The ultimate purpose of Buddhist-style meditation practices

[camerata]

You say that Maha Boowa was controversial. So was Buddha.

"The Tathagata is liberated from being reckoned in terms of consciousness, Vaccha, he is profound, boundless, unfathomable like the ocean.”

To be boundless and unfathomable is to be outside the illusion of space and time. That sounds eternal to me.

I agree. The way I've always understood it (from Theravada sources) is as a "state of being" that is not any kind of self or consciousness. I suppose one could argue that a state of being must be experienced by some sort of self, but I think the Buddha would have objected to that.

Yes, Buddha would have objected to the idea of Being experienced by a self. The self with a small s is the person, but if you try and find this person you will never find it. Everywhere you look is not the self which is the true meaning of anatta, not that there is something called a not self. In the Mahaparinirvana Sutra what is referred to as the Self with a big S also means Being, which knows itself without the intermediary of another self to experience it. In vedanta, chit (sanskrit) and in Buddhism, citta (pali) are essentially the same and describe individuated consciousness which is impermanent, which arises from Being.

I'm fairly sure that in Theravada Buddhism the Pali word citta does not mean "individuated consciousness which is impermanent, which arises from Being." If that definition applies in Mahayana Buddhism, it would be the Sanskrit equivalent, since Sanskrit is the language of the original Mahayana scriptures. Do you have a Buddhist source for this definition? The Pali dictionary simply defines citta as 'mind', 'consciousness', and 'state of consciousness', and as a synonym for vinnana (consciousness), one of the 5 aggregates.

[trd]

You say that Maha Boowa was controversial. So was Buddha.

"The Tathagata is liberated from being reckoned in terms of consciousness, Vaccha, he is profound, boundless, unfathomable like the ocean.”

To be boundless and unfathomable is to be outside the illusion of space and time. That sounds eternal to me.

I agree. The way I've always understood it (from Theravada sources) is as a "state of being" that is not any kind of self or consciousness. I suppose one could argue that a state of being must be experienced by some sort of self, but I think the Buddha would have objected to that.

Yes, Buddha would have objected to the idea of Being experienced by a self. The self with a small s is the person, but if you try and find this person you will never find it. Everywhere you look is not the self which is the true meaning of anatta, not that there is something called a not self. In the Mahaparinirvana Sutra what is referred to as the Self with a big S also means Being, which knows itself without the intermediary of another self to experience it. In vedanta, chit (sanskrit) and in Buddhism, citta (pali) are essentially the same and describe individuated consciousness which is impermanent, which arises from Being.

I'm fairly sure that in Theravada Buddhism the Pali word citta does not mean "individuated consciousness which is impermanent, which arises from Being." If that definition applies in Mahayana Buddhism, it would be the Sanskrit equivalent, since Sanskrit is the language of the original Mahayana scriptures. Do you have a Buddhist source for this definition? The Pali dictionary simply defines citta as 'mind', 'consciousness', and 'state of consciousness', and as a synonym for vinnana (consciousness), one of the 5 aggregates.

How is my definition of individuated consciousness which is impermanent essentially different from yours as mind, consciousness and a state of consciousness as one of the aggregates which are impermanent?

[trd]

So if I may paraphrase what I think you are saying You believe each of us is a being (self, soul, Being, atman) and the citta / 5 aggregates arises out of this.

No I did not say that. I asked how it was possible to speak in terms of different and separate being, when being is devoid of form. Being is most definitely not an individual soul. Individuality arises as form but it is essentially unreal.

I cant help but think this theory is inherently dualistic though.

A theory would be but the state itself is non dual.

It also appears you dont subscribe to the Wikipedia description Advaita (Sanskrit; not-two, "no second") refers to the idea that the true Self, Atman, is the same as the highest Reality, Brahman. If you dont deify these beings as Brahman.

Advaita, means not two which means that the Self is one without a second. There is only consciousness. Brahman is not a being or deity. It is a way of describing the totality of existence as both the absolute and the relative as it appears as samsara. I maintain that the essence of Buddhism is non duality. What Buddha taught was essentially very simple but most people can't see the wood for the trees.

[Brucenkhamen]

Advaita, means not two which means that the Self is one without a second. There is only consciousness. Brahman is not a being or deity. It is a way of describing the totality of existence as both the absolute and the relative as it appears as samsara. I maintain that the essence of Buddhism is non duality. What Buddha taught was essentially very simple but most people can't see the wood for the trees.

It's pantheistic monism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism and mincing words doesn't make it any the less so, the absence of personal pronouns referring to this totality of existence doesn't make it any less so. I think a metaphysical concept describing the totality of existence is meaningless and intellectual laziness.

What Buddha taught was essentially very simple but most people can't see the wood for the trees.

