Universal Atman in Buddhism

Recommend, review and discuss dharma books here.
User avatar
Kaccāni
Posts: 1083
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:03 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by Kaccāni » Tue Aug 25, 2015 10:09 pm

Time appears in Brahman yet Brahman does not know what time is. :rolling:

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

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28529
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by Malcolm » Tue Aug 25, 2015 10:17 pm

Kaccāni wrote:Time appears in Brahman yet Brahman does not know what time is. :rolling:

Best wishes
Kc

Something conditioned cannot appear in something unconditioned because there can never be a relationship between the conditioned and the unconditioned without the unconditioned becoming conditioned.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

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

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by Kaccāni » Tue Aug 25, 2015 10:19 pm

Not even a knowing in between?

Ok. It appears in the knowing then :-P
Shush! I'm doing nose-picking practice!

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28529
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by Malcolm » Tue Aug 25, 2015 10:27 pm

Kaccāni wrote:Not even a knowing in between?

Ok. It appears in the knowing then :-P

There is nothing in between the unconditioned and conditioned. Things are either conditioned or unconditioned. Something conditioned cannot become unconditioned and vice versa.

Thus if time, something conditioned, appears in "knowing", that knowing is conditioned.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

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

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by Kaccāni » Tue Aug 25, 2015 10:34 pm

Malcolm wrote: Thus if time, something conditioned, appears in "knowing", that knowing is conditioned.
Ah. So then. In the moment that "time" appears in the knowing, it must be conditioned. If nothing conditioned appears, it gets a taste of Brahman.

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

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28529
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by Malcolm » Tue Aug 25, 2015 10:48 pm

Kaccāni wrote:
Malcolm wrote: Thus if time, something conditioned, appears in "knowing", that knowing is conditioned.
Ah. So then. In the moment that "time" appears in the knowing, it must be conditioned. If nothing conditioned appears, it gets a taste of Brahman.

Best wishes
Kc

If something can appear in knowing, knowing is already conditioned.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

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

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by Kaccāni » Tue Aug 25, 2015 11:14 pm

Malcolm wrote: If something can appear in knowing, knowing is already conditioned.
Egads, we're doomed :)

Or, nothing appears in the knowing and the knowing is completely independent from what appears, as it does not appear "in it".
Last edited by Kaccāni on Tue Aug 25, 2015 11:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Shush! I'm doing nose-picking practice!

User avatar
Matt J
Posts: 732
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:29 am

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by Matt J » Tue Aug 25, 2015 11:16 pm

That's why time depends on Brahman and not the other way around. If one wants to get technical, one can say that time and space are an illusory appearance of Brahman. In fact, Advaitins teachers often argue that time is change, and that change is only known against a backdrop of changelessness (the atman).

The Advaita view I am familiar with has at least three levels of reality: 1) the really real (sat), or Brahman, which is beyond time, space, etc. 2) the really unreal (asat), such as the horns of a rabbit or the son of a barren woman, and 3) the real/unreal, or "mithya" which has both qualities. Time would be "mithya", and therefore dependent on Brahman. This "mithya" is compared to a dream which is both dependent on and at the same time non-different from the dreamer. However, while the dream depends on the dreamer, the dreamer does not depend on the dream.
Malcolm wrote: Time cannot depend on Brahman, time is conditioned, Brahman is not.
"The essence of meditation practice is to let go of all your expectations about meditation. All the qualities of your natural mind -- peace, openness, relaxation, and clarity -- are present in your mind just as it is. You don't have to do anything different. You don't have to shift or change your awareness. All you have to do while observing your mind is to recognize the qualities it already has."
--- Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche

User avatar
Matt J
Posts: 732
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:29 am

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by Matt J » Tue Aug 25, 2015 11:19 pm

If that were the case, then objects could not appear in space.
Malcolm wrote: Something conditioned cannot appear in something unconditioned because there can never be a relationship between the conditioned and the unconditioned without the unconditioned becoming conditioned.
"The essence of meditation practice is to let go of all your expectations about meditation. All the qualities of your natural mind -- peace, openness, relaxation, and clarity -- are present in your mind just as it is. You don't have to do anything different. You don't have to shift or change your awareness. All you have to do while observing your mind is to recognize the qualities it already has."
--- Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28529
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by Malcolm » Wed Aug 26, 2015 2:44 am

Matt J wrote:That's why time depends on Brahman and not the other way around. If one wants to get technical, one can say that time and space are an illusory appearance of Brahman. In fact, Advaitins teachers often argue that time is change, and that change is only known against a backdrop of changelessness (the atman).

The Advaita view I am familiar with has at least three levels of reality: 1) the really real (sat), or Brahman, which is beyond time, space, etc. 2) the really unreal (asat), such as the horns of a rabbit or the son of a barren woman, and 3) the real/unreal, or "mithya" which has both qualities. Time would be "mithya", and therefore dependent on Brahman. This "mithya" is compared to a dream which is both dependent on and at the same time non-different from the dreamer. However, while the dream depends on the dreamer, the dreamer does not depend on the dream.
Malcolm wrote: Time cannot depend on Brahman, time is conditioned, Brahman is not.
Time cannot depend on Brahman; if it did, Brahman would be conditioned.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

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

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by Bakmoon » Wed Aug 26, 2015 3:47 am

Kaccāni wrote:
Bakmoon wrote: And the Buddhist would answer saying it is a dependently designated and impermanent consciousness that arises at that particular time.
So the Vedantist answers "And who makes it consciousness?"
And the Buddhist, being a good Madhyamaka retorts with a smirk "It's dependent designations all the way down."

