Message Boards Message Boards

Dharma Diagnostic Clinic, aka "What was that?"

What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?

Toggle
What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? Jim Smith 2/7/16 1:25 PM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? Eva Nie 2/7/16 2:00 PM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? Jim Smith 2/7/16 2:18 PM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? neko 2/7/16 6:44 PM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? neko 2/7/16 6:48 PM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? Derek 2/7/16 7:44 PM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? svmonk 2/7/16 9:01 PM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? Jim Smith 2/7/16 10:58 PM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? genaro 11/19/20 1:10 PM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? Jim Smith 2/7/16 10:59 PM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? Causes & Conditions 2/8/16 12:11 AM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? svmonk 2/8/16 11:04 PM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? Eva Nie 2/9/16 11:14 AM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? Jim Smith 2/9/16 11:48 AM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? Jordi 10/31/20 12:05 AM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? terry 11/11/20 8:17 PM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? terry 11/12/20 1:13 AM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? tom moylan 2/8/16 4:30 AM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? shargrol 2/8/16 8:28 AM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? Anna Kamara 10/30/20 5:01 PM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? Jim Smith 10/31/20 3:35 PM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? Jim Smith 10/31/20 3:35 PM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? Anna Kamara 11/10/20 4:37 PM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? Anna Kamara 11/11/20 3:07 AM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? terry 11/11/20 2:21 PM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? Anna Kamara 11/15/20 1:05 PM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? terry 11/18/20 11:31 AM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? An Eternal Now 10/31/20 11:43 PM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? Anna Kamara 11/10/20 4:30 PM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? Ni Nurta 11/3/20 5:08 PM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? Ole Henry 10/31/20 1:57 PM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? An Eternal Now 10/31/20 11:41 PM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? Ole Henry 11/1/20 1:57 AM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? terry 11/11/20 1:30 PM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? terry 11/11/20 4:04 PM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? Mike Smirnoff 11/14/20 2:01 AM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? terry 11/14/20 11:17 AM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? Jake Frankfurt Middenhall 11/15/20 2:24 PM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? terry 11/18/20 11:34 AM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? Jake Frankfurt Middenhall 11/18/20 12:42 PM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? terry 11/18/20 12:49 PM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? terry 11/18/20 12:51 PM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? terry 11/18/20 1:08 PM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? Jake Frankfurt Middenhall 11/18/20 1:14 PM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? An Eternal Now 11/19/20 6:09 AM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? Jake Frankfurt Middenhall 11/19/20 10:43 AM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? An Eternal Now 11/20/20 10:18 AM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? Jake Frankfurt Middenhall 11/20/20 11:16 AM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? terry 11/19/20 4:38 PM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? Jake Frankfurt Middenhall 11/19/20 4:52 PM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? terry 11/19/20 5:10 PM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? Ben V. 11/20/20 5:40 PM
RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman? n0nick 12/3/20 10:27 PM
I understand Buddha didn't teach "all is self". But I am wondering if there is a term that is used by Buddhists to refer to the experience of oneness with God or oneness with everything or the experience of Brahman? Would they use the term brahma-jnana? I am assuming that it is likely that Buddha and his students had the experience. Did they have a term for it and did Buddha ever say anything about that experience, if only to explain it wasn't the ultimate truth?

If a student of Buddhism in modern times told his teacher about having that type of realization, what would the teacher say? Would he have a name for it? Would he say it's just an illusion, keep meditating?

Thanks

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
2/7/16 2:00 PM as a reply to Jim Smith.
I might not be able to answer but might be interesting if you described the experience more. 

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
2/7/16 2:18 PM as a reply to Eva Nie.
Eva Nie:
I might not be able to answer but might be interesting if you described the experience more. 


It is a fairly common experience across traditions. There are several descriptions here:
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2015/03/realizing-ultimate.html

According to Wikipedia:

"In Hinduism, Brahman is "the unchanging reality amidst and beyond the world", which "cannot be exactly defined". It has been described in Sanskrit as Sat-cit-ananda and as the highest reality... According to Advaita, a liberated human being ... has realised Brahman as his or her own true self."

...

J. J. van Der Leeuw, an advanced meditator, wrote in The Conquest of Illusion:

"In that experience [of the Absolute] we are no longer the separate self, we are no longer what we call 'we' in our daily life. Not only are we our entire being, past and future, in that sublime experience of eternity, but we are the reality of all that is, was, or shall be, we are That."

...
Linda Stewart wrote about her near-death experience:

The metaphor represented by the image I saw and perceived was absolutely clear and I was overwhelmed with the knowledge that WE ARE ALL ONE. I comprehended that our oneness is interconnected by love and is an available, much higher level and means of communication than we normally use but to which we have access. This love is available to anyone who is willing to do the hard spiritual work that will allow us to open our hearts and minds and eyes to Spirit. I remembered the love I had felt in the presence of God and experienced a total sense of love for all existence as an interconnected oneness and a manifestation of God.

...
Lester Levenson who developed psychological techniques that led to his realization wrote:

"This peace was eternal and forever, and it was the essence of every living thing. There was only one Beingness and everything was It; every person was It, but they were without awareness of the fact, blinded by the uncorrected past they hold on to."

...
In an interview with Stephan Bodian published in Yoga Journal and reprinted at spiritualteachers.org Bernadette Roberts said:
So here begins our journey to the true center, the bottom-most, innermost "point" in ourselves where our life and being runs into divine life and being - the point at which all existence comes together. This center can be compared to a coin: on the near side is our self, on the far side is the divine
...
As it turns out, self is the entire system of consciousness, from the unconscious to God-consciousness, the entire dimension of human knowledge and feeling-experience.

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
2/7/16 6:44 PM as a reply to Jim Smith.
Jim Smith:
I understand Buddha didn't teach "all is self". But I am wondering if there is a term that is used by Buddhists to refer to the experience of oneness with God or oneness with everything or the experience of Brahman? 

Buddhism is non theistic so the notion of "oneness with god(s)" is not one that is likely to be used by Buddhists. 

"Oneness with everything" could be understood as related to some aspects of the first two arupajhanas in Theravada Buddhism, or perhaps rigpa in Tibetan Buddhism. But this answer would be tentative and unorthodox.

About brahman, the orthodox answer is that the term is equated with buddhahood traditionally.

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
2/7/16 6:48 PM as a reply to Jim Smith.
Jim Smith:

If a student of Buddhism in modern times told his teacher about having that type of realization, what would the teacher say? Would he have a name for it? Would he say it's just an illusion, keep meditating?
Personally, I would suggest this student to come to the dharmaoverground forum and describe this experience of his in detail to get an answer... ;) 

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
2/7/16 7:44 PM as a reply to Jim Smith.
Buddha Nature.

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
2/7/16 9:01 PM as a reply to Jim Smith.
Hi Jim,

Interestingly, Than Geoff (Thanassario Bikkshu) has an article about Oneness, titled "We are Not One", in this month's Tricycle magazine. He has a few sutra citations in which the Buddha categorically rejects Oneness. Here's a link to the article (note: subscription required): http://www.tricycle.com/feature/we-are-not-one.

From a neurological standpoint, there is a part of the brain that distinguishes your body from the rest of the world. If this part gets switched off somehow, you have a feeling of oneness. Lots of things can switch it off: meditation, drugs, music, dancing, fMRI.

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
2/7/16 10:58 PM as a reply to svmonk.
svmonk:
Hi Jim,

Interestingly, Than Geoff (Thanassario Bikkshu) has an article about Oneness, titled "We are Not One", in this month's Tricycle magazine. He has a few sutra citations in which the Buddha categorically rejects Oneness. Here's a link to the article (note: subscription required): http://www.tricycle.com/feature/we-are-not-one.