Trees are not made of just one thing, they are not just made of wood. One needs to understand that certain component parts have certain characteristics as nobody wants to live in a house made of leaves.

If you need such a metaphysical concept I don't have a problem with that, just be honest about it and dispense with the obfuscation, it's just not relevant to Buddhist practice as presented in original texts. Mahayana does seem to lean towards it more and seems to be able to do so without all the unnecessary waffle in my opinion.

[trd]

I think a metaphysical concept describing the totality of existence is meaningless and intellectual laziness.

So Buddhism has no metaphysical concepts does it?

[Brucenkhamen]

So Buddhism has no metaphysical concepts does it?

I'm sure you know it does.

However the Buddha was recorded as often not engaging regarding metaphysical questions.

[trd]

So Buddhism has no metaphysical concepts does it?

I'm sure you know it does.

However the Buddha was recorded as often not engaging regarding metaphysical questions.

When Buddha become enlightened he saw innumerable past lives pass before him. Is that not metaphysical in nature?

Add the Greek prefix "meta-" (beyond) to the base "physical" (nature), and you get metaphysical — a near synonym to the Latin-based word "supernatural." Both concern phenomena that are outside everyday experience or knowledge.

[Brucenkhamen]

When Buddha become enlightened he saw innumerable past lives pass before him. Is that not metaphysical in nature?

Add the Greek prefix "meta-" (beyond) to the base "physical" (nature), and you get metaphysical a near synonym to the Latin-based word "supernatural." Both concern phenomena that are outside everyday experience or knowledge.

Metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

[trd]

When Buddha become enlightened he saw innumerable past lives pass before him. Is that not metaphysical in nature?

Add the Greek prefix "meta-" (beyond) to the base "physical" (nature), and you get metaphysical a near synonym to the Latin-based word "supernatural." Both concern phenomena that are outside everyday experience or knowledge.

Metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

And it is the fundamental nature of being that was being discussed, but you first used the word metaphysical to characterise concepts about existence as meaningless and intellectual laziness. At least I wasn't talking about realms and hungry ghosts, but that which is directly experienced.

[camerata]

I'm fairly sure that in Theravada Buddhism the Pali word citta does not mean "individuated consciousness which is impermanent, which arises from Being." If that definition applies in Mahayana Buddhism, it would be the Sanskrit equivalent, since Sanskrit is the language of the original Mahayana scriptures. Do you have a Buddhist source for this definition? The Pali dictionary simply defines citta as 'mind', 'consciousness', and 'state of consciousness', and as a synonym for vinnana (consciousness), one of the 5 aggregates.

How is my definition of individuated consciousness which is impermanent essentially different from yours as mind, consciousness and a state of consciousness as one of the aggregates which are impermanent?

It was your additional description of it arising from Being that didn't sound like the Pali citta. However, if you're saying citta is not eternal, I think we all agree.

[trd]

I'm fairly sure that in Theravada Buddhism the Pali word citta does not mean "individuated consciousness which is impermanent, which arises from Being." If that definition applies in Mahayana Buddhism, it would be the Sanskrit equivalent, since Sanskrit is the language of the original Mahayana scriptures. Do you have a Buddhist source for this definition? The Pali dictionary simply defines citta as 'mind', 'consciousness', and 'state of consciousness', and as a synonym for vinnana (consciousness), one of the 5 aggregates.

How is my definition of individuated consciousness which is impermanent essentially different from yours as mind, consciousness and a state of consciousness as one of the aggregates which are impermanent?

It was your additional description of it arising from Being that didn't sound like the Pali citta. However, if you're saying citta is not eternal, I think we all agree.

So what would have been an acceptable definition of being for the Buddha. If Tathagata is profound, boundless, unfathomable like the ocean, is that not being. If not then what is that ocean?

[Brucenkhamen]

And it is the fundamental nature of being that was being discussed, but you first used the word metaphysical to characterise concepts about existence as meaningless and intellectual laziness. At least I wasn't talking about realms and hungry ghosts, but that which is directly experienced.

Yes, we directly experience the totality of existence every day, at least in a limited way.

[rockyysdt]

What ever it is, it's not a permanent soul/spirit nor is it nothingness.

A Void filled with that which is unborn. That which is unborn can never die.

[rockyysdt]

If you investigate a little further.

Apart from radiation, light, and matter, deep space is empty (nothing) but still exists.

You can go up, down or across the vacuum of space (void).

This void is empty but still exists.

[Brucenkhamen]

If you investigate a little further.

Apart from radiation, light, and matter, deep space is empty (nothing) but still exists.

You can go up, down or across the vacuum of space (void).

This void is empty but still exists.

I think your interpretation here sounds like borderline science fiction.

The Mahayana teaching of emptiness (while I guess it varies from school to school) is just about how all things lack an essential/intrinsic nature of their own, ie they are all just changing combinations of components, causes, conditions, and interdepedancies.

Translating sunyata as voidness instead of emptiness I think can be misleading, it's not about existence being one meaningless black hole.

From Wikipedia "Voidness does not mean nothingness, but rather that all things lack intrinsic reality, intrinsic objectivity, intrinsic identity or intrinsic referentiality. Lacking such static essence or substance does not make them not exist - it makes them thoroughly relative". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81

In the original texts sunnata/emptiness is mostly just a synonym for not-self.

[trd]

If you investigate a little further.

Apart from radiation, light, and matter, deep space is empty (nothing) but still exists.

You can go up, down or across the vacuum of space (void).

This void is empty but still exists.

I think your interpretation here sounds like borderline science fiction.

The Mahayana teaching of emptiness (while I guess it varies from school to school) is just about how all things lack an essential/intrinsic nature of their own, ie they are all just changing combinations of components, causes, conditions, and interdepedancies.

Translating sunyata as voidness instead of emptiness I think can be misleading, it's not about existence being one meaningless black hole.

From Wikipedia "Voidness does not mean nothingness, but rather that all things lack intrinsic reality, intrinsic objectivity, intrinsic identity or intrinsic referentiality. Lacking such static essence or substance does not make them not exist - it makes them thoroughly relative". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81

In the original texts sunnata/emptiness is mostly just a synonym for not-self.

You are a fundamentalist Buddhist hung up on dogma and mistake it for the truth. You are no different to a fundamentalist Christian or Muslim. Your mind derives some satisfaction from deciding that emptiness means not self. Congratulations. What does it bring you? Is that the truth you are looking for. Conceptual gratification about a word. For you Buddhism is a religion, which also means you are an end of path denier. You will do anything to stay on the path and revel in its mystery and complexity as you see it. The more difficult and arduous the path, the more you become invested in it and that investment cannot be threatened by anything that doesn't conform to entrenched ideas based on what you have come to regard as the pure doctrine. But that's your prison. Don't you see? If you were transported back in time and came face to face with the Buddha I think you would actually be disappointed. When Buddhism becomes all about the words and you get irritated when taken out of your comfort zone and have to resort to calling it science fiction or new age or some such disparaging remark, then you really have to question what it is that you think you know. Fundamentalism is safe you see but it keeps mind in a trap. The essence of what Buddhism is, is what happened under the Bodi tree before all the words were written which were then consumed by those like you who mistake them for truth. Release your mind and you will find out you had the cart before the horse. Be still and stop thinking about scripture too much. It's a trap.

[rockyysdt]

I've been studying such conditions.

These influences can come from many sources.

Genetic, cultural at ethnic, national, regional, religious, racial, family, and individual levels

Conditioning that often is not discerned by those who are affected.

Each of us carries a unique set of such beliefs, positions, habits.

I agree that these can be the very things which bring about rigidity and cause the blockages to our Awakening.

I'm struggling with mine.

Those who don't even recognize such afflictions/defilements have a long way/time/effort to go.

[Brucenkhamen]

In the original texts sunnata/emptiness is mostly just a synonym for not-self.

You are a fundamentalist Buddhist hung up on dogma and mistake it for the truth. You are no different to a fundamentalist Christian or Muslim. Your mind derives some satisfaction from deciding that emptiness means not self. Congratulations. What does it bring you? Is that the truth you are looking for. Conceptual gratification about a word. For you Buddhism is a religion, which also means you are an end of path denier. You will do anything to stay on the path and revel in its mystery and complexity as you see it. The more difficult and arduous the path, the more you become invested in it and that investment cannot be threatened by anything that doesn't conform to entrenched ideas based on what you have come to regard as the pure doctrine. But that's your prison. Don't you see? If you were transported back in time and came face to face with the Buddha I think you would actually be disappointed. When Buddhism becomes all about the words and you get irritated when taken out of your comfort zone and have to resort to calling it science fiction or new age or some such disparaging remark, then you really have to question what it is that you think you know. Fundamentalism is safe you see but it keeps mind in a trap. The essence of what Buddhism is, is what happened under the Bodi tree before all the words were written which were then consumed by those like you who mistake them for truth. Release your mind and you will find out you had the cart before the horse. Be still and stop thinking about scripture too much. It's a trap.

... somebody got out of bed on the wrong side this morning.

[rockyysdt]

Hi Bruce.

You are one of us, but I feel uncomfortable when reading the feelings (+ or -) which color your words.

I value all our community and each ones input.

Hope Mindfulness can help all of us to speak (write) with generosity.

Metta.

R.

[sabaijai]

Perhaps you think the ultimate truth is different for Buddhism than let's say Vedanta.

Epistemologically speaking the truth is very different for Vedanta and Buddhism, the tenets of which were clearly heretical to Vedanta in early Buddhism and in the southern/Theravada school.

If you'd like to discuss Vedanta, there are other forums online where you could engage with other Advaita Vedanta-focused members, such as this one.

http://forum.advaitaforum.com/index.php?board=1.0

[sabaijai]

Enough of the quibbling and personal remarks. If you are going to disagree on basic terms that can have many meanings, like "awareness," I suggest you give us support for your definition from a reliable Buddhist source. Part of the problem here is that AFAIK Bruce's background is mainly Theravada Buddhism while Trd's is mainly Vedanta (which may or may not be similar to Mahayana). If the disagreement on a particular term stems from two different, ancient schools of thought, it's unlikely it will ever be resolved.

Sorry camerata but if you want to impose a form of censorship on how common words like awareness are used and defined then that's when I make my exit. You don't need to be a Buddhist or a Vedantin to discuss what awareness is.

No you don't, but this is the Buddhist forum and if you (or others) are going to bicker endlessly about basic terms, I suggest you keep the discussion relevant to Buddhism.

Just to add to what camerata has written, it's not censorship, it's moderation.

ThaiVisa moderates all posts for relevancy and good manners.

[trd]

Perhaps you think the ultimate truth is different for Buddhism than let's say Vedanta.

Epistemologically speaking the truth is very different for Vedanta and Buddhism, the tenets of which were clearly heretical to Vedanta in early Buddhism and in the southern/Theravada school.

If you'd like to discuss Vedanta, there are other forums online where you could engage with other Advaita Vedanta-focused members, such as this one.

http://forum.advaitaforum.com/index.php?board=1.0

Is epistemological truth what you are looking for in your meditation practice? Let me remind you what the title of this thread is. "The ultimate purpose of Buddhist style meditation practices." You question the relevancy of my posts. I have written extensively on this subject. What have you written that is relevant about meditation? When discussing this subject we consider such issues as awareness, mind, perception. Is there Buddhist awareness, mind and perception. Is there Vedic awareness, mind and perception. Is there Christian awareness, mind and perception. Is there Islamic awareness, mind and perception. Is there Jewish awareness, mind and perception?

Do you believe that Buddha started a movement he called Buddhism? The next time you consider what you call moderation and what I call censorship, perhaps you could consider what it is you are trying to attain that could be called truth. What Buddha called truth has nothing to do with mind and ideas. It has everything to do with loosening the bonds of ego identification and knowing that what is impermanent is false and that includes the changeable mind. It has everything to do with experiencing and cultivating unbounded awareness. Now if this isn't about Buddhism, perhaps you can tell me what is.

[trd]

Sabaijai, here's a YouTube video that might help you cross a few barriers and prevent you from becoming a fundamentalist.

[rockyysdt]

Excellent resource TRD

[trd]

Excellent resource TRD

I had never heard of this chap before today even though he is well known apparently. It was a link from a Facebook page I just happened to see. The way he included different traditions to explain and clarify practice as a Buddhist seemed to resonate with the point I was trying to make.

[Brucenkhamen]

You are one of us, but I feel uncomfortable when reading the feelings (+ or -) which color your words.

I'm sorry to hear that, we are all adults here and should be able to discuss objectively.

While I can be blunt at times I think it would be safer to assume that there are no feelings colouring my words.

[rockyysdt]

You are one of us, but I feel uncomfortable when reading the feelings (+ or -) which color your words.

I'm sorry to hear that, we are all adults here and should be able to discuss objectively.

While I can be blunt at times I think it would be safer to assume that there are no feelings colouring my words.

It's not the bluntness but the belittling it's accompanied with.

Following Buddhism has helped me to be aware that we are all conditioned differently and this influences our interactions with others.

This includes ourselves as well as others.

I may be unaware of how I come across to others.

This is partially why we should cut slack for others and focus on the subject rather than description of another due to their views.

Are you aligned with this.

[Brucenkhamen]

It's not the bluntness but the belittling it's accompanied with.

Could you please give an example of text you felt belittled by?

[rockyysdt]

It's not the bluntness but the belittling it's accompanied with.

Could you please give an example of text you felt belittled by?

Hi Bruce.

I'm out in the backblocks at the moment but when organized can list some if you'd like.

Please note I haven't personally been belittled but have observed.

[Brucenkhamen]

Please note I haven't personally been belittled but have observed.

That's what I thought, I didn't think I'd ever intentionally belittled you, you've contributed positively to this board for many years.

I know you've got good intentions but perhaps others would prefer to fight their own battles.