Page 34 of 38

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2015 8:53 pm
by Bakmoon
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.

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 12:03 am
by Kaccāni
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

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 12:14 am
by Kaccāni
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

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 1:51 am
by Bakmoon
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.

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 2:03 am
by Kaccāni
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

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 4:05 am
by Kaccāni
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

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 9:07 am
by muni
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?

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 9:26 am
by Ayu
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:

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 9:30 am
by muni
But they didn't have the idea to negate a self.
Who is negating a self? :smile:

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 11:32 am
by muni
I heard once "a negation of a non-existence" has only value by somehow believing in the idea of own self. Furthermore no value.

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 12:04 pm
by anjali
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.

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 12:29 pm
by muni
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:

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 2:35 pm
by krodha
The basis [gzhi] in Dzogpachenpo and the Brahman of Vedanta are nothing alike. Anyone who says they are is unfortunately uneducated on the subject.

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 2:36 pm
by krodha
muni wrote:I wanted to answer on the question whether similar or not, but I am stuck with " similar".
An unfortunate misconception.

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 2:47 pm
by Karma Dondrup Tashi
Mahayana emptiness is nothing like that either.

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 3:17 pm
by Matt J
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.

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 3:22 pm
by Matt J
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.

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 3:33 pm
by Kaccāni
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

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 3:40 pm
by Malcolm
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.

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 3:49 pm
by Matt J
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.