The Two Truths

Seattlegirl: You point to the Dhammapada echoing my words in an apparent attempt to discredit them, please explain how this is possible. Also, if you actually understood what you have quoted, you would be enlightened, and thus would have thrown the boat away, why do you still carry it?

Perhaps I can clarify its meaning if you are only quoting it to assert your knowledge?
 
The Mind proceeds all mental states exactly because it is sunyata, devoid of attributes, untouched by its contents. Yet, if we place our attention on a thought, we fuel it, and eventually it comes to define us - whatsoever we think we become.

We have to come to rest in the emptiness, the silent stillness, in which thoughts arise. If we cling to anything which arises for the mind, we have entered delusion, foolishness. We show ourselves unskillful.

Mindfulness means we are ever aware nothing can affect sunyata, that for anything to affect us, we have to fuel it. It means we do not react to mental or physical phenomenon beyond what is appropriate. All suffering occurs because we have given too much precedence to something and reality isn't complying with it. Of course it is equally dangerous when reality does comply, for now we think our demands are meaningful. Suffering stems from thought, seeing we are not the thinker but merely the one aware of them, they no longer have any weight for us.

Eventually mind ceases, thoughts stop coming uninvited, because we have stopped fueling them.
 
AdvaitaZen said:
Seattlegirl: You point to the Dhammapada echoing my words in an apparent attempt to discredit them, please explain how this is possible. Also, if you actually understood what you have quoted, you would be enlightened, and thus would have thrown the boat away, why do you still carry it?

Perhaps I can clarify its meaning if you are only quoting it to assert your knowledge?
Click to expand...
It was in response to your question:
AdvaitaZen said:
Yet, still, in Buddhist circles, the most highlighted tool is the knowing of the essential emptiness of all things. Nothing has any individual reality, all is the result of something else. It is all the result of the mind processing stimulus, but what is the nature of the Mind?
Click to expand...
The Dhammapada quote refers to manas (thoughts,) whereas the Luminous sutta refers to citta.
 
seattlegal said:
It was in response to your question:

The Dhammapada quote refers to manas (thoughts,) whereas the Luminous sutta refers to citta.
Click to expand...

OK, so what is the nature of citta?

And don't just quote at me, tell me your idea of it.

And don't say luminous either.

It is all well and good knowing what is said, I want to see whether you understand it.
 
seattlegal said:
..........mu
Click to expand...

You have given another word for it, this time Confucius. Te is the Taoist, Bodhi is used in Hinduism and Buddhism, I have asked you to say your understanding of it. You have disputed my words on no-mind, so it is necessary you clarify.

(Yes, I'm aware Chan uses mu also, but Confucius was the first to use it in a spiritual sense. It actually just means no, although I choose to believe you aren't telling me you won't define it)
 
AdvaitaZen said:
You have given another word for it, this time Confucius. Te is the Taoist, Bodhi is used in Hinduism and Buddhism, I have asked you to say your understanding of it. You have disputed my words on no-mind, so it is necessary you clarify.

(Yes, I'm aware Chan uses mu also, but Confucius was the first to use it in a spiritual sense. It actually just means no, although I choose to believe you aren't telling me you won't define it)
Click to expand...
Well, it would depend upon which citta you mean, no? If you mean luminous citta, that would include quiet consciousness and discernment.
 
seattlegal said:
Well, it would depend upon which citta you mean, no? If you mean luminous citta, that would include quiet consciousness and discernment.
Click to expand...

You are actually dividing citta?

You are dividing that in which division appears, which is only manas.

Also, it has nothing to do with a quiet consciousness, since going deep enough into it you find om.
Further, discernment is again manas, since rightly manas references all objects in consciousness - not just thoughts but even objects appearing in the world. The judge and judged are manas.

Citta is that which observes manas, it is the awareness which observes consciousness.

Awareness turned back on itself is enlightenment.

Citta resting in itself is nirvana.
 
AdvaitaZen said:
You are actually dividing citta?

You are dividing that in which division appears, which is only manas.

Also, it has nothing to do with a quiet consciousness, since going deep enough into it you find om.
Further, discernment is again manas, since rightly manas references all objects in consciousness - not just thoughts but even objects appearing in the world.

You are aware of thoughts, who is this you?
Click to expand...
No, I'm not dividing citta, as citta is a holistic concept. 'Which citta?' is like saying 'which state of mind?'
 
seattlegal said:
No, I'm not dividing citta, as citta is a holistic concept. 'Which citta?' is like saying 'which state of mind?'
Click to expand...

Citta is not a state of mind, it is the constant through all states.

The states are all more manas.
 
Relative is all manas.
Absolute is citta.

Manas is temporal in nature, citta is timeless, unchanging, formless, empty.
 
What defines us as individuals are our particular memories, which is why you reference eternalism - you think I am saying something of me is immortal, yet these are just more manas.

What Buddha has called skandhas are those things which arise in consciousness. Seeing you are none of them, you have arrived at citta, whose nature is sunyata. Yet, if you are none of them, what of you is reborn? Indeed you have never been born in the first place. You are that in which life appears, you are witness to this particular samsara, but it is not you.
 
If you prefer, instead of 'in consciousness' you can read 'for awareness/citta' since technically consciousness itself is a skandha, I know you like to nit pick. ;)
 
Speak to us of the faculty called BUDDHI ... which is PURE REASON, beyond transcendent of Manas altogether.
 
taijasi said:
Speak to us of the faculty called BUDDHI ... which is PURE REASON, beyond transcendent of Manas altogether.
Click to expand...

It is all I've been talking about, it is only the space in which all appears.

Internal and external phenomenon all are known through Buddhi, yet it becomes identified with the form and is modified as ego, still it is ever untouched by it all - it is exactly this which is called maya, but Brahman never is deluded, the appearance of delusion is part of leela only.

It is beyond transcendence because even this experience is merely phenomenon to it.
 
So this will involve Ahamkar in its subtler connotation, as a Faculty or an aspect of Mind, or of Consciousness. Consider:
Ahamkara (Sanskrit) Ahaṃkāra [from aham ego, I + kāra maker, doer from the verbal root kṛ to do] I-maker; conception of egoity or I-am-I-ness. In its lower aspect, the egoistical and mayavi principle, born of avidya (ignorance), which produces the notion of the personal ego as being different from the universal self. In Sankhya philosophy ahamkara is the third emanation: from prakriti (primal nature or substance) issues mahat (the great), standing for universal mind, which in turn produces ahamkara, selfhood, individuality; from ahamkara come forth the five tanmatras, the subtle forms of the elements or principles and “the two series of sense organs” (Samkhya-Sutra 1:61).​
In the Bhagavad-Gita (7:4), prakriti manifests in eight portions — “earth, water, fire, air, ether [space: kham-akasa], mind [manas], understanding [buddhi] and egoity, self-sense [ahamkara]” — all of which relate to the object side, which gives an erroneous sense of identity or egoity.

So it seems we are contrasting prakriti here with Purush, matter with Spirit, form existence with Formless ... as also the mortal, rupa worlds with their subtler counterparts, the Arupa and the Highest ~ wherein exist the Jivas themselves, hence THE SELF [or at least, THAT SELF, the true Identity in its intersection with, expression AS ~ THESE, Whose totality must surely be greater than the mere sum of our individualities] ...
As universal self-consciousness, ahamkara has “a triple aspect, as also Manas. For this conception of ‘I,’ or one’s Ego, is either sattwa, ‘pure quietude,’ or appears as rajas, ‘active,’ or remains tamas, ‘stagnant,’ in darkness. It belongs to Heaven and Earth, and assumes the properties of either” (SD 1:335n).​
Here, then, the TRIPLE MANIFESTATION of what Buddhists would call the Tipitaka, as Hindus the Trikaya ... and Christians, the Trinity. In the arupa worlds this is Atma-Buddhi-Manas, which makes possible the connection with and communication between reflection and Soul within Tushita, or Devachan, the Pure Land, the Farther Shore or even Nirvana, in the case of the Manushi-Buddha or Mahatma who has chosen to retain the Nirmanakaya vestiture.

So I think if you want to wave a magic wand and make mayavirupas disappear, at least understand what these are, first. Learn something of Kriyashakti, and Shaktipat. Here is one definition of the former:
Sakti-kriya (Sanskrit) Śakti-kriyā [from śakti power + kriyā action] An inner power or force recognized and taught from immemorial time in India, embracing spiritual, intellectual, as well as psychic elements, which can be exercised by any adept, whether ascetic or layman, and said to be most efficient when accompanied by meditation or bhavana. Its reality depends on the inner merits of one’s character and on the intensity of one’s will, added to an absolute faith born of knowledge in one’s own powers. When applied to ceremonial or ritualistic practice, sakti-kriya is akin to a magic mantra.​
All are but parts of ONE STUPENDOUS WHOLE
Whose body Nature IS and God, the Soul!
~Alexander Pope

"In Him we live, and move, and have our Being" ~ Hebrew Scripture

"SPACE itself is an Entity" ~ H.P. Blavatsky​

And Hylozoism, as taught by Pythagoras and Plato, Egyptian and Hermetic Mystery Schools, Eastern Esoteric and Western Wisdom Traditions alike, instructs us in the Light of Dawning Awareness that we ourselves are each One a Spiritual PILGRIM and living proof that there is both GodHead and Godhood, as each Creative Hierarchy has both its own Goals for the present cycle, as well as the longer-term Goal of climbing to the next equivalent rung of some comparable, if not the same proverbial LADDER. Thus do birds become men, or more likely, Devas ... wonderful Gandarvas, I should suspect ~ however they may "put in their time" as 4th-Kingdom, kama-manasic little cretins.

To close an Iron Age, a cycle of Ignorance {of whatever duration, whatever scale} means the coming forth into DAY, by Day, and into greater Light, and Love, even moving from non-sacred to Sacred Planet-hood, just as Stream-Entrants reach the purity of the Baptized, these latter are Transfigured and become HAMSA, the Beautiful and Rare attains a status of `Renunciate,' which almost seems a light year away to me ... yet then the Phoenix dies, and even the poor fool who is now swallowed by vanity, ego and pride, will someday return again to the Glory that is within, ever veiled and concealed safely, as the pearl is nurtured by the oyster, irritating as hell as it may be in the meantime.

Yes, it sure works out that way ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top