This is from the article preview:
http://www.tricycle.com/feature/we-are-not-one

And in Majjhima Nikaya 22, he singles out the view that the self is identical with the cosmos as particularly foolish. If the cosmos is your true self, he reasoned, then the workings of the cosmos would be yours to control. But how much control do you have over your immediate surroundings, let alone the whole cosmos?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddhi#Usage_in_Vajrayana_Buddhism

Siddhis (Sanskrit and Pali; Devanagari सिद्धि; Tibetan: དངོས་གྲུབ, THL: ngödrup,[web 1] Chinese: 悉地, 成就) are spiritual, paranormal, supernatural, or otherwise magical powers, abilities, and attainments that are the products of spiritual advancement through sādhanās such as meditation and yoga.[1]
...
The earliest appearance in Indian history of the idea that magical powers are generated by spiritual practices is the account of the use of jhāna to gain iddhi appearing in the Pāli Canon in the Samaññaphala Sutta of the Digha Nikaya.[3]


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html

DN 2 PTS: D i 47
Samaññaphala Sutta: The Fruits of the Contemplative Life translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu
...

Supranormal Powers

"With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to the modes of supranormal powers. He wields manifold supranormal powers. Having been one he becomes many; having been many he becomes one. He appears. He vanishes. He goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, and mountains as if through space. He dives in and out of the earth as if it were water. He walks on water without sinking as if it were dry land. Sitting cross-legged he flies through the air like a winged bird. With his hand he touches and strokes even the sun and moon, so mighty and powerful. He exercises influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds. Just as a skilled potter or his assistant could craft from well-prepared clay whatever kind of pottery vessel he likes, or as a skilled ivory-carver or his assistant could craft from well-prepared ivory any kind of ivory-work he likes, or as a skilled goldsmith or his assistant could craft from well-prepared gold any kind of gold article he likes; in the same way — with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability — the monk directs and inclines it to the modes of supranormal powers... He exercises influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds.

"This, too, great king, is a fruit of the contemplative life, visible here and now, more excellent than the previous ones and more sublime.

Clairaudience

"With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to the divine ear-element. He hears — by means of the divine ear-element, purified and surpassing the human — both kinds of sounds: divine and human, whether near or far. Just as if a man traveling along a highway were to hear the sounds of kettledrums, small drums, conchs, cymbals, and tom-toms. He would know, 'That is the sound of kettledrums, that is the sound of small drums, that is the sound of conchs, that is the sound of cymbals, and that is the sound of tom-toms.' In the same way — with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability — the monk directs and inclines it to the divine ear-element. He hears — by means of the divine ear-element, purified and surpassing the human — both kinds of sounds: divine and human, whether near or far.

"This, too, great king, is a fruit of the contemplative life, visible here and now, more excellent than the previous ones and more sublime.

Mind Reading

"With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the awareness of other beings. He knows the awareness of other beings, other individuals, having encompassed it with his own awareness. He discerns a mind with passion as a mind with passion, and a mind without passion as a mind without passion. He discerns a mind with aversion as a mind with aversion, and a mind without aversion as a mind without aversion. He discerns a mind with delusion as a mind with delusion, and a mind without delusion as a mind without delusion. He discerns a restricted mind as a restricted mind, and a scattered mind as a scattered mind. He discerns an enlarged mind as an enlarged mind, and an unenlarged mind as an unenlarged mind. He discerns an excelled mind [one that is not at the most excellent level] as an excelled mind, and an unexcelled mind as an unexcelled mind. He discerns a concentrated mind as a concentrated mind, and an unconcentrated mind as an unconcentrated mind. He discerns a released mind as a released mind, and an unreleased mind as an unreleased mind. Just as if a young woman — or man — fond of ornaments, examining the reflection of her own face in a bright mirror or a bowl of clear water would know 'blemished' if it were blemished, or 'unblemished' if it were not. In the same way — with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability — the monk directs and inclines it to knowledge of the awareness of other beings. He knows the awareness of other beings, other individuals, having encompassed it with his own awareness. He discerns a mind with passion as a mind with passion, and a mind without passion as a mind without passion... a released mind as a released mind, and an unreleased mind as an unreleased mind.

"This, too, great king, is a fruit of the contemplative life, visible here and now, more excellent than the previous ones and more sublime.

Recollection of Past Lives

"With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the recollection of past lives (lit: previous homes). He recollects his manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two births, three births, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, one hundred, one thousand, one hundred thousand, many aeons of cosmic contraction, many aeons of cosmic expansion, many aeons of cosmic contraction and expansion, , 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.' Thus he recollects his manifold past lives in their modes and details. Just as if a man were to go from his home village to another village, and then from that village to yet another village, and then from that village back to his home village. The thought would occur to him, 'I went from my home village to that village over there. There I stood in such a way, sat in such a way, talked in such a way, and remained silent in such a way. From that village I went to that village over there, and there I stood in such a way, sat in such a way, talked in such a way, and remained silent in such a way. From that village I came back home.' In the same way — with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability — the monk directs and inclines it to knowledge of the recollection of past lives. He recollects his manifold past lives... in their modes and details.

"This, too, great king, is a fruit of the contemplative life, visible here and now, more excellent than the previous ones and more sublime.


This is about Lester Levenson's realization
http://www.releasetechnique.com/websitetwentyfourteen/wp-content/themes/releasetechnique2014/downloads/lester-levenson-story.pdf

That caused me to identity with every being, every person, and even every atom
in this universe. And that's an experience so tremendous, it's indescribable. First
you see that the universe is in you, then you see the universe as you. Then you
know the Oneness of this universe. Then you are finished forever with separation
and all the hellishness that's caused only by separation.
Then you can no longer be fooled by the apparent limitations of the world. You
see them as a dream, as an apparency, because you know that your very own
Beingness has no limits!

It was a very interesting trip. I had never known the things that I experienced
existed. I had never known there was such power in the mind. But I saw how my
mind could trick me so I had a maxim, "I only know that which I can do." When I
would ask myself the question, "What can I do?", it was a shock every time. So I
would keep experimenting until I could do whatever it was.

I kept that going and great things opened up. "If I am these things, can I do
them?" I would ask. "If I am all-powerful, what power can I exert?" And powers
came to me. And I proved each one to at least two witnesses. That's because I
was trained as a physicist. You always have to go to the lab and do it to prove it,
but it's good training.

I'll tell you the first thing I did. There was a cup on the table and when someone
came into the room, I said, "I can move that cup to the other side of the table
with my mind. Do you believe I can?". If they said Yes, it was instantly moved; if
they said No, it remained still. I wouldn't impose on other people. If they didn't
accept it, I wouldn't bother them. Of course, not having had much experience
with it at first, I made mistakes. I even had people walk away from me and not
talk to me. I learned to keep quiet and not disturb peoples' beliefs and
convictions.



More by Lester Levenson here:
http://www.stillnessspeaks.com/sitehtml/llevenson/keystoultimate.pdf

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
2/7/16 10:59 PM as a reply to svmonk.
svmonk:
Hi Jim,

...

From a neurological standpoint, there is a part of the brain that distinguishes your body from the rest of the world. If this part gets switched off somehow, you have a feeling of oneness. Lots of things can switch it off: meditation, drugs, music, dancing, fMRI.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web3/Farrenkopf.html

This is Your Brain on God
Christine Farrenkopf
...
The "peak" of meditation is clearly a subjective state, with each individual attaining it in different manners and having different time requirements. However, the sensation and meaning behind this moment is consistent among all who reach it. At the peak, the subjects indicate that they lose their sense of individual existence and feel inextricably bound with the universe. "There no discrete objects or beings, no sense of space or the passage of time, no line between the self and the rest of the universe" (Newberg 119).

...