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

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by Kaccāni » Wed Aug 26, 2015 12:39 pm

Bakmoon wrote:And the Buddhist, being a good Madhyamaka retorts with a smirk "It's dependent designations all the way down."
And the Vedantist, not getting tired, ponders who comes up with such explanatory principles. ;)
Shush! I'm doing nose-picking practice!

User avatar
treehuggingoctopus
Posts: 1662
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:26 pm
Location: Mudhole? Slimy? My home, this is.

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by treehuggingoctopus » Wed Aug 26, 2015 1:02 pm

A. A. Milne wrote:One day when Pooh Bear had nothing else to do, he thought he would do something, so he went round to Piglet's house to see what Piglet was doing. It was still snowing as he stumped over the white forest track, and he expected to find Piglet warming his toes in front of his fire, but to his surprise he saw that the door was open, and the more he looked inside the more Piglet wasn't there.
. . . there they saw a rock! But it wasn't a rock . . .

User avatar
Matt J
Posts: 732
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:29 am

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by Matt J » Wed Aug 26, 2015 3:20 pm

Per Madhyamaka reasoning, but not according to Vedanta.

Vedanta disagrees with the "not from itself" causation. The primary example is the clay-pot. The pot depends on the clay, but the clay does not depend on the pot.

Where Vedanta gets fuzzy how it explains the mechanism of maya. But there is a famous story about an Advaitin yogi who had everything figured out except for maya. He was told not to worry about it. I think Vedanta runs into trouble because it has to square its findings with the Vedas.
Malcolm wrote: Time cannot depend on Brahman; if it did, Brahman would be conditioned.
"The essence of meditation practice is to let go of all your expectations about meditation. All the qualities of your natural mind -- peace, openness, relaxation, and clarity -- are present in your mind just as it is. You don't have to do anything different. You don't have to shift or change your awareness. All you have to do while observing your mind is to recognize the qualities it already has."
--- Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28529
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by Malcolm » Wed Aug 26, 2015 3:30 pm

Matt J wrote:Per Madhyamaka reasoning, but not according to Vedanta.

Vedanta disagrees with the "not from itself" causation. The primary example is the clay-pot. The pot depends on the clay, but the clay does not depend on the pot.

Where Vedanta gets fuzzy how it explains the mechanism of maya. But there is a famous story about an Advaitin yogi who had everything figured out except for maya. He was told not to worry about it. I think Vedanta runs into trouble because it has to square its findings with the Vedas.
Malcolm wrote: Time cannot depend on Brahman; if it did, Brahman would be conditioned.
The clay depends on the four elements. It is also conditioned, which is why it can form another conditioned entity.

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.

By contrast the roots of Madhyamaka view and all Buddhist teaching in general is dependent origination. The Buddhist concept of nonarising found in the Prajñāpāramitā comes out of this insight.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

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

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by Bakmoon » Wed Aug 26, 2015 5:13 pm

Matt J wrote:Per Madhyamaka reasoning, but not according to Vedanta.

Vedanta disagrees with the "not from itself" causation. The primary example is the clay-pot. The pot depends on the clay, but the clay does not depend on the pot.
What is the pot, but an arrangement of clay? What is the clay but the very pot itself? If the pot wasn't there, then the clay it is composed of would also not be there. Clay and pot are not separate except according to how we chose to use the words.

User avatar
Matt J
Posts: 732
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:29 am

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by Matt J » Wed Aug 26, 2015 5:56 pm

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. It is a hierarchy, with Brahman (limitless being-knowing) as the base. In fact, modern traditional Advaita uses the same "dependent origination" formula as the Pali Suttas to argue that consciousness is primary.
But in Advaita, it is a one way arrow pointing to Brahman.

I'm not arguing that Advaita is correct, I'm just saying that it is internally consistent given its premises.
Bakmoon wrote: What is the pot, but an arrangement of clay? What is the clay but the very pot itself? If the pot wasn't there, then the clay it is composed of would also not be there. Clay and pot are not separate except according to how we chose to use the words.
"The essence of meditation practice is to let go of all your expectations about meditation. All the qualities of your natural mind -- peace, openness, relaxation, and clarity -- are present in your mind just as it is. You don't have to do anything different. You don't have to shift or change your awareness. All you have to do while observing your mind is to recognize the qualities it already has."
--- Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28529
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by Malcolm » Wed Aug 26, 2015 7:33 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.
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.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

krodha
Posts: 2440
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by krodha » Wed Aug 26, 2015 7:46 pm

Matt J wrote:In fact, modern traditional Advaita uses the same "dependent origination" formula as the Pali Suttas to argue that consciousness is primary.
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.

User avatar
Fa Dao
Posts: 853
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2011 5:42 pm

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by Fa Dao » Wed Aug 26, 2015 8:41 pm

33 pages of this?? seriously?? Plain and simple..there is NO universal atman in Buddhadharma..period. While there may be a few instances where in the Teachings it is "iffy" there are literally hundreds of places where it is quite clear that the Buddha taught otherwise. Sooo..bottomline..if you want to have universal atman as part of your personal belief system...wonderful..no problem..have fun with it....BUT, dont fool yourself into thinking it is part of Buddhadharma...get over it...it isnt.
"But if you know how to observe yourself, you will discover your real nature, the primordial state, the state of Guruyoga, and then all will become clear because you will have discovered everything"-Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche

Post Reply

Return to “Book Reviews”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests