|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4381 Posts |
 Posted - Dec 06 2009 : 12:36:34 AM
|
Moderator note: This topic has been split off from this discussion here
Hi Adamant,
quote:
Yes that's right, beyond both. All terms are relative, but they can point to that which is beyond the relative.
The Buddha once said that his teachings were like dreams, but they were special dreams, because they were dreams which had the power to awaken the dreamer.
Christi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? 'cause I can't find where the Buddha talks about Cosmic Consciousness.
He didn't. He just said that his teachings were like dreams which had the power to awaken the dreamer.
Christi |
Edited by - AYPforum on Dec 07 2009 3:37:44 PM |
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4381 Posts |
Posted - Dec 06 2009 : 01:02:21 AM
|
quote:
Hi Christi :)
I agree with that definition too.
How about this one? What if we change the order of creation?
By the time you physically see the object, it is too late, for you have already created it based on your karma.
When a normal person creates a rock, it has certain characteristics like hardness, weight, dimension, texture, color etc and it would hurt if someone through it at you.
When a unity-consciousness-enlightened person creates a rock, the rock has the normal characteristics but it also contains spirit and a state of being joined to everthing else. But I think it would still hurt if someone threw it at you but in a loving/good way.
When a guru, rishi, arahant creates a rock, the rock manifests as pure consciousness therefore the guru/rishi/arahant can pass his/her hand through it, dematerialize it, change it's size or even transport it to the top of the Himalayan mountains.. There is no karma there to limit the initial creation. Further, it would not hurt if someone through that rock at the guru/rishi/arahant because, being part of the rock and having superior control of the forces of nature, the guru/rishi/arahant could change the mass of the object in a blink of an eye, or even make it pass right through them.
See what I mean? Karma is the rule-base by which we manifest our existence. Karma is the stickiness which holds our particular manifestation of the universe together. Karma is one of the ingredients in every thought.
Hi TI
As I see it, when manifestation is being coloured by latent impressions, and this is leading to the continuation of samsaric living, it wouldn't make much difference if you were seeing an object or manifesting it. It doesn't really matter if you are throwing a rock, or passing your hand through a rock, if the seeds of ignorance are there, then suffering will be the result. So it isn't the action itself which holds the seeds of karmic repercussions, it is the view (or I thought) attached to the action. When that falls away, everything is seen as it is.
Even the Arahants in this world are illusory. 
Christi |
Edited by - Christi on Dec 06 2009 01:05:48 AM |
 |
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4381 Posts |
Posted - Dec 06 2009 : 12:46:24 PM
|
Hi Adamant,
quote:
Really? 'cause I can't find where the Buddha talks about Cosmic Consciousness.
p.s.
I believe that unity/ universal consciousness would correspnd with what the Buddha called stream entry. He talked about the dissolution of ego at this stage of consciousness and the establishment of bliss as the natual state of mind at this stage. Cosmic, or Christ consciousness would correspond with Arahantship.
The Buddha talked about the relationship between Arahantship and the fine material realms- which I refered to earlier in this thread as the subtle celestial (a term that Yogani uses). He also talked about the relationship between Arahantship and siddhis. Between stream entry and Arahantship (Christ consciousness/ jivan mukti) he described two other stages of progression, that of the once returner and that of the non-returner.
Christi |
Edited by - Christi on Dec 06 2009 7:18:43 PM |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Dec 06 2009 : 12:53:41 PM
|
Do you not subscribe to the Mahayana sutras? According to those, beyond the non-returner are the bhumis.
Adamant |
|
|
|
alwayson2
USA
546 Posts |
Posted - Dec 06 2009 : 1:29:46 PM
|
I was wondering the same thing.
Mahayana Buddhahood, not Arhatship is much more in the spirit of Christ |
Edited by - alwayson2 on Dec 06 2009 1:40:31 PM |
|
|
|
chinna
United Kingdom
241 Posts |
Posted - Dec 06 2009 : 5:12:47 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Even the Arahants in this world are illusory.
Christi
And when we see that everything is illusory, the word illusory loses its meaning.......and BANG here we are, right here, now, in a condition of absolute simplicity, costing no less than everything (TSEliot).
chinna |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4381 Posts |
Posted - Dec 06 2009 : 5:18:06 PM
|
Hi Chinna,
quote:
And when we see that everything is illusory, the word illusory loses its meaning.......and BANG here we are, right here, now, in a condition of absolute simplicity, costing no less than everything (TSEliot).
Looks like Adya read TS Elliot as well as Tolle.
Thanks for the quote. |
|
|
|
chinna
United Kingdom
241 Posts |
Posted - Dec 06 2009 : 5:24:09 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Chinna,
quote:
And when we see that everything is illusory, the word illusory loses its meaning.......and BANG here we are, right here, now, in a condition of absolute simplicity, costing no less than everything (TSEliot).
Looks like Adya read TS Elliot as well as Tolle.
Thanks for the quote.
I got the quote wrong by the way....
I think it's rather:
"Right here, now, here, always,
A condition of complete simplicity
Costing not less than everything"
In fact the wholse passage, and indeed the whole Four Quartets repay the seeker's reading.
chinna
|
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4381 Posts |
Posted - Dec 06 2009 : 7:16:17 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
Do you not subscribe to the Mahayana sutras? According to those, beyond the non-returner are the bhumis.
Adamant
Hi Adamant,
I don't think it is quite as simple as that. As I understand it, the bhumis are degrees of illumination of the bodhicitta (the awakened consciousness), as a Bodhisattva progresses towards enlightenment. At the first stage of Bodhisattva-hood, that of a “novice Bodhisattva”, none of the bhumis have been attained. Bodhicitta is present, but not yet awakened. As the bodhicitta begins to become illuminated from within, the Bodhisattva enters the second stage, that of a “Bodhisattva of the path”, and the bodhicitta becomes illuminated gradually through the first 6 bhumis.
As the last four bhumis are attained, the Bodhisattva progresses through the stage of “irreversible Bodhisattva” and finally enters the stage of "Bodhisattva of the dharmakaya". Beyond the ten bhumis is the realization of what is called supreme Buddha-hood and this would equate with Christ consciousness.
Most Mahayana texts would put the stages of stream entry, once returner, non-returner, and Arahant which the Buddha talked about, at the level of the "Bodhisattva of the path", in other words as progressive stages of the illumination of the awakened consciousness ranging from the first through to the sixth bhumi. So they would say that there are four further stages of the illumination of the bodhicitta beyond the stage of Arahant and that after that comes enlightenment (nibbhana), or (supreme) Buddha-hood.
Personally I think this equating is based on a misunderstanding of what the Buddha taught, and that actually the stages of progression from stream entry, to once returner to non-returner would equate with the progression through the ten bhumis and the stage of Arahant would equate with Buddhahood.
During the process of the illumination of the bodhicitta, which is the progression through the ten bhumis, the ten fetters fall away until, at the stage of Buddha-hood, the bodhicitta is completely illuminated and pure and there are no more fetters present in the being of the fully awakened Buddha. Now when the Buddha explained the progression through the four stages (stream enterer etc.) he said that at the stage of the Arahant, all the fetters have fallen away. In other words the level of an Arahant is the level of a Buddha. Even today, in chanting in Theravadan monasteries, the Buddha is referred to as an Arahant.
I believe that this misunderstanding (the idea that an Arahant is not a Buddha) comes on two levels and that these two misunderstandings have resulted in a great deal of confusion between different Buddhist sects. One misunderstanding revolves around what is called the "Realization of great emptiness". In Mahayana Buddhism this is the realization of the nature of emptiness of both the conditioned and the unconditioned and equates to the eighth bhumi in the purification of the bodhicitta. Obviously, being free from all fetters, an Arahant would have realized the nature of emptiness of both the conditioned and the unconditioned.
The second level on which a misunderstanding has occurred, I believe, is around the idea of "individual liberation". In Mahayana teachings it is often supposed that traditionally in Buddhism, practitioners work to bring about their own salvation (enlightenment), and are then released from all bondage leaving the rest of humanity to kind of wallow in their own misery. The Mahayanists, on the other hand, view the greater (superior) path (lit. Mahayana), as surrendering one's own salvation for the benefit of all sentient beings (the Bodhisattva ideal). So, based on this belief, the enlightenment of a Bodhisattva has to be higher than the enlightenment of an Arahant, and I think this has something to do with the placing of the Arahant fairly low down on the scale of the illumination of the awakened consciousness.
What the Buddha taught is that it is necessary to purify one's own mind (and reach enlightenment) before you can help another. Otherwise, he said, it is like someone who is stuck in the mud trying to help someone else out of the mud. Then, when one is free from all fetters, one can be of service to all sentient beings. This is what the Buddha did in practice and after realizing enlightenment he spent 40 years teaching the dharma. He lived his teaching and the Arahants followed his example and have done so to this day. So the stage of the Arahant is the supreme state of the Bodhisattva, one who has given up all for the benefit of all sentient beings, which is the supreme nature of a Buddha.
So I would say that the Arahant is a Buddha, and has attained Christ consciousness, which is the highest stage of realisation of the Bodhisattva, and that this involves the total eradication of all fetters and the purity of the 10 bhumis.
Christi
|
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Dec 06 2009 : 7:37:37 PM
|
From the Lankavatara Sutra
quote:
Mahamati said: Now, the Blessed One declares that there are three kinds of Arhats: to which one of the three is this term "Arhat" to be applied? To one who makes straightway for the path of cessation? Or to one who neglects all his accumulated stock of merit for the sake of his vow to enlighten others? Or to one who is a form of the Transformation [Buddha]?
Replied the Blessed One: Mahamati, [the term "Arhat"] applies to the Sravaka who makes straightway for the path of cessation, and to no others. Mahamati, as for the others, they are those who have finished practising the deeds of a Bodhisattva; they are forms of the Transformation Buddha. With skilful means born of their fundamental and original vows (121), they manifest themselves among the multitudes in order to adorn the assemblages of the Buddhas. Mahamati, here in these paths and abodes of existence they give out varieties of teachings which are based on discrimination; that is to say, as they are above such things as the attainment of the fruit, the Dhyanas, the Dhyana-practisers, or subjects for meditation, and as they know that this world is no more than what is seen of the Mind itself, they discourse on the fruit attained [for the sake of all beings]. Further, Mahamati, if the Stream-entered should think."These are the fetters, but I am disengaged from them, " they commit a double fault: they still hold to the vices of the ego, and they have not freed themselves from the fetters.
Further, Mahamati, in order to go beyond the Dhyanas, the immeasurables, and the formless world, the signs of this visible world which is Mind itself should be discarded. The Samapatti leading to the extinction of thought and sensation does not enable one to transcend the world of particulars, for there is nothing but Mind. So it is said:
176. The Dhyanas, the immeasurables, the formless, the Samadhis, and the complete extinction of thought (nirodha)—these do not exist where the Mind alone is.
177. The fruit of the Stream-entered, and that of the Once-returning, and that of the Never-returning, and Arhatship—these are the bewildered states of mind.
178. The Dhyana-practiser, the Dhyana, the subject for it, the destruction, the seeing of the truth, —these are no more than discriminations; when this is recognised there is emancipation.
http://lirs.ru/do/lanka_eng/lanka-n...critical.htm |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4381 Posts |
Posted - Dec 07 2009 : 08:09:05 AM
|
Hi Adamant,
The Lankavatara sutta is a Mahayana text, probably composed around the Christian era, several hundred years after the death of the Buddha. It shows the beginnings of the development of Mahayana thought, and shows the way in which Mahayana thinking was moving in the direction of nirvana being the domain of the true Bodhisattva (a Mahayana concept), and beyond the realization of the Arahant. These are the things that I mentioned in my previous post.
It is not a teaching that was given by the historical Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) but is a fictitious account of a conversation that was supposted to have taken place between the historical Buddha and a disciple called Mahamati. There are terms of expression used in the sutta which are quite out of character for the Buddha himself, and are not at all characteristic of the way he spoke, as recorded in the earlier suttas.
It is a beautiful sutta in its own right though, and, although not historically accurate, contains many beautiful teachings from the early Mahayana tradition.
Christi |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Dec 07 2009 : 10:38:57 AM
|
Christi,
I suppose that account would be your view of the Buddhist Tantras as well. In order to account for your syncretist view, you have given weight to some texts, none of which were composed at the time of the speaker, and disavowed others (Mahayana and Vajrayana). This is serious error. For one, it eliminates the inspired texts (Christian). To be a true syncretist, one must account for the globe. In doing so, one will have no choice but to have no views, thereby becoming truly all-inclusive.
Adamant |
Edited by - adamantclearlight on Dec 07 2009 10:58:25 AM |
|
|
|
AYPmod
53 Posts |
Posted - Dec 07 2009 : 12:47:25 PM
|
| NOTE: Topic Moved For Better Placement. |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4381 Posts |
Posted - Dec 07 2009 : 1:33:26 PM
|
Hi Adamant,
Just because someone writes something and says: "This was the teaching of the Buddha" doesn't mean it was. If we study the Buddhist texts, and also study the way that philosophical thought developed over the thousand years since the death of the Buddha, then we can work out pretty easily which texts are likely to be authentic, and which are based on ideas that did not develop until hundreds of years after the Buddha's death and are likely to be inauthentic if they are pertaining to be the original teachings of the Buddha. This is really a question of scholarship rather than belief.
The vast majority of the Mahayana texts are not of questionable authenticity, but there are a few which were obviously not based on the teachings of the Buddha, and which have been attributed to him as being the author, probably to give the texts more credibility.
True syncretism doesn't involve accepting everything that anyone has ever written as being authentic. That would be a nonsensical approach and would lead to the most ridiculous conclusions. In this case, if we were to accept the Lankavatara sutta as authentic, then we would have to conclude that the Buddha taught one thing, and at the same time it's complete opposite. We would have to conclude that he was just a really confused guy rather than a Buddha.
So scholarship has its place in understanding the progression of spiritual thought, and also in terms of understanding the likely authenticity of certain scriptures. As with all scriptures (and spiritual teachings) if we are discerning, we can take the wheat, and leave the chaff. We can then use the wheat to bring about the upliftment of ourselves and humanity.
Christi |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Dec 07 2009 : 1:43:23 PM
|
Again for the Lankavatara Sutra
quote:
27. An ego-soul is a truth belonging to thought-construction, in which there is no real reality; the self-nature of the Skandhas is also a thought-construction, as there is no reality in it.
...
760. As the womb is not visible to the woman herself who has it, so the ego-soul is not visible within the Skandhas to those who have no wisdom.
761. Like the essence of the medicinal herb, or like fire in the kindling, those who have no wisdom do not see the ego-soul within the Skandhas.
762. Trying to find permanency and emptiness in all things, the unenlightened cannot see them; so with the ego-soul within the Skandhas.
763. When there is no true ego-soul, there are no stages, no self-mastery, no psychic faculties, no highest anointing, no excellent Samadhis.
(360) 764. If a destroyer should come around and say, "If there is an ego, show it to me;" a sage would declare, "Show me your own discrimination."1
Notice these direct contradictions. Every spiritual text is either hearsay or a self-referential claim of divine inspiration. This doesn't matter. What matters is the contents of the wisdom. All the structures must come down.
From the Diamond Sutra:
quote:
The Buddha continued, "Then suppose another person understood only four lines of this Sutra, but nevertheless took it upon themselves to explain these lines to someone else. This person's merit would be even greater than the other person's. Why? Because all Buddhas and all the teachings and values of the highest, most fulfilled, most awakened minds arise from the teachings in this Sutra. And yet, even as I speak, Subhuti, I must take back my words as soon as they are uttered, for there are no Buddhas and there are no teachings."
All statements can be made to contradict or accord. This is the nature of the illusion of conventional wisdom.
I subscribe to the view that is in accord with the world, that leaves no one behind, the Great Accord, the Great Beyond which completely divorced from confusion. No view.
Adamant |
Edited by - adamantclearlight on Dec 07 2009 2:01:17 PM |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Dec 07 2009 : 1:47:33 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Adamant,
Just because someone writes something and says: "This was the teaching of the Buddha" doesn't mean it was. ...
...
...In this case, if we were to accept the Lankavatara sutta as authentic, then we would have to conclude that the Buddha taught one thing, and at the same time it's complete opposite. We would have to conclude that he was just a really confused guy rather than a Buddha.
Christi
The Lankavatara Sutra is a foundational text for Zen. The confusion is within.
Adamant |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4381 Posts |
Posted - Dec 07 2009 : 2:09:44 PM
|
Hi Adamant,
quote:
The Lankavatara Sutra is a foundational text for Zen. The confusion is within.
Adamant
Not only Zen, but also Chan Buddhism. Confusion is always within, liberation is both within, and without.
Within all the great religions, there are some texts which are of dubious authenticity. It doesn't need to be a problem, and doesn't need to satnd in the way of our liberation. After all, we don't become liberated through words, but through silence.
Christi |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Dec 07 2009 : 2:13:28 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Adamant,
quote:
The Lankavatara Sutra is a foundational text for Zen. The confusion is within.
Adamant
Not only Zen, but also Chan Buddhism. Confusion is always within, liberation is both within, and without.
Within all the great religions, there are some texts which are of dubious authenticity. It doesn't need to be a problem, and doesn't need to satnd in the way of our liberation. After all, we don't become liberated through words, but through silence.
Christi
They're all of dubious authenticity. No body knows who wrote any of them. Authenticity is not in the authorship, but in the contents. Nothing in authenticity has the power to overcome doubt.
Adamant |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4381 Posts |
Posted - Dec 07 2009 : 2:38:11 PM
|
Hi Adamant,
quote:
Authenticity is not in the authorship, but in the contents.
If part of the content is claimed authorship, then actual authorship forms a part of the authenticity of a text, no?
But if you are saying that it doesn't really matter if the words in the Lankavatara sutta were ever spoken by Siddhartha Gautama, because the content of the text is authentic spiritual wisdom, then I would agree. And that's what I meant by taking the wheat and leaving the chaff.
Christi |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Dec 07 2009 : 2:48:38 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Adamant,
quote:
Authenticity is not in the authorship, but in the contents.
If part of the content is claimed authorship, then actual authorship forms a part of the authenticity of a text, no?
But if you are saying that it doesn't really matter if the words in the Lankavatara sutta were ever spoken by Siddhartha Gautama, because the content of the text is authentic spiritual wisdom, then I would agree. And that's what I meant by taking the wheat and leaving the chaff.
Christi
Every Pali Sutta and Mahayana Sutra begins with "Thus I heard."
OBJECTION! Hearsay.
Sustained.
Adamant |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Buddhism & Consciousness
