click tracking
Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Lankavatara Sutra - Study

    It is all what the mind sees, sense, feels or translates... so, yes, maybe the bigger issue is, whether we can also suspend the thought that arises or the discrimination that arises. but even looking at the sunrise, feeling the heat of that coming over the oceanfront, seeing the various animals walk and run about, looking in the eyes of someone else and knowing their thought... where is discrimination vs Moon in a Dewdrop ...
  3. Lankavatara Sutra - Study

    Ok, so attachment, discrimination and desire rule our way. This is not so much negative as it is simply how we act in the world because these there are equal forces that surround us. It describes mankind's view/life. The Zen lineage that went to Japan under Dogen is worth a read... There is a book, Moon in a Dewdrop that I have and made me really respect Dogen alot.
  4. Lankavatara Sutra - Study

    Thanks Tom... I want to join in and trying to find time... will read up !
  5. Yesterday
  6. Lankavatara Sutra - Study

    I read briefly about the assertions and refutations. Basically reinforces that there is nothing but what is seen of by the mind itself.
  7. Lankavatara Sutra - Study

    Any comments on the 4 forms of assertions?
  8. Lankavatara Sutra - Study

    Sounds good on the erroneous view. Once again, it might help to know the definition of 'mind' in this context. Also, not sure what he means by 'there is but one common Essence', sounds like Advaita
  9. Lankavatara Sutra - Study

    I get that part. But the comparison with the reflection of Moon in the water, I thought that can't be the attachments or concepts. It the things we are attached to that is the reflection, which causes the attachment.
  10. Lankavatara Sutra - Study

    Are thoughts and the attachments that come with them really real? The results and actions of our attachments are.. but all they really are, are thoughts or as the Buddha mentioned, habit-energy. It is noticed when you have an issue that bothers you a lot. Over time the same issues doesn't. What changed? Your thoughts and the attachment to them.
  11. Lankavatara Sutra - Study

    Sounds good. Do you mean to say the things that we are attached to are not really there, they are like the reflection of Moon in water? The reflection of something which we will get eventually. If that is what you mean, it sounds good for now.
  12. Lankavatara Sutra - Study

    Chapter 2 False-Imaginations and Knowledge of Appearances Then Mahamati the Bodhisattva-Mahasattva spoke to the Blessed One, saying: You speak of the erroneous views of the philosophers, will you please tell us of them, that we may be on our guard against them? The Blessed One replied, saying: Mahamati, the error in these erroneous teachings that are generally held by the philosophers lies in this: they do not recognize that the objective world rises from the mind itself; they do not understand that the whole mind-system also arises from the mind itself; but depending upon these manifestations of the mind as being real they go on discriminating them, like the simple-minded ones that they are, cherishing the dualism of this and that, of being and non-being, ignorant to the fact that there is but one common Essence. On the contrary my teaching is based upon recognition that the objective world, like a vision, is a manifestation of the mind itself; it teaches the cessation of ignorance, desire, deed and causality; it teaches the cessation of suffering that arises from the discriminations of the triple world. Any thoughts or comments?
  13. Lankavatara Sutra - Study

    We will get there. Just now let's focus on how our attachment our concepts are real when we are caught up in them but when we let them go they are like a reflection of the Moon in water. Not really there but something of the mind itself believing they are.
  14. Lankavatara Sutra - Study

    The articulation or the way concepts are communicated in this sutra is brilliant. I just wonder how all things are like reflection of Moon in water, if there is no self (at individual level or higher). Without the self, I wonder, they are the reflection of what, and who is seeing the reflection and discriminating?
  15. Yes, the concept of non-dual, it feels to me like it can be described in words and graped by the mind. More importantly it does not have to be explained by 'what it is not'. Like in the case of Dao (formless - totally devoid of form, attributeless, etc). If something contains everything or even present in everything, if that is the definition of non-dual Brahman, how can it be defined as formless or attributeless? It certainly has some form(s) and attributes. At least it can be described as sum of everything. I agree totally that several descriptions of Brahman does not sound like Dao or Emptiness at all. My question is about the ones that seem to match exactly or sound like Dao. Like, devoid of all form or attributes. I just wonder how that is possible, unless some understood Brahman to be different or similar to Dao compared to others. It is also possible that some of the definitions or interpretations are added later or amended
  16. Lankavatara Sutra - Study

    Any comments on this part?
  17. Lankavatara Sutra - Study

    Some of the key points to me are these. "and being impressed by erroneous discriminations and speculations since beginning-less time, fall into the habit of grasping this and that and thereby becoming attached to them. "all of which rises from the discriminations of the mind and is perpetuated by habit-energy" A little farther down in the chapter he mentions this.
  18. "Also, Vedanta states that Brahman cannot be graped by mind and it is beyond mind, beyond understanding, etc. It cannot be described by any words, because it is beyond description." Can non duality really be grasped by the mind, by mental understanding? I think the key point is this part : "because it is beyond description." Is that not still a reference to some thing, some experience or some state of being? Just that it is beyond description.
  19. Lankavatara Sutra - Study

    Thanks for breaking the chapter. This initial part makes sense. It sounds just like an introduction or summary of what is about to come. At this point, he is talking about discrimination and grasping which are clearly issues. But it is not clearly stated, what is the issue with discrimination, at least not yet. Animals hallucination of springs, sounds like a total projection of the local mind. Need to wait and see how it relates to the discrimination problem. I am okay to proceed with the next part, unless someone wants to discuss anything specific with this.
  20. In Advaita, Brahman is the substrate and cause of all changes.[157][140] Brahman is considered to be the material cause[note 14] and the efficient cause[note 15]of all that exists.[139][158][159] Brahman is the "primordial reality that creates, maintains and withdraws within it the universe."[147] It is the "creative principle which lies realized in the whole world".[160] Advaita's Upanishadic roots state Brahman's qualities[note 16] to be Sat-cit-ānanda (being-consciousness-bliss)[161][162] It means "true being-consciousness-bliss," [163][164] or "Eternal Bliss Consciousness".[165] Adi Shankara held that satcitananda is identical with Brahman and Atman.[163] The Advaitin scholar Madhusudana Sarasvati explained Brahman as the Reality that is simultaneously an absence of falsity (sat), absence of ignorance (cit), and absence of sorrow/self-limitation (ananda).[163] According to Adi Shankara, the knowledge of Brahman that Shruti provides cannot be obtained in any other means besides self inquiry.[166] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta This point on not being superseded, completely unchanging and everything "inside" is what I had meant. Yes, those are definitions of Brahman per Advaita Vedanta, which is one view of Vedanta. My point is there is also a description of attributeless Nirguna Brahman, which sounds similar to descriptions of Dao. Also, I wonder whether some of the descriptions from this (above) quote itself taken in a different context can apply to Dao. For example, can Dao be described as unborn and unchanging? If not, then I wonder why not? The one emerged from Dao, but Dao still is what it is. Also the description, 'as the truth that cannot be superseded by another truth'. Sounds like some of these can apply. Everything inside, I get your point on that. But that is what feels to me as the confusion between an all pervading Self/Atman or Shiva and the attributeless Nirguna Brahman described in other places of Vedanta. If it contains everything, then how can it be formless or attributeless. Yet, Brahman is also described as those things also. In other words, it is not the wrong definitions that bother me, but the ones that seem to be right, in places where the description seem to match that of Dao. How can such contradictions co-exist for the same term, unless the same term was used to imply totally different things in different places. Also, Vedanta states that Brahman cannot be graped by mind and it is beyond mind, beyond understanding, etc. It cannot be described by any words, because it is beyond description. If it is just a container of everything, or some all pervading truth, the concept can certainly be understood or grasped by the mind. So these type of descriptions just make me wonder, what it really is.
  21. Found this definition... According to Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is the highest Reality,[67][138][139] That which is unborn and unchanging,[138][140] and "not sublatable",[67] and cannot be superseded by a still higher reality.[141][note 12][note 13] Other than Brahman, everything else, including the universe, material objects and individuals, are ever-changing and therefore maya. Brahman is Paramarthika Satyam, "Absolute Truth",[156] and In Advaita, Brahman is the substrate and cause of all changes.[157][140] Brahman is considered to be the material cause[note 14] and the efficient cause[note 15]of all that exists.[139][158][159] Brahman is the "primordial reality that creates, maintains and withdraws within it the universe."[147] It is the "creative principle which lies realized in the whole world".[160] Advaita's Upanishadic roots state Brahman's qualities[note 16] to be Sat-cit-ānanda (being-consciousness-bliss)[161][162] It means "true being-consciousness-bliss," [163][164] or "Eternal Bliss Consciousness".[165] Adi Shankara held that satcitananda is identical with Brahman and Atman.[163] The Advaitin scholar Madhusudana Sarasvati explained Brahman as the Reality that is simultaneously an absence of falsity (sat), absence of ignorance (cit), and absence of sorrow/self-limitation (ananda).[163] According to Adi Shankara, the knowledge of Brahman that Shruti provides cannot be obtained in any other means besides self inquiry.[166] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta This point on not being superseded, completely unchanging and everything "inside" is what I had meant.
  22. Now I found this. "Brahman is a metaphysical concept of Hinduism referring to the ultimate unchanging reality,[150][154][155] that, states Doniger, is uncreated, eternal, infinite, transcendent, the cause, the foundation, the source and the goal of all existence.[152] It is envisioned as either the cause or that which transforms itself into everything that exists in the universe as well as all beings, that which existed before the present universe and time, which exists as current universe and time, and that which will absorb and exist after the present universe and time ends" Doesn't that sound like Siva and Shakti in KS?
  23. It seems different to me. Now I am no expert on Brahman but reading this.
  24. No, I think that's always the definition for Atman. If Brahman is One with no second, then it cannot fit those other descriptions of formless, etc. that match the descriptions exactly from Tao Te Ching. This is the discrepancy that Ramanuja and several others saw and pointed out, that these two definitions don't add up. But, these concepts are mixed-up so much in texts like Gita, it adds to the confusion. It is not important to me if they are the same or different. I just wonder, if those who shared Vedanta only realized till One, then how were they able to describe the Brahman exactly as how it is described in TTC. It appears like some had that full realization of Brahman as how Dao is described in TTC. There was this concept about Atman also as Supreme. Somehow later these two were mixed up leading to lot of confusions. Perhaps if Brahman can be seen as Dao, and Atman as the One that emerges from it, then the entire Vedanta personally makes sense to me.
  25. In some places we do see such statements. Could be because of the connection made between the Brahman and Atman in some places. The problem or challenge here is that the Vedanta and Upanishads are huge. They were shared over a long period of time and by numerous Rishis. There are some contradictions. But, Vedanta also states firmly in so many places that Brahman is not a thing, therefore not bound by any qualifications or characteristics such as permanent, goes to great lengths to emphasize this, giving so many descriptions that seem to exactly match the descriptions from Tao Te Ching.
  26. Does not Brahman exist and is “permanent”? Also, the One with no other? Never changing?
  1. Load more activity
×