The subjects then meditated. When they reached the peak, they pulled on a string attached at one end to their finger and at the other to Dr. Newberg.2 This was the cue for Newberg to inject the radioactive tracer into the IV connected to the subject. Because the tracer almost instantly "locks" onto parts of the brain to indicate their activity levels, the SPECT gives a picture of the brain essentially at that peak moment (Newberg 3). The results revealed a marked decrease in the activity of the posterior, superior parietal lobe and a marked increase in the activity of the prefrontal cortex, predominantly on the right side of the brain (Newberg 6). Such changes in activity levels demonstrated that something was going on in the brain in terms of spiritual experience. The next step was to look at what these particular parts of the brain do. Studies of damage suffered to a region of the brain have enabled us to draw conclusions about its role by observing loss of function.


It has been concluded that the posterior, superior parietal lobe is involved in both the creation of a three-dimensional sense of self and an individual's ability to navigate through physical space (Journal 216). The region of the lobe in the left hemisphere of the brain allows for a person to conceive of the physical boundaries of his body (Newberg 28). It responds to proprioceptive stimuli, most importantly the movement of limbs. The region of the lobe in the right hemisphere creates the perception of the matrix through which we move.


RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
2/8/16 12:11 AM as a reply to Jim Smith.
It's sort of debatable and people have differing opinions on this subject.

Certainly a unitive feeling of being one with the universe is EXTREMELY COMMON during the knowledge of the arising and passing away, which is a stage that occurs in insight meditation. This stage is actually one of the earlier stages.

Some would aslo argue that the experience of emptiness is a different way of looking at a unitive experience. So you've got emptiness is form - form is emptiness - so everything on a certain level is inherently the same.

Some other would argue that the loss of conceit (the sense that there is an abiding self) is just another way to look at the experience of Brahman or Atman perhaps.

Buddha Nature is another similar concept.

And I'm sure there are others.

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
2/8/16 4:30 AM as a reply to Jim Smith.
one of gotamas unique contributions as you probably know is that of anatta, or non-self, which flies in the face of many of vedic concepts of self and Self.  self in the upanishads is the personal self and the capitalized Self refers to more of a universal, non differentiated conciousness as i recall.

buddha spoke often of bramha heavens and made it clear that these were constructed dependent realms.  he was obviously versed in the vedic texts and concepts so my take is that his teachings on anatta point to the non ultimacy of bramah as both a godhead and a realm.

how it would align with "cessation" or nibbhana is more than i could comment on.

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
2/8/16 8:28 AM as a reply to Jim Smith.
Jim Smith:
But I am wondering if there is a term that is used by Buddhists to refer to the experience of oneness with God or oneness with everything or the experience of Brahman?

...

Did they have a term for it and did Buddha ever say anything about that experience, if only to explain it wasn't the ultimate truth?

If a student of Buddhism in modern times told his teacher about having that type of realization, what would the teacher say? Would he have a name for it? Would he say it's just an illusion, keep meditating?

Teachers will take lots of different approaches, depending on the student. For example...

If the student is just accessing this state and it is helpful for equanimity, stability, deeping awareness, letting go of resistances -- then they might say this is One Mind or Buddha Nature or Diamond Samadhi (or lots of other names) and the student should dwell in it, soak in, merge with it.

If the student is already stable in that state -- then the teacher might say the complete opposite, This is not "true" one mind, buddha nature, diamond samadhi... and the teacher might point out that "Look closer, this is recognizable as a >state<, therefore it isn't you. What is aware of this state?"

Probably the historical buddha would be more inclined to do the latter an would emphasize the "dependent arising" of that state. In otherwords, the feeling of "oneness" arises when certain conditions arise, it disappears when other conditions arise. Like jhana, these states can be helpful for preparing the mind and dropping greed/hatred/delusion.

Teachers call post-awakening all sorts of things, too. So it's important to get the sense of the context of the teaching and the context of the audience.

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
2/8/16 11:04 PM as a reply to Causes & Conditions.
Hi Jeff,

Regarding the Heart Sutra, my understanding is somewhat different. It is not that everything is on some level the same, but rather that form and emptiness perfectly interpenetrate but yet are not the same. On another level, form arises from emptiness and decays into emptiness. I think these would correspond to recognitions four and three, respectively in the Mahamudra 4 recognitions training, recognizing spontaneous presence to be self-liberating and emptiness to be spontaneous presence.

But I have just started studying Mahamudra, and perhaps someone with better understanding should comment.

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
2/9/16 11:14 AM as a reply to svmonk.
svmonk:
Hi Jeff,

Regarding the Heart Sutra, my understanding is somewhat different. It is not that everything is on some level the same, but rather that form and emptiness perfectly interpenetrate but yet are not the same. On another level, form arises from emptiness and decays into emptiness. I think these would correspond to recognitions four and three, respectively in the Mahamudra 4 recognitions training, recognizing spontaneous presence to be self-liberating and emptiness to be spontaneous presence.

But I have just started studying Mahamudra, and perhaps someone with better understanding should comment.
In a related vein, 'nondual' is more closely translated as 'not two.'  Not two is different from 'one.'  If it was meant to be 'oneness' I think they could just translate it as such, maybe some of the scholars here could add further details.  But there is a diff between 'not two' and 'one' and I think via lack of attention to details, that difference gets forgotten about quite often.  Language tends to be used rather loosely by most.  Personally I take the meaning of nondual to be intermediate between separate (dual) and same/equal (oneness).  So you may have an experience of connection and understanding and communication with the universe, but you also still retain an overall sense of individual self that types on the keyboard, feels pain when the toe is stubbed, and says, "I" when it talks.  And all those are experiences through the senses anyway, who knows how accurate they are.  ;-P     

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
2/9/16 11:48 AM as a reply to Eva Nie.
One(ness) implies two or more things are the same, ie. self and other are really the same. But if everything is not self, there can be nothing that is "other". Not two, and not one(ness). Nothing (that is self) to be the same as (everything else), nothing (that is self) to be different from (everything else).

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
10/30/20 5:01 PM as a reply to Jim Smith.
Jim Smith:
I understand Buddha didn't teach "all is self". But I am wondering if there is a term that is used by Buddhists to refer to the experience of oneness with God or oneness with everything or the experience of Brahman? Would they use the term brahma-jnana? I am assuming that it is likely that Buddha and his students had the experience. Did they have a term for it and did Buddha ever say anything about that experience, if only to explain it wasn't the ultimate truth?

If a student of Buddhism in modern times told his teacher about having that type of realization, what would the teacher say? Would he have a name for it? Would he say it's just an illusion, keep meditating?

Thanks
Isnt it 5th or 6th jhana? Deva loka and Brahma loka
Currently stuck in this one and actually don't have the desire to go further. Non self teaching is so depressing to me...

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
10/31/20 3:35 PM as a reply to Anna Kamara.
Anna Kamara:
... Non self teaching is so depressing to me...

I don't have that feeling at all. Why does it depress you? What do you think it means?

Buddha never said there is no self. He just said none of the things we form attachments to should be considered self because they are impermanent and not completely under our control. And being attached to them inevitably leads to suffering so that we will be happier if we give up those attachments.

It is a recipe for happiness not a proof of nihilism.

To me it means I don't have to suffer from attachments to self - which is the cause of all mental anguish. Imagine that, no more mental anguish. To me that is wonderful. Like on the same level as "Jesus Saves" is to Christians.

(I am a Spiritualist and I believe in an afterlife. Buddha also believed in an afterlife. Where is there room for nihilism in that?)

Here is one way to understand no self:

Close your eyes notice the feeling of your body, your thoughts, your emotions, they create a sense of you being in your body, a sense of you as the entity having a body, having thoughts and having emotions. (When I do this I get a sense that I am observing a person in my body who has a mood (whatever my mood is at the time) and that person is me - someone else might experience it differently.)

Now open your eyes and look around you and notice what you see. Now you are aware of only what you see, you are not thinking of your body, or your thoughts, or your emotions, and those things are not producing a feeling of you being in your body.

Is that so bad? If you have physical discomfort or emotional pain, focusing outside yourself will ease the emotional anguish more or less depending on your level of concentration. That's good isn't it?

Actually this is an interesting way to practice to understand how the mind produces the sense of self, repeatedly alternating between focusing inward and focusing outward, focusing on feeling self, focusing on not feeling self.

I often find that the cause and effect relationships between ideas and feelings are not the way people think they are. I obviously don't know you and can't know if this applies in  your case.

But often people become focused on spiritual questions because they are depressed. Depression creates a feeling of meaninglessness and so people start asking spiritual questions looking for solutions to meaninglessness. But they interpret spiritual issues through the filter of their depression. So someone who is depressed might focus on not self and see something dark in it and blame that for their depression.

I'm not saying I believe this is happening with you, I have no way of knowing in your particular case, I'm just pointing out the possibility in case it is it might be helpful to you or anyone reading this.

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
10/31/20 12:05 AM as a reply to Jim Smith.
Jim Smith:
One(ness) implies two or more things are the same, ie. self and other are really the same. But if everything is not self, there can be nothing that is "other". Not two, and not one(ness). Nothing (that is self) to be the same as (everything else), nothing (that is self) to be different from (everything else).


Hi, Jim. For my expirence, the concept of no-self isnt that good and usually cause confusion. I like more no-object, isnt the self just another object? 

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
10/31/20 1:57 PM as a reply to Jim Smith.
Deathless, unborn, unoriginated, uncreated.

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
10/31/20 3:35 PM as a reply to Jim Smith.
Jim Smith:


Here is one way to understand no self:

Close your eyes notice the feeling of your body, your thoughts, your emotions, they create a sense of you being in your body, a sense of you as the entity having a body, having thoughts and having emotions. (When I do this I get a sense that I am observing a person in my body who has a mood (whatever my mood is at the time) and that person is me - someone else might experience it differently.)

Now open your eyes and look around you and notice what you see. Now you are aware of only what you see, you are not thinking of your body, or your thoughts, or your emotions, and those things are not producing a feeling of you being in your body.

Is that so bad? If you have physical discomfort or emotional pain, focusing outside yourself will ease the emotional anguish more or less depending on your level of concentration. That's good isn't it?


Noting has a similar effect. When you are noting, the same phenomena that otherwise contribute to your sense of self: awareness of body, thoughts, emotions etc., are experienced as a series of separate disconnected moments of awareness, so they do not produce the feeling of being a self.

When you suffer it is because the self-thinking arises, the less you engage in "identity view" the less you suffer. How you use your mind, thinking about then environment outside your body, or observing the phenomenon of consciousness, doesn't change anything about reality. It doesn't prove or disprove anything such as the existence of a soul.  It is simply a different way of looking at the same things - one that greatly diminishes suffering.

This kind of "no-self" is not thinking "I don't exist", it is simply thinking about something other than "myself". Maybe there is a self maybe there isn't, but empirically we know that thinking "myself" results in suffering, so why think of it? Some people might choose to, but others who want to reduce suffering might decide they prefer to train themselves to stop thinking of "myself" all the time.

If you think about it as deactivating the default mode network in the brain and activating the experiential network, you are simply using a natural function you've always had and and been using from time to time all your life.

Or think of it this way: instead of seeing everything filtered through your ego you can remove the filter and see things as they really are.

https://enlightenmentward.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/man-on-cloud-mountain-shodo-harada-roshi-segment-4-of-7-transcript/
What it is, is the ability to see without any interruption of the ego, without any filtering of the ego. And since we are all walking around seeing things through our ego filter almost all the time, to suddenly be able to see without that filter is a surprise. But it is nothing that we have ever not had.

They say that the mind of a baby is something that we can compare this to. A baby isn’t seeing things from an egoistic place. It is seeing directly and clear. It is the exact same kind of thing when we are seeing without the ego filter.

"But it is nothing that we have ever not had."

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
10/31/20 11:41 PM as a reply to Ole Henry.
Ole Henry:
Deathless, unborn, unoriginated, uncreated.


Not so. See http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html

and

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-deathless-in-buddhadharma.html

<-- explains clearly why the Buddha is not referring to Brahman or any kind of apophatic absolute

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
10/31/20 11:43 PM as a reply to Anna Kamara.
Anna Kamara:
Jim Smith:
I understand Buddha didn't teach "all is self". But I am wondering if there is a term that is used by Buddhists to refer to the experience of oneness with God or oneness with everything or the experience of Brahman? Would they use the term brahma-jnana? I am assuming that it is likely that Buddha and his students had the experience. Did they have a term for it and did Buddha ever say anything about that experience, if only to explain it wasn't the ultimate truth?

If a student of Buddhism in modern times told his teacher about having that type of realization, what would the teacher say? Would he have a name for it? Would he say it's just an illusion, keep meditating?

Thanks
Isnt it 5th or 6th jhana? Deva loka and Brahma loka
Currently stuck in this one and actually don't have the desire to go further. Non self teaching is so depressing to me...

Do you mean you have realised 'all is self'?

Have you seen this map: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
11/1/20 1:57 AM as a reply to An Eternal Now.
An Eternal Now:
Ole Henry:
Deathless, unborn, unoriginated, uncreated.


Not so. See 

And "see" is what this "Buddhist" has done. I know there are as many points of opinion as there are Buddhist sects and practitioners in those sects. If you like to call the one and only truth God, Brahman, emptiness or deathless, is fine for me. In my practice, they are all the same. 

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
11/3/20 5:08 PM as a reply to Anna Kamara.
Anna Kamara:

Isnt it 5th or 6th jhana? Deva loka and Brahma loka
Currently stuck in this one and actually don't have the desire to go further. Non self teaching is so depressing to me...
Can you experience Deva loka and/or Brahma loka?

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
11/10/20 4:30 PM as a reply to An Eternal Now.
An Eternal Now:
Anna Kamara:
Jim Smith:
I understand Buddha didn't teach "all is self". But I am wondering if there is a term that is used by Buddhists to refer to the experience of oneness with God or oneness with everything or the experience of Brahman? Would they use the term brahma-jnana? I am assuming that it is likely that Buddha and his students had the experience. Did they have a term for it and did Buddha ever say anything about that experience, if only to explain it wasn't the ultimate truth?

If a student of Buddhism in modern times told his teacher about having that type of realization, what would the teacher say? Would he have a name for it? Would he say it's just an illusion, keep meditating?

Thanks
Isnt it 5th or 6th jhana? Deva loka and Brahma loka
Currently stuck in this one and actually don't have the desire to go further. Non self teaching is so depressing to me...

Do you mean you have realised 'all is self'?

Have you seen this map: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html
Yes exactly.
And i enjoy it so much. I actually do it on purpose by repeating this mantra "this is also a part of me" for things i tend to reject like painful sensations, or sound that seem to disturb my meditation. Then gradually i take everything as a part of me and release resistance and stress of aversion.  I become whole, i become one with all that is without any boundary. I become the Universe. And it's effortless. It is more a releasing process than a struggle against an I. It is quite the opposite. I welcome everything around me from the cushion i'm sitting on to the continent i'm living in. 
Thank you for the link i will continue reading it, your experience is intersting to me. 

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
11/10/20 4:37 PM as a reply to Jim Smith.
Noting has a similar effect. When you are noting, the same phenomena that otherwise contribute to your sense of self: awareness of body, thoughts, emotions etc., are experienced as a series of separate disconnected moments of awareness, so they do not produce the feeling of being a self.

Yes and love noting for that. It allows to take a step back and disidentify with the experience. 

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
11/11/20 3:07 AM as a reply to Jim Smith.
Jim Smith:
Anna Kamara:
... Non self teaching is so depressing to me...

I don't have that feeling at all. Why does it depress you? What do you think it means?



Because it doesn't work for people who don't have any identity on the first place. I think those teachings work for people who already have a strong sense of self, a stable lineage and familly. If your ego is traumatised at the first place, it is as if you were breaking it again whereas it need to be built and integrated. 

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
11/11/20 1:30 PM as a reply to Jim Smith.
Jim Smith:
I understand Buddha didn't teach "all is self". But I am wondering if there is a term that is used by Buddhists to refer to the experience of oneness with God or oneness with everything or the experience of Brahman? Would they use the term brahma-jnana? I am assuming that it is likely that Buddha and his students had the experience. Did they have a term for it and did Buddha ever say anything about that experience, if only to explain it wasn't the ultimate truth?

If a student of Buddhism in modern times told his teacher about having that type of realization, what would the teacher say? Would he have a name for it? Would he say it's just an illusion, keep meditating?

Thanks



      If "a student of Buddhism" told me they had an experience of "oneness with god" how would I respond? I'd probably say, that's all very fine, but it's not buddhism.

terry




 C’est magnifique, mais ce n’est pas la guerre: c'est de la folie ("It is magnificent, but it is not war: it is madness").

~pierre bosquet, referring to the charge of the light brigade

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
11/11/20 2:21 PM as a reply to Anna Kamara.
Anna Kamara:
Jim Smith:
Anna Kamara:
... Non self teaching is so depressing to me...

I don't have that feeling at all. Why does it depress you? What do you think it means?



Because it doesn't work for people who don't have any identity on the first place. I think those teachings work for people who already have a strong sense of self, a stable lineage and familly. If your ego is traumatised at the first place, it is as if you were breaking it again whereas it need to be built and integrated. 

aloha anna,


   Not built and integrated, dear: healed.

   Uncompromising truth needs to be tempered with compassion. Compassion for whom? Your self, my self; everybody's self.


   I think you are actually talking about homophilic society and a homophilic religion. There were many zen masters (ikkyu comes to mind) who drank and consorted with "the floating world" (I can't call the women prostitutes, not as they are known in the west). They were radicals and reformers who opposed the rampant homosexuality of the monks and a culture of petrifaction and conformity.

   Zen in particular is a culture of boys to men that generally presented the confucian face of a paternalistic society which had little use for women. In in the west our thinking bears the unmistakable stamp of greek homophilia.

   These tendencies are reinforced in social groupings made up primarily of dominant males.

   I am grateful for your courage, participation, and viewpoint.

   To challenge the basic tenets of buddhism is the sort of polish we need to make them shine.

   You are totally right that non self teaching is harmful to many, including most women, who possess in abundance feminine virtues which are sorely needed and yet universally deprecated by paternalistic cultures. Personally, I worship the goddess of infinite compassion. Every single cell in my entire body has a y chromosome; every single cell in your body has two x chromosmes. I sympathize deeply with feminine virtues, I'm like will rogers with a twist: "I never met a woman I didn't like." But I can't speak for them, though I occasionally try. Perhaps you can.

   May your ego be as healthy and strong as you wish. 

terry


https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/article/sex-zen-and-poetry-the-life-of-ikkyu-sojun



Every day priests minutely examine the Law
And endlessly chant complicated sutras.
Before doing that, though, they should learn
How to read the love letters sent by the wind
and rain, the snow and moon.

~ Ikkyu (Ikkyu and the Crazy Cloud Anthology, trans. by Sonya Arutzen)

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
11/11/20 4:04 PM as a reply to Jim Smith.
Jim Smith:
I understand Buddha didn't teach "all is self". But I am wondering if there is a term that is used by Buddhists to refer to the experience of oneness with God or oneness with everything or the experience of Brahman? Would they use the term brahma-jnana? I am assuming that it is likely that Buddha and his students had the experience. Did they have a term for it and did Buddha ever say anything about that experience, if only to explain it wasn't the ultimate truth?

If a student of Buddhism in modern times told his teacher about having that type of realization, what would the teacher say? Would he have a name for it? Would he say it's just an illusion, keep meditating?

Thanks


the realm of the gods...

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
11/11/20 8:17 PM as a reply to Jordi.
Jordi:
Jim Smith:
One(ness) implies two or more things are the same, ie. self and other are really the same. But if everything is not self, there can be nothing that is "other". Not two, and not one(ness). Nothing (that is self) to be the same as (everything else), nothing (that is self) to be different from (everything else).


Hi, Jim. For my expirence, the concept of no-self isnt that good and usually cause confusion. I like more no-object, isnt the self just another object? 


aloha jordi,

   The existence of an object implies a subject. 

   The self is indeed an object to a subject which is also a self, thus splitting the self into a endless regress of selves that we can object to. It is this split which causes samsara, as the subject is whirled from one state of identification ("style of imprisonment" - trungpa) to another.

   Self consciousness is delusory only if you believe in it.

   Believing in a self is a sankhara, an habitual tendency. Not believing in a self, if done sincerely, spontaneously and innocently, leads to what is perceived as a healthy, strong ego.

   To paraphrase john lennon, "Self is a concept by which we measure our pain." Forget yourself, end pain.

terry



"To know the self is to forget the self."

~dogen

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
11/12/20 1:13 AM as a reply to terry.
terry:
Jordi:
Jim Smith:
One(ness) implies two or more things are the same, ie. self and other are really the same. But if everything is not self, there can be nothing that is "other". Not two, and not one(ness). Nothing (that is self) to be the same as (everything else), nothing (that is self) to be different from (everything else).


Hi, Jim. For my expirence, the concept of no-self isnt that good and usually cause confusion. I like more no-object, isnt the self just another object? 


aloha jordi,

   The existence of an object implies a subject. 

   The self is indeed an object to a subject which is also a self, thus splitting the self into a endless regress of selves that we can object to. It is this split which causes samsara, as the subject is whirled from one state of identification ("style of imprisonment" - trungpa) to another.

   Self consciousness is delusory only if you believe in it.

   Believing in a self is a sankhara, an habitual tendency. Not believing in a self, if done sincerely, spontaneously and innocently, leads to what is perceived as a healthy, strong ego.

   To paraphrase john lennon, "Self is a concept by which we measure our pain." Forget yourself, end pain.

terry



"To know the self is to forget the self."

~dogen


you become who you are by letting your self be...

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
11/14/20 2:01 AM as a reply to Jim Smith.
Here are some verses from the Upanishads; maybe they'll help shed light on the matter of what the experience of Brahman is like: 



Brihadaranyak Upanishad: 

As unity we must regard him,
Imperishable, unchanging,
Eternal, not becoming, not ageing
Exalted above space, the great self.

Kathaka Upanishad: 

Independent of good and evil,
Independent of becoming and not-becoming,
Independent of past and future, 
That thou seest to be such, declare

Mund. Upanishad: 

"That which remains inaudible, intangible, invisible,
Which can neither be tasted nor smelt, imperishable,
That abides eternal, without beginning or end, greater than the greatest,
He who knows that has escaped from the jaws of death." 

Don't know which Upanishad:

Before whom words and thought recoil not finding him,
Who knows the bliss of this Brahman,
For him nothing excites terror any more.

Kena Upanishad:

That to which no eye penetrates,
Nor speech nor thought,
Which remains unknown, and we see it not,
How can instruction therein be given to us.

Taitt. Upanishad: 

He who knows Brahman As truth, knowledge, infinite (sat yam jiit'inam anantam), 
Hidden ill the cavity (of the heart) and in' farthest space, 
He obtains every wish . 
In communion with Brahman, the omniscient.

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
11/14/20 11:17 AM as a reply to Mike Smirnoff.
Mike Smirnoff:
Here are some verses from the Upanishads; maybe they'll help shed light on the matter of what the experience of Brahman is like: 



Brihadaranyak Upanishad: 

As unity we must regard him,
Imperishable, unchanging,
Eternal, not becoming, not ageing
Exalted above space, the great self.

Kathaka Upanishad: 

Independent of good and evil,
Independent of becoming and not-becoming,
Independent of past and future, 
That thou seest to be such, declare

Mund. Upanishad: 

"That which remains inaudible, intangible, invisible,
Which can neither be tasted nor smelt, imperishable,
That abides eternal, without beginning or end, greater than the greatest,
He who knows that has escaped from the jaws of death." 

Don't know which Upanishad:

Before whom words and thought recoil not finding him,
Who knows the bliss of this Brahman,
For him nothing excites terror any more.

Kena Upanishad:

That to which no eye penetrates,
Nor speech nor thought,
Which remains unknown, and we see it not,
How can instruction therein be given to us.

Taitt. Upanishad: 

He who knows Brahman As truth, knowledge, infinite (sat yam jiit'inam anantam), 
Hidden ill the cavity (of the heart) and in' farthest space, 
He obtains every wish . 
In communion with Brahman, the omniscient.


magnifique!

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
11/15/20 1:05 PM as a reply to terry.
terry:
Anna Kamara:
Jim Smith:
Anna Kamara:
... Non self teaching is so depressing to me...

I don't have that feeling at all. Why does it depress you? What do you think it means?



Because it doesn't work for people who don't have any identity on the first place. I think those teachings work for people who already have a strong sense of self, a stable lineage and familly. If your ego is traumatised at the first place, it is as if you were breaking it again whereas it need to be built and integrated. 

aloha anna,


   Not built and integrated, dear: healed.

   Uncompromising truth needs to be tempered with compassion. Compassion for whom? Your self, my self; everybody's self.


   I think you are actually talking about homophilic society and a homophilic religion. There were many zen masters (ikkyu comes to mind) who drank and consorted with "the floating world" (I can't call the women prostitutes, not as they are known in the west). They were radicals and reformers who opposed the rampant homosexuality of the monks and a culture of petrifaction and conformity.

   Zen in particular is a culture of boys to men that generally presented the confucian face of a paternalistic society which had little use for women. In in the west our thinking bears the unmistakable stamp of greek homophilia.

   These tendencies are reinforced in social groupings made up primarily of dominant males.

   I am grateful for your courage, participation, and viewpoint.

   To challenge the basic tenets of buddhism is the sort of polish we need to make them shine.

   You are totally right that non self teaching is harmful to many, including most women, who possess in abundance feminine virtues which are sorely needed and yet universally deprecated by paternalistic cultures. Personally, I worship the goddess of infinite compassion. Every single cell in my entire body has a y chromosome; every single cell in your body has two x chromosmes. I sympathize deeply with feminine virtues, I'm like will rogers with a twist: "I never met a woman I didn't like." But I can't speak for them, though I occasionally try. Perhaps you can.

   May your ego be as healthy and strong as you wish. 

terry


https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/article/sex-zen-and-poetry-the-life-of-ikkyu-sojun



Every day priests minutely examine the Law
And endlessly chant complicated sutras.
Before doing that, though, they should learn
How to read the love letters sent by the wind
and rain, the snow and moon.

~ Ikkyu (Ikkyu and the Crazy Cloud Anthology, trans. by Sonya Arutzen)

Terry Thank u for your validation. And I think real healing is integration of All that is not suppression of so called "bad" aspects of Self that's why I have a hard time currently with no self teaching. For me It's like spiritual bypassing of our humanness because yes we are incarnated here on Earth with an EGO made of conditioning and there is probably a good reason for that...
Thanks for the reference, very interesting for me.

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
11/15/20 2:24 PM as a reply to Jim Smith.
Brahman in Buddhism is the Dharmakaya. Read the tathagatarbha sutras. The Dharmakaya is labeled as self sovereign, omnipotent and beyond all concepts. And this concept comes from the mahasanghikas.
Mahayaba Buddhism was influential to Advaita Vedanta, and vice versa.

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
11/18/20 11:31 AM as a reply to Anna Kamara.
Anna Kamara:
terry:
Anna Kamara:
Jim Smith:
Anna Kamara:
... Non self teaching is so depressing to me...

I don't have that feeling at all. Why does it depress you? What do you think it means?



Because it doesn't work for people who don't have any identity on the first place. I think those teachings work for people who already have a strong sense of self, a stable lineage and familly. If your ego is traumatised at the first place, it is as if you were breaking it again whereas it need to be built and integrated. 

aloha anna,


   Not built and integrated, dear: healed.

   Uncompromising truth needs to be tempered with compassion. Compassion for whom? Your self, my self; everybody's self.


   I think you are actually talking about homophilic society and a homophilic religion. There were many zen masters (ikkyu comes to mind) who drank and consorted with "the floating world" (I can't call the women prostitutes, not as they are known in the west). They were radicals and reformers who opposed the rampant homosexuality of the monks and a culture of petrifaction and conformity.

   Zen in particular is a culture of boys to men that generally presented the confucian face of a paternalistic society which had little use for women. In in the west our thinking bears the unmistakable stamp of greek homophilia.

   These tendencies are reinforced in social groupings made up primarily of dominant males.

   I am grateful for your courage, participation, and viewpoint.

   To challenge the basic tenets of buddhism is the sort of polish we need to make them shine.

   You are totally right that non self teaching is harmful to many, including most women, who possess in abundance feminine virtues which are sorely needed and yet universally deprecated by paternalistic cultures. Personally, I worship the goddess of infinite compassion. Every single cell in my entire body has a y chromosome; every single cell in your body has two x chromosmes. I sympathize deeply with feminine virtues, I'm like will rogers with a twist: "I never met a woman I didn't like." But I can't speak for them, though I occasionally try. Perhaps you can.

   May your ego be as healthy and strong as you wish. 

terry


https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/article/sex-zen-and-poetry-the-life-of-ikkyu-sojun



Every day priests minutely examine the Law
And endlessly chant complicated sutras.
Before doing that, though, they should learn
How to read the love letters sent by the wind
and rain, the snow and moon.

~ Ikkyu (Ikkyu and the Crazy Cloud Anthology, trans. by Sonya Arutzen)

Terry Thank u for your validation. And I think real healing is integration of All that is not suppression of so called "bad" aspects of Self that's why I have a hard time currently with no self teaching. For me It's like spiritual bypassing of our humanness because yes we are incarnated here on Earth with an EGO made of conditioning and there is probably a good reason for that...
Thanks for the reference, very interesting for me.

bless you, dear,


   There was a recent scholarly discussion here about the skandhas, sankharas in particular. The five heaps - form, perception, feelings, habitual tendencies, and consciousness - account for human nature. 

   "The EGO made of conditioning" is a product of habitual tendencies and consciousness; that is, we are conscious of ego due to our habituial tendencies (conditioning) and our consciousness. Society continually reinforces (conditions) the sense of ego by making demands upon us based on transactions between individuals.

   The pov that I objected to in that thread was the implication that all this is ignorance in action and hence bad, wrong, incorrect. In fact working with the sankharas is the 8fold path being trodden.

   I agree with you that there are good reasons for how and why such conditioning evolved, how we adapt to social conditions. In any case, we need to begin with what we find, our habitual tendencies, and work with them compassionately and effectively. These are our habits, good and bad. It takes time to change, consistency of effort, perseverance. And clear-mindedness. Rejecting all habitual tendencies as bad by nature makes it difficult to improve one's character, to enhance one's virtues and minimize one's faults. The tendency to form habits of behavior can be respected and used productively; if not used that way bad habits tend to form of themselves, through inertia and imitation.

   The slow effortful working with character (ego) is also eclipsed by the dazzling prospect of instant enlightenment offered by drugs and unscrupulous "teachers."

   It requires patience, kindness, tender care, nurturing: love.

