Universal Atman in Buddhism

Recommend, review and discuss dharma books here.
Bakmoon
Posts: 746
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 12:31 am

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by Bakmoon » Wed Aug 26, 2015 8:53 pm

Matt J wrote:No, that is a logical error. The pot depends on the clay, but the clay does not depend on the pot. The clay would still exist whether or not anyone ever made a pot out of it. Also, the clay that forms the pot can be re-arranged to form a plate, a bowl, a little rabbit, or whatever.

That is true of the clay before the clay is made into a pot, and if the clay is made into something else that is true, but if we are considering a specific pot made out of clay, they both depend on one another at the particular time when the clay is made into a pot.

Consider this. Given such a clay pot, is the clay something that is different from the pot or is it the same as the pot? If it is different than the pot, then one should be able to give a definition to identify the clay of the pot in such a way that all of the clay is included in the definition, while at the same time excluding the pot itself. If the clay is the same as the pot, then that means that the pot and the clay are different ways of referencing the same thing, and so they both depend on one another because it is trivial that a thing depends on itself.

User avatar
Kaccāni
Posts: 1083
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:03 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by Kaccāni » Thu Aug 27, 2015 12:03 am

The question is more: Does the pot depend on the clay, or does the pot depend on the action of the potter. The first is a materialist view, the second a constructive view.

Best wishes
Kc
Shush! I'm doing nose-picking practice!

User avatar
Kaccāni
Posts: 1083
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:03 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by Kaccāni » Thu Aug 27, 2015 12:14 am

Malcolm wrote: Vedanta's roots are Samkhya. It never really manages to escape those roots, which is why is never really manages to overcome the Madhyamaka refutation of satkaryavāda — even though this point of view was rejected by Gaudapada in favor of ajativāda, which he borrowed from Madhyamaka.
Hello Malcolm,

Do you follow King's interpretation, that ajativada in the vedanta stands for the negatin of creation and assertion of the absolute reality, but in Buddhism the same term only negates creation?

Best wishes
Kc
Shush! I'm doing nose-picking practice!

Bakmoon
Posts: 746
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 12:31 am

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by Bakmoon » Thu Aug 27, 2015 1:51 am

Kaccāni wrote:The question is more: Does the pot depend on the clay, or does the pot depend on the action of the potter. The first is a materialist view, the second a constructive view.
Both. The clay is the material condition of the pot, and the action of the potter in forming it is the efficient condition.

User avatar
Kaccāni
Posts: 1083
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:03 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by Kaccāni » Thu Aug 27, 2015 2:03 am

Bakmoon wrote:Both. The clay is the material condition of the pot, and the action of the potter in forming it is the efficient condition.
That still is a dual, materialist view. If it then existed, it would have to go away by liberation into non-duality. But some of it doesn't.

Best wishes
Kc
Shush! I'm doing nose-picking practice!

User avatar
Kaccāni
Posts: 1083
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:03 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by Kaccāni » Thu Aug 27, 2015 4:05 am

On another note:

In the Baghavad Gita, Krsna somewhat supersedes Brahman, and is said to have an upper and lower nature.

Particularly, "Great Brahman is to me a womb. In it I place the seed: from this derives the origin of all contingent beings."

Would you say this view upon Brahman is similar to that what is the "ground" in dzogchen?

Best wishes
Kc
Shush! I'm doing nose-picking practice!

muni
Posts: 4303
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by muni » Thu Aug 27, 2015 9:07 am

I wanted to answer on the question whether similar or not, but I am stuck with " similar".

I found a small note in my mess yesterday and have it here now on my small desk what I share with my cat: " When we recognize the groundless rootless open essence of all thoughts, appearances and phenomena, realisation blooms naturally."

Okay, sounds good........at least it sounds so.

Then comparing what, when Dzogchen is that all embracing groundless rootless open essence itself ( self, oops) and not the thoughts about that groundless all embracing open essence?

In order to compare Dzogchen with Brahman it must be somehow apart. Conventionally seen they are of course, as appearances-phenomena.
Is there "another nondual nature, which is wrong"? I guess that must be a fabricated nondual nature and fabricated is seen by a subject which fabricates an object and this is dual, not? Who is seeing this? Is Brahman a self? Then again it cannot be nondual since a self needs a subject-object and the action of seeing that. And it is nondual?

