions on


A Treatise entitled: “A Teaching on the Essence of the Tathagatas (The Tathagatagarbha)”


by the Third Karmapa, Rangjung Dorje,


according to


An Illumination of the Thoughts of Rangjung (Dorje):


A Commentary to “The Treatise that Teaches the Buddha Nature”


by Jamgon Kongtrul Lodro Thaye the Great


Translated from Tibetan by Peter Roberts​

“All beings are Buddhas,
But obscured by incidental stains.
When those have been removed, there is Buddhahood.”
That is a quotation from Tantra.
-----
Three permanences

The permanent essence: the dharmakaya

The essence of the dharmakaya is permanent. The wisdom of the Buddha nature is changeless, always has been, from the time of an ordinary state of mind until realization of the dharmakaya arose for an individual who worked to worthy himself or herself. And the dharmakaya remains changeless until samsara is fully exhausted of sorrow and want.
Permanence is usually a topic of refutation in Buddhist treatises and texts, so one may wonder whether speaking about permanence of the dharmakaya in a Mahayana text isn’t a contradiction. But, the dharmakaya is not a thing; it is not fragmented. Its nature is dharmadhatu that transcends all conceptualisations of being existent, non-existent, both, and neither. Thus its nature is permanent, whereas the nature of the form kayas is not. Does this mean that the form kayas are impermanent and without an essence? No. They have qualities of permanence too.

Atman/Brahman is not fragmented. It is to be known as neither the existence nor the non-existence. It is not an object that can be grasped. It is that which grasps.

Despite all protests, I cannot see any difference. And how could it be? The essence will not change as per mind's sweet wish. Mind's sweet wish is OTOH dependent on it. Shadow cannot in reality change the light, although shadow exists because of light.

 

[atanu]

Similarly with anatta - keep it simple son. Use a mundane example like a car - there is no inherently existing object called 'car', it is a compound of wheels, motor, gearbox etc.

So, do we say that parts precede the whole?

 

[apophenia]

So, do we say that parts precede the whole?

I am a kinda-loony yogi, so I say the soul is greater than the hum of its parts.

Actually, I stole that from Douglas Hofstadter.

Generally speaking though, I engage in profound philosophy as little as possible.

 

[Straw Dog]

One good thing I can say about this debate/ discussion is that it is more interesting than many other topics. It's kind of a nice change from the usually dominant debates about God and the Abrahamic faiths, not that some of them aren't interesting as well, but you know what I mean.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It is easy to misunderstand emptiness by idealizing or reifying it by thinking that it is an absolute, an essence, or a special realm of being or experience. It is not any of those things. It is actually the opposite. It is merely the way things exist, which is without essence or self-standing nature or a substratum of any kind. Here is a list characteristics of emptiness, to help avoid some of the frequent misunderstandings about emptiness, according to the Buddhist Consequentialists:Emptiness is not a substanceEmptiness is not a substratum or backgroundEmptiness is not lightEmptiness is not consciousness or awarenessEmptiness is not the AbsoluteEmptiness does not exist on its ownObjects do not consist of emptinessObjects do not arise from emptinessEmptiness of the "I" does not negate the "I"Emptiness is not the feeling that results when no objects are appearing to the mindMeditating on emptiness does not consist of quieting the mind.

This is a very poor intellectulation on emptiness. It indicates a notable lack of insight here by way this is worded.

The Heart Sutra and a bell is all that is required to avoid misunderstanding.