   The bruising atmosphere of shouts and blows often encountered in zen literature (especially rinzai zen) is designed to intimidate and control testosterone. Aggression is controlled by testosterone in women as well but they generally have less of it; it's not a level playing field. Women are far more likely in modern times to be attracted to buddhism and zen variants and their integration is having the same salutary effecdt they have had on police forces and politics.

   "Integration" of personality could come as a project informed by maps or it could be a natural process of acquiring integrity through the persistent cultivation of virtue. The one could even lead to the other.

thank you so much!
love,
terry

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
11/18/20 11:34 AM as a reply to Jake Frankfurt Middenhall.
Jake Frankfurt Middenhall:
Brahman in Buddhism is the Dharmakaya. Read the tathagatarbha sutras. The Dharmakaya is labeled as self sovereign, omnipotent and beyond all concepts. And this concept comes from the mahasanghikas.
Mahayaba Buddhism was influential to Advaita Vedanta, and vice versa.


advaita vedanta is a reaction to brahmanism, not an example of it...

an antidote to god worship and identification...

buddhism helped drive that reaction...

t

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
11/18/20 12:42 PM as a reply to terry.
Alright. Haven't stated otherwise.

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
11/18/20 12:49 PM as a reply to Jake Frankfurt Middenhall.
Jake Frankfurt Middenhall:
Alright. Haven't stated otherwise.

emoticon

(I just now discovered the smilies actually have names! this one is "wink.")

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
11/18/20 12:51 PM as a reply to Jake Frankfurt Middenhall.
Jake Frankfurt Middenhall:
Alright. Haven't stated otherwise.

"self sovereign, omnipotent, and beyond all concepts" except for sovereignty and omnipotence...

t

emoticon

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
11/18/20 1:08 PM as a reply to terry.
terry:
Jake Frankfurt Middenhall:
Alright. Haven't stated otherwise.

"self sovereign, omnipotent, and beyond all concepts" except for sovereignty and omnipotence...

t

emoticon


   Don't get me wrong, bra, I am not a partisan; I don't identify with atheism. I personally worship kwan yin, and she's buddhist.

t

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
11/18/20 1:14 PM as a reply to terry.
Saguna Brahman is omnipotent and self sovereign. For the Buddhist quotes of self sovereign and beyond concepts you can find them in the Nirvana sutra. For the omnipotent quotes you can find them in the Queen Srimala sutra and the numerious sutras saying "the Buddha powers are limitless, boundless etc..."

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
11/19/20 6:09 AM as a reply to Jake Frankfurt Middenhall.
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2016/07/how-should-we-understand-mahayana.html


How should we understand Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra?

How should we understand Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra?
Someone wrote:

"Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra is one of the most famous text of Mahāyāna Buddhism devoted to the positive affirmation of the eternal Self (or True Self) as opposed to impermanent nonself.

Buddha gives the following characteristics to the notion of Self:
“The Self (ātman) is reality (tattva),
the Self is permanent (nitya),
the Self is virtue (guna),
the Self is eternal (śāśvatā),
the Self is stable (dhruva),
the Self is peace (siva)”"

I replied:

"Did the historical Buddha teach the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra? Certainly not. It developed several hundred years after the first suttas appeared. But Buddhism as a whole is clearly an evolutionary/evolving thing, in the same way as everything in the world - biology, religion, worldviews, politics, economy, art, culture, you name it, it has grown and evolved over time. Something that is alive and living is evolving and growing and progressing, otherwise it's dead. From the Pali suttas, to the Abdhidharma, to Mahayana - Tathagatagarbha, Prajnaparamita, Yogacara, Madhyamika, etc... from Theravada, to Mahayana, to Vajrayana, (and even within Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana, there were many evolutionary offshoots) etc.

Mahaparinirvana Sutra should be seen in that light. It arose as an evolutionary reaction to the environment, the times. In particular as a reaction to the growing influence of Hinduism. But something evolutionary would by definition include its preceding doctrines, but 'transcend' it by adding 'new features' or a 'new presentation' of it. However, it cannot be something that fundamentally contradicts the preceding teachings by completely replacing it with something else (then that would not be 'transcend and include'), such as replacing the non-substantialist Prajnaparamita tenets with a diametrically contradicting tenet such as a substantialist/essentialist or Vedantic vision of reality.

So we cannot understand Tathagatagarbha Sutra without first understanding the fundamental teachings of Prajnaparamita, Abhidharma, and Pali Suttas, since the evolutionary edge always includes but transcends its predecessors.

And we know this from the Mahayana sutras that dealt with the Tathagatagarbha doctrines. We know that Nirvana Sutra "transcends and includes" its preceding doctrines.

Nirvana Sutra: "If selflessness is demonstrated, the immature grasp to the explanation thinking there is no self. The intelligent on the other hand think "The exists conventionally, there is no doubt."

-- The conventional nature of self is taught even in the Pali Suttas, such as Vajira Sutta.

Nirvana Sutra: "One must know that the teaching of the Buddha is "this is the middle way." The Bhagavān Buddha teaches the path as the middle way that is free from the extremes of permanence and annihilation. Some fools however, confused about the Buddha's teaching, like those with weak digestive heat who consume butter, quickly come to have views about the two extremes. Though existence is not established, also nonexistence is not established."

Malcolm:

This passage merely indicates that sometimes Buddha taught there is no self, other times he taught there was a self, as an antidote to different extremes. It is not the case however that this passage is claiming there is an actual self that is real, permanent, and so on. The Nirvana sutra states, as mentioned before:

When it is explained that the tathāgatgarbha is empty, the immature cultivate an incorrect fear; the intelligent know permanence, stability and immutability to be illusory.

Also the idea that tathāgatagarbha is full-fledged buddhahood is contradicted by this passage:

The seed existing in oneself that turns into buddhahood is called "tathāgatgarbha," the buddhahood which one will obtain.

Or:

When the Tathāgata explains to the bhikṣus and bhikṣunis that his body is afflicted with a limitless great illness, at that time it should be understood that absence of self is being explained, and one should cultivate the meditation of selflessness. When the Tathāgata explains liberation is signless, empty and nothing at all, at that time one should understand the explanation that liberation is free from the 25 existences, and therefore it is called emptiness. Why?, since there is no suffering, there isn't any suffering at all, it is supreme bliss and signless. Why?, since that is not permanent, not stable and not immutable, and because the nature of peace is not nonexistent, therefore, liberation is permanent, stable, immutable and peaceful, that is the Tathāgata. When the Tathāgata explains that the tathāgatagarbha exists sentient beings, at that time, one must correctly cultivate the meditation of permanence.

So really, it is not necessary reify liberation as a self, though some people may find it temporarily useful. But in the above statement there is no reason to reify an entity. Being free from the 25 or three realms does not mean that there is some entity outside of or apart from the three realms. A self either a) exists in the three realms, b) or it does not exist at all, or c) is just a philosophical abstraction used to describe the permanence of liberation when it is attained, and the permanent potential one has to be liberated.
http://www.atikosha.org

Malcolm:

Here, the Nirvana sutra clearly and precisely states that buddha-svabhaava, the "nature of a Buddha" refers not to an actual nature but a potential. Why, it continues:

"Child of the lineage, I have said that ‘curd exists in milk’, because curd is produced from milk, it is called ‘curd’.

Child of lineage, at the time of milk, there is no curd, also there is no butter, ghee or ma.n.da, because the curd arises from milk with the conditions of heat, impurities, etc., milk is said to have the ‘curd-nature’."

So one must be quite careful not to make an error. The Lanka states unequivocably that the tathagatagarbha doctrine is merely a device to lead those who grasp at a true self the inner meaning of the Dharma, non-arising, the two selflessnesses and so on, and explains the meaning of the literal examples some people constantly err about:

"Similarly, that tathaagatagarbha taught in the suutras spoken by the Bhagavan, since the completely pure luminous clear nature is completely pure from the beginning, possessing the thirty two marks, the Bhagavan said it exists inside of the bodies of sentient beings.

When the Bhagavan described that– like an extremely valuable jewel thoroughly wrapped in a soiled cloth, is thoroughly wrapped by cloth of the aggregates, aayatanas and elements, becoming impure by the conceptuality of the thorough conceptuality suppressed by the passion, anger and ignorance – as permanent, stable and eternal, how is the Bhagavan’s teaching this as the tathaagatagarbha is not similar with as the assertion of self of the non-Buddhists?

Bhagavan, the non-Buddhists make assertion a Self as “A permanent creator, without qualities, pervasive and imperishable”.

The Bhagavan replied:

“Mahaamati, my teaching of tathaagatagarbha is not equivalent with the assertion of the Self of the non-Buddhists.

Mahaamati, the Tathaagata, Arhat, Samyak Sambuddhas, having demonstrated the meaning of the words "emptiness, reality limit, nirvana, non-arisen, signless", etc. as tathaagatagarbha for the purpose of the immature complete forsaking the perishable abodes, demonstrate the expertiential range of the non-appearing abode of complete non-conceptuality by demonstrating the door of tathaagatagarbha.

Mahaamati, a self should not be perceived as real by Bodhisattva Mahaasattvas enlightened in the future or presently.

Mahaamati, for example, a potter, makes one mass of atoms of clay into various kinds containers from his hands, craft, a stick, thread and effort.

Mahaamati, similarly, although Tathaagatas avoid the nature of conceptual selflessness in dharmas, they also appropriately demonstrate tathaagatagarbha or demonstrate emptiness by various kinds [of demonstrations] possessing prajñaa and skillful means; like a potter, they demonstrate with various enumerations of words and letters. As such, because of that,

Mahaamati, the demonstration of Tathaagatagarbha is not similar with the Self demonstrated by the non-Buddhists.

Mahaamati, the Tathaagatas as such, in order to guide those grasping to assertions of the Self of the Non-Buddhists, will demonstrate tathaagatagarbha with the demonstration of tathaagatagarbha. How else will the sentient beings who have fallen into a conceptual view of a True Self, possess the thought to abide in the three liberations and quickly attain the complete manifestation of Buddha in unsurpassed perfect, complete enlightenment?"

Lankavatara Sutra then states:
"O Mahāmati, with a view to casting aside the heterodox theory, you must treat the tathāgatagarbha as not self (anātman).
|

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
11/19/20 10:43 AM as a reply to An Eternal Now.
Malcolm Smith. He is walking encyclopedia

Anyways, check out this thread when he is contradicted multiple times by people more knowdgeleable on the matter than him: https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=97&t=19453&sid=323ae399a50568357edfdb2f32bf77c7

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
11/19/20 1:10 PM as a reply to Jim Smith.
Jim Smith .... maybe the OP was a serious question but as for Lester Levenson what a load of guff!

He's a salesman not a guru. (sad but true) I scanned the whole thing, he only has one spiel and he just goes round in circles (mainly transcripts of group talks from the mid to late 1960's somewhere in california - hear any alarm bells anyone?). The other link you posted goes to a woo woo sales website which among other things mentions manifesting abundance ($$$) if you pay for the teaching.

Posting quotes from suttas and then pointing people to a new age parasite: are you getting a kickback? are you a troll?

(hey, i just wondered what the take on telekinesis was, given that you put it in bold)

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
11/19/20 4:38 PM as a reply to Jake Frankfurt Middenhall.
Jake Frankfurt Middenhall:
Saguna Brahman is omnipotent and self sovereign. For the Buddhist quotes of self sovereign and beyond concepts you can find them in the Nirvana sutra. For the omnipotent quotes you can find them in the Queen Srimala sutra and the numerious sutras saying "the Buddha powers are limitless, boundless etc..."


   All the quotes in the world don't alter common sense. Beyond concepts means no concepts apply. You make "beyond concepts" another conceptual quality. Beyond concepts excludes limitless, boundless etc. Conceptualizing about what is beyond concepts is an obvious error.

   The buddha does not make this error.

t

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
11/19/20 4:52 PM as a reply to terry.
I is the Dharmakaya which is beyond concepts. The Buddha manifest himself in infinite forms (Sambhogakaya and Nirmanakaya) and his capabilities are likewise infinite. This is just standard Mahayana thinking. A tenth bhumi bodhisattva can put the entire of existence in a single pore of his Body, the Buddha power is countless times greater, etc..
In Advaita, Brahman can manifest himself as Saguna Brahman, in this form he has the attribute of omnipotence.

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
11/19/20 5:10 PM as a reply to Jake Frankfurt Middenhall.
Jake Frankfurt Middenhall:
I is the Dharmakaya which is beyond concepts. The Buddha manifest himself in infinite forms (Sambhogakaya and Nirmanakaya) and his capabilities are likewise infinite. This is just standard Mahayana thinking. A tenth bhumi bodhisattva can put the entire of existence in a single pore of his Body, the Buddha power is countless times greater, etc..
In Advaita, Brahman can manifest himself as Saguna Brahman, in this form he has the attribute of omnipotence.


(beyond concepts, only bowing, bowing to you)

may all beings be omnipotent

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
11/20/20 10:18 AM as a reply to Jake Frankfurt Middenhall.
Jake Frankfurt Middenhall:
Malcolm Smith. He is walking encyclopedia

Anyways, check out this thread when he is contradicted multiple times by people more knowdgeleable on the matter than him: https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=97&t=19453&sid=323ae399a50568357edfdb2f32bf77c7


Arcaya Malcolm Smith's replies there are succinct and clear.

Other than being a very knowledgeable scholar, he was also asked to teach Dzogchen by his guru Kunzang Dechen Lingpa, who attained rainbow body/Buddhahood/fourth vision. John Tan (the author of http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html ) and myself are attending his Dzogchen teachings. He currently has a sangha. He is more than highly qualified -- he is an arcaya, which is a title that is higher than lama, according to a teacher that gave him his title.

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
11/20/20 11:16 AM as a reply to An Eternal Now.
It is my perception that in said thread there were very strong refutations by practitioners whose tradition is mainly based on those texts.

Other than that, personally i'm not a Dzogchen practitioner. But he clearly is a very knowledgeable master.

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
11/20/20 5:40 PM as a reply to Jim Smith.
You may find this article interesting related to your question: http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-AN/26715.htm

The author essentially says that Vedanta and Theravada Buddhism are describing the same thing, but from a different perspective: Vedanta describes Awakening from a philosophical perspective, whereas Buddhism describes it from a phenomenological perspective.

Oneness, Union with Brahman, etc, can only be subjectively ''experienced'' as cessation. If everything is ''experienced'' as One, in such a moment there is no possibility of experience because for experience to happen there has to be Two, meaning a subject and an object. Hence, true non-duality has no experience, hence, cessation. 

The author says that commentarial Buddhism made the mistake to take phenomenological descriptions as metaphysical descriptions.

RE: What do Buddhists call the experience of Brahman?
Answer
12/3/20 10:27 PM as a reply to Jim Smith.
FWIW I met a yogi earlier this year who has been doing a extreme form of mindfulness from age 17 (he is 31 now). He had a rough childhood and got inspired by vivekananda  and jnana yoga.  His practice was being aware of everything in his field of experience in all sense doors in all waking hours and never had a teacher. He went through different stages of insight and a kundalini process. Not like the 4 path as per therevada but he mentioned going through stage of being, non-being, nodual and he had his final insight last year which he says no self. He emphasized on the non conceptual and stateless aspect of his experience. He is one of the most hardcore yogis I have met and he spent 3 years in complete silence. He gad a very powerful presence and could induce the nomind state in others if requested.  I have heard from other experienced yogis that the hindu Self is actually buddhist no self but I dont know their level of attainment and insight personally so I cant be sure. 

Announcements Announcements