When Dzogchen is all embracing not fabricated or cultivated, all is by that pure, perfect and no any judgement can improve 'anything'....then what is comparing what?
Sorry, I am lost...
"Great Brahman is to me a womb. In it I place the seed: from this derives the origin of all contingent beings."
Here I see somehow nondual expression. Can that womb be a thing, can it be a mental creation, which does not allow the freedom of subject and its object womb?
Last edited by muni on Thu Aug 27, 2015 9:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
Buddha said all is empty like my brain.
Let’s make a selfie!

Having meditated on love and compassion, I forgot the difference between myself and others. Yogi Milarepa.

User avatar
Ayu
Former staff member
Posts: 6789
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:25 am
Location: Europe

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by Ayu » Thu Aug 27, 2015 9:26 am

When I was in this hinduist group, I was told Brahma is the origin and the ground of everything, in the sence of being within everything, beyond the superconcious mind. Similar to Buddhanature, I think. But they didn't have the idea to negate a self.

There once was an empty cooking pot standing on the stove and my hungry husband lifted the lid and asked: "What is inside?" After having a look he answered his own question: "Brahma!"
He was right, I thought. :twothumbsup:
I have decided to stick with love.
Hate is too great a burden to bear.
- Martin Luther King, Jr. -

muni
Posts: 4303
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by muni » Thu Aug 27, 2015 9:30 am

But they didn't have the idea to negate a self.
Who is negating a self? :smile:
Buddha said all is empty like my brain.
Let’s make a selfie!

Having meditated on love and compassion, I forgot the difference between myself and others. Yogi Milarepa.

muni
Posts: 4303
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by muni » Thu Aug 27, 2015 11:32 am

I heard once "a negation of a non-existence" has only value by somehow believing in the idea of own self. Furthermore no value.
Buddha said all is empty like my brain.
Let’s make a selfie!

Having meditated on love and compassion, I forgot the difference between myself and others. Yogi Milarepa.

User avatar
anjali
Global Moderator
Posts: 1225
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:33 pm

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by anjali » Thu Aug 27, 2015 12:04 pm

muni wrote:Is there "another nondual nature, which is wrong"?
I would say not wrong, but incomplete. As a Zen saying goes, If everything returns to the One, what does the One return to? One can eliminate the fixation on self and other, reaching a non-dual state, but ignorance can still remain regarding the primordial nature of the non-dual state.

muni
Posts: 4303
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by muni » Thu Aug 27, 2015 12:29 pm

anjali wrote:
muni wrote:Is there "another nondual nature, which is wrong"?
I would say not wrong, but incomplete. As a Zen saying goes, If everything returns to the One, what does the One return to? One can eliminate the fixation on self and other, reaching a non-dual state, but ignorance can still remain regarding the primordial nature of the non-dual state.
Thank you, Anjali. "If everything returns to the One, what does the One return to?" If there is a mental answer where is the problem? If this blows not all mental actions, there is a problem.

Guru Rinpoche said we need a dharma beyond fabrications, beyond indication, beyond explanation and beyond cultivation. Only then enlightenment is possible. Then why we grasp to conventionalities, why we compare with other conventionalities? Okay I am sure this was not what KC meant. But why we compare recipes and seek faults in other recipes? I sometimes think we hold our samsara so dearly.

How that Brahman is understood? When it is a One, what One? All and all is an unmoving rock?

The incompleteness can only be by the individual, whatever misunderstanding there is, is by clinging.

How can the nondual nature of “own nature and the nature of all phenomena” be other than inexpressible? As primordial?

:anjali:
Buddha said all is empty like my brain.
Let’s make a selfie!

Having meditated on love and compassion, I forgot the difference between myself and others. Yogi Milarepa.

krodha
Posts: 2170
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by krodha » Thu Aug 27, 2015 2:35 pm

The basis [gzhi] in Dzogpachenpo and the Brahman of Vedanta are nothing alike. Anyone who says they are is unfortunately uneducated on the subject.

krodha
Posts: 2170
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by krodha » Thu Aug 27, 2015 2:36 pm

muni wrote:I wanted to answer on the question whether similar or not, but I am stuck with " similar".
An unfortunate misconception.

User avatar
Karma Dondrup Tashi
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:13 pm

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by Karma Dondrup Tashi » Thu Aug 27, 2015 2:47 pm

Mahayana emptiness is nothing like that either.

User avatar
Matt J
Posts: 636
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:29 am

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by Matt J » Thu Aug 27, 2015 3:17 pm

Others made a similar objection to Shankara in his day. His reply:
For as between the illustration and the thing illustrated, nobody can show equality in every respect over and above some point of similarity in some way, which is sought to be represented. For if such an all-round similarity exists, the very relation between the illustration and the thing illustrated will fall through.
--- Brahma Sutra Bhasya: III.ii.19, 20

Usually when Advaitins focus on the unconditioned, they use analogies related to space.
Malcolm wrote:
Matt J wrote:No, that is a logical error. The pot depends on the clay, but the clay does not depend on the pot. The clay would still exist whether or not anyone ever made a pot out of it.
The clay itself also depends on causes and conditions and is composed of the four elements whether or not it is ever made into a pot.

In other words the analogy fails because clay is conditioned, thus it cannot be used an an example of an unconditioned entity forming the substrate for conditioned entity.
The Great Way is not difficult
If only there is no picking or choosing
--- Xin Xin Ming

User avatar
Matt J
Posts: 636
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:29 am

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by Matt J » Thu Aug 27, 2015 3:22 pm

I think they understand it (at least the later masters), rejected it, and assimilated certain parts of it.
asunthatneversets wrote: A genuine view of dependent origination does not place consciousness as primary. Dependent origination does not advocate for a unilateral dependency, but rather bilateral dependencies which turn out to be implications more than anything truly valid.

If one is attempting to implement the view of dependent origination in order to arrive at a position where consciousness is "primary" then they have failed to understand dependent origination.
The Great Way is not difficult
If only there is no picking or choosing
--- Xin Xin Ming

User avatar
Kaccāni
Posts: 1083
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:03 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by Kaccāni » Thu Aug 27, 2015 3:33 pm

anjali wrote:
muni wrote:Is there "another nondual nature, which is wrong"?
I would say not wrong, but incomplete. As a Zen saying goes, If everything returns to the One, what does the One return to? One can eliminate the fixation on self and other, reaching a non-dual state, but ignorance can still remain regarding the primordial nature of the non-dual state.
So you're suggesting Brahman as a reconceptualization of the pacified experience, unfortunately re-creating an identity of "one who asks questions"?

Best wishes
Kc
Shush! I'm doing nose-picking practice!

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 25457
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by Malcolm » Thu Aug 27, 2015 3:40 pm

Matt J wrote:Others made a similar objection to Shankara in his day. His reply:
For as between the illustration and the thing illustrated, nobody can show equality in every respect over and above some point of similarity in some way, which is sought to be represented. For if such an all-round similarity exists, the very relation between the illustration and the thing illustrated will fall through.
--- Brahma Sutra Bhasya: III.ii.19, 20

Usually when Advaitins focus on the unconditioned, they use analogies related to space.
Malcolm wrote:
Matt J wrote:No, that is a logical error. The pot depends on the clay, but the clay does not depend on the pot. The clay would still exist whether or not anyone ever made a pot out of it.
The clay itself also depends on causes and conditions and is composed of the four elements whether or not it is ever made into a pot.

In other words the analogy fails because clay is conditioned, thus it cannot be used an an example of an unconditioned entity forming the substrate for conditioned entity.
Space, being unconditioned, does not form anything at all, since it is a simple absence of obstruction.

Shankara's reply to objections is sheer sophistry.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


The knowledge imparted through the guru’s instructions that formerly was unknown (avidyā) is vidyā.


—Treasury of the Supreme Vehicle, Longchenpa.

User avatar
Matt J
Posts: 636
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:29 am

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by Matt J » Thu Aug 27, 2015 3:49 pm

Before getting off on all this Advaita, the point I wanted to explore earlier would be the primary organizing principles of Advaita and Buddhism.

In Advaita, the central principle is "consciousness" or sat-chit. The universe resolves into the play of sat-chit, or consciousness, which emerges from a meta-being that is beyond all description. The Advaitin is taught to take a stand as awareness or consciousness.

In Buddhism, the central principle is "emptiness" or sunyata. Emptiness is not a thing, but a description of things. Everything is open, non-separate, and transforming. There is no where to stand.
The Great Way is not difficult
If only there is no picking or choosing
--- Xin Xin Ming

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests