[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 282 KB, 853x1280, buddha-1431219_1280.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17236778 No.17236778[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

What is the observer if not the self?

>> No.17236786

There is no observer, there's just observing.

>> No.17236811

>>17236786
Uhm, excuse me anon, but then how do you explain sanskrit grammar? Hm?

>> No.17236825

>>17236786
I know next to nothing of Buddhism- have never conducted a serious study of it and only read a few scattered fragments. Is this line of thought similar to Nietzsche's critique of the subject, or is it just a superficial similarity? Based on these sorts of statements, it seems like they both seem to treat verbs/processes as ontologically primary over nouns/things.

>> No.17236903

>>17236786
This makes 0 sense

>> No.17237057

>>17236778
An illusion, a process, the aggregates working together, there's no observer just your mind making one up, it's all skillful means and everything is empty, "you just have to experience it", etc. Just as with memory, there's no straightforward way to reconcile it with no-self and impermanence, that's why stuff like the buddhanature, alaya-vijnana and bodhicitta were developed. There's where Hinduism and Jainism maintain the atman/jiva comes into play. Even Theravadins believe there is "something" there.

Mind you, nondual awareness, completely free of a subjective experience or any phenomenon is a real thing, it's just starting to get studied but it seems like it might not be fundamental to reality, just to our own brains, as it's the most basic awareness of a living brain. This kind of thing isn't restricted to mystical experiences, but iirc, it's also been reported after severe accidents.

>> No.17237084

>>17237057
>bodhicitta
I'm retarded, sorry. I meant to say the luminous mind.

>> No.17237110

>>17237057
I'm curious about the relationship between nondual states and depersonalization/derealization. They seem similar to me. The difference seems to be whether the experience is positive or negative.
Also, I agree with your take that nonduality might be a feature of consciousness. Honestly, it seems like explaining nonduality as a method or goal of meditation, or an achievable peaceful state of consciousness would make it more palatable to the Western mind, but most nondual approaches seem to uphold it as a fundamental feature of reality.

>> No.17237142

>>17236903
only because it simply is sense, and everyone is seeking to sense something beyond sense

>> No.17237264

>>17237110
They're not comparable at all. Dp/dr is still being aware of what your body is doing, emotions, perceptions, you name it, while not being able to identify with it but "you" still being somewhe, people describe it as not being in the pilot chair. Derealization extends this to the world in front, with the person being unable to accept it's there if they aren't here either. I wonder if the states some monks reach, with the feeling of inner peace and being beyond anything that happens to you aren't just a variation of this, with them already contioned to see it as a desirable (lel) thing.Non-duality is something completely different, it's not even fair to call it an ego death and it's effectively impossible to fully grasp unless you experienced it personally (still, "someone" experienced it, "someone" came back to report on it"). It's the very dissolution of the concept of there being something to perceive, an observer to do so, or a distinction between them. It's not nothing, but there's not much else you can say about it.

Do nondual experiences reflect the fundamental nature of the universe? I don't think so, I don't even think they're more valid than our everyday senses. That would imply my brain, or whatever I am is capable of touching it and understand it after a fashion after just "thinking right" and breathing slowly for long enough, and it's pretty conceited for a human to claim that imo. It's however, likely that awareness is the ground floor of consciousness, the most basic thing a brain can model, because it's not even a model of itself, or of full awareness of an outside world, just a model of being. And that has a lot of implications for the study of AI, for example, and that's actually the avenue the research seems to be taking.

>> No.17237534

>>17237142
so it is just the senses, how are we are aware of them? Are the senses aware of themselves? If so why does if feel like we have one locus of sentience instead of one for each self-aware sense type?

>> No.17237567

>>17237264
>Do nondual experiences reflect the fundamental nature of the universe?
>It's however, likely that awareness is the ground floor of consciousness
>just a model of being
A few fundamental misunderstandings here. The ground of consciousness is naked awareness, but this is also the ground of all reality. Naked awareness is by definition not aware of something, but is awareness alone. You are right in assuming that no model is that fundamental nature, but you are wrong in thinking that naked awareness is itself a model, and not the basis upon which all other models are built. It is not a model of being or non-being because awareness alone has no content, only it's own "radiance". By the mere fact that awareness clearly and undeniably exists, it must be fully within and fully identified with fundamental existence. As for the practice, it does not build up a model, rather it tears models down to leave only bare awareness. Normally we are distracted from our fundamental nature, but the practice is there to remove distractions and allow you to notice what has always been there, which is the radiance of mind.

About "nondual awareness": if this is taken to mean a purely psychological state then it is a distraction from fundamental awareness. Awareness is always there no matter what psychological state the person is in, but the psychological state is superfluous.

>> No.17237605

>>17237567
Nondual awareness isn't psychological, there's no psychology, no mind of any kind without it. Still, it doesn't follow it's the ultimate level of anything other than our conscious experience. Why would it be?

>> No.17237618

>>17237534
>Are the senses aware of themselves?
Yes, as I explain here >>17237567
the fundamental nature is awareness, but because maya arises within the flexibility of open awareness we think there is anything else.
>If so why does if feel like we have one locus of sentience instead of one for each self-aware sense type?
Consider this: if Elon Musk placed some electrodes in your brain, and on the other end of the wire was someone else's mind, wouldn't you be able to read a small bit of their mind, and vice versa (according to Musk, at least)? If your occipital lobe was removed you'd be blind, but if "you" were a singularity of being while simultaneously being your sight this would be impossible, as a singularity cannot be divided.

The universe is interconnected, because it's true nature is entirely non-dual and duality is only a projection of delusion. There is no need for a "soul" to glue the aggregates together because are always glued together anyway as they all exist within fundamental awareness. To a person the mind appears like one thing because casual connections are almost entirely in one network, with only the brain-stem for most casual chains to enter or leave.

>> No.17237664

>>17237605
Assuming that consciousness is separate from fundamental existence is like a kind of dualistic platonism, where reality stems from some source or nature, but our lives have since been cut off from it. There is no distance between absolute reality and our mind, because dualistic conception only exists as a mental object. Our awareness is real, thus in the non-dualist standpoint it must be intimately connected, if not outright identified, with absolute reality.

To put it simply: there is no true distance between a higher and lower level of reality.

>> No.17237757

>>17237664
Again, why should it be so? Sorry but I remain unconvinced. Not trying to just be a contrarian but that's a bunch of assumptions about what's outside our heads that aren't verifiable except by our own contemplative experiences that only tell us things about the common higher structures of human minds, not even the truly deep autonomous parts of our systems that brains also control. You can suppress every urge and reflex to run or douse yourself when you're on fire like Thich Quang Duc did, but you can't will your body to stop sweating or producing gas trough meditation. Like you said, if you take a brain apart it stops functioning in any coherent way. I'm sure there is plenty to take apart or switch off that would even take away my ability to meditate. I don't claim to know what consciousness is or what reality outside of my bubble of sense perceptions is really like, but I don't think they're necessarily related in any way and we've been kidding ourselves for too long assuming they must and that there's something in us that just has to be capable of touching objective reality.

>> No.17237815

>>17237618
>>Are the senses aware of themselves?
>Yes, as I explain here
If the ground of consciousness is naked awareness as you say, then the senses like the sense organs and their associated qualia like the sensation of blue are not self-aware, but the naked awareness is. The naked awareness is what allows for the sensation of blueness to be observed as an object of sentience, not the eyes or the sensation of blue being self-aware, which they are not

>> No.17237860

>>17237757
>assumptions about what's outside our heads
Nothing needs to be assumed about externality. Reality is outside our heads, yes, but isn't it also within our heads?
>take away my ability to meditate
Meditation is a practice, it's not naked fundamental awareness. In order to deprave you of fundamental awareness your entire brain would need to be destroyed, which would really be the destruction of "you" since fundamental awareness cannot be destroyed.
>deep autonomous parts of our systems that brains also control
These might seem to be separate from awareness, but that is only because our conceptual mind and its aggregates are all very very closely causally connected, while our other organs do not share the same kind of dense neuronal networking. The aggregates are actions or parts of the brain, but no single aggregate is fundamental awareness. It is irrelevant whether you are blind or not, mentally defective or not, can consciously sense your sweat production or not, as this is all psychological, but all psychology sits within fundamental all-pervasive awareness.

This is necessary and must be clear, I don't mean psychological conscious awareness, which is more accurately called "attention". You cannot pay attention to unconscious sweat gland production, but this is because of the psychology of the brain. The psychology of the brain is identical to the shape of the brain, which is the shape of the mind, but fundamental awareness is not the mind or brain. Another term for this fundamental awareness is "suchness". Eyesight, memory, taste, etc. all have some type of existence which is immediately and directly understood. There is no medium through which we see our own seeing, we simply directly see it in the present moment. This is radiant awareness.

Again, I am not talking about attention or anything psychological. Awareness is not physical, but the brain/mind/psyche that sits within awareness is physical.

>> No.17237927

>>17237815
Correct.
The aggregates are actually empty. They have qualities, which means they are composed, which means they are empty of self-nature. I have heard the phrase used: "light shining through emptiness" to describe how we are aware of an array of empty things, so only naked awareness itself is truly left, with maya appearing within that. So the aggregates are self-aware in the sense that awareness sees its own empty constructions. Blueness exists within awareness, but to divide "blue" and the rest of the cosmos is to believe blue has self-nature, thus blue is merely the play of awareness. Nothing is "aware of" as there is no true subject/object duality.

To tie everything back to this:
>If so why does if feel like we have one locus of sentience instead of one for each self-aware sense type?
>Awareness is not physical, but the brain/mind/psyche that sits within awareness is physical.
There is really only one awareness that is spaceless and timeless (This is my understanding of Dharmakaya and Dharmadhatu). My awareness is the same as yours. An illusion of diversity is created within this, but all things that have definition and qualities are empty, so this diversity is not real. Not even the diversity within our own mind. To repeat: Nothing is "aware of" as there is no true subject/object duality. There is only one self-radiance creating a physical play of brains within itself.

>> No.17237974

>>17237860
>>17237927
Not the anons you were addressing, but I'm also interested in these kinds of non-dual notions and there's a free book series which has given me a really comprehensive worldview based around it, called the Law of One. Came out in the 80's, and offers a highly original framework by which to understand reality in a non-dual/consciousness-centric light. The origin of the material involves the concept of "chanelling", and other ideas you might find convoluted or unbelievable, so I'll spare you those details and simply allow you to read the contents themselves and judge them as you do.

lawofone.info

>> No.17238017

>>17237927
Are you sourcing this from the Tibetan materials or the Chinese and other east-Asian? I'm curious. What you describe is very similar to the Advaita Vedanta position concerning the Atman. I suppose that they give a similar phenomenology of awareness and the main difference lays in what ontological status both sides are willing to assign to it and the question of whether or not the world appearance is directly or indirectly caused by it.

It seems that you are backtracking a bit and the fact that the empty aggregates are all illumined by the timeless awareness really does call for a "soul" that glues the aggregates together by observing them, and that's precisely what this dharmakaya does which you describe. This point speaks to the inadequacy of the aggregates-alone theory to accurately model how we experience consciousness, and the perceived necessity of Yogachara teachings, the third turning, the tathagatagarbha texts etc.

>> No.17238085

>>17238017
I mostly read Tibetan materials. It is similar to the Atman, and if the underlying understanding between the two ideas is the same, then I don't see a reason to say one is true and the other false. However, I think many take the idea of Atman to be similar to a Abrahammic soul, a singular essence that sits within the mind but is not the mind. Of course, Atman does not lie in the center of the five sheaths (bliss, intellect, mind, life-force, body) but is identical with all of them.

I think speaking of non-self in this way is ok for the sake of shaking people out of the idea that there is an individual/personal soul surrounded by aggregates, rather than there simply being one non-duality which is dispersed evenly everywhere. When we get down to the nitty-gritty, a proper understanding of Atman is admittedly similar, or even the same, as the understanding of Dharmakaya.

>> No.17238366

>>17238085
>Of course, Atman does not lie in the center of the five sheaths (bliss, intellect, mind, life-force, body) but is identical with all of them.
Only identical in that they are experienced through its light, and that the Atman and the sheath meld together into the same single appearance-at any moment through a lack of discrimination/insight, but it is not identical with them as it is the sākṣin or witness while they have no sentience and they don't perceive the Atman back in the same way that it does so in relation to all the perceived phenomena and modalities involving the sheathes. Atman does not really exist as an enclosed off individual soul sitting like a eye at the heart of the sheaths, but the Atman is all-pervasive and when the Atman is said to dwell in the heart of the being that is because the being comprises the metaphorical pot which seems to enclose a portion of the space that itself is actually all-pervasive, including the pot within the unbound vastness of itself. That the objects of awareness are comprised of individual objects obscures that the light which illumines them is non-individual.
125. There is something your own, unchanging, the "I", the substratum, the basis, which is the triple observer, distinct from the five sheaths.
149-150. One's true nature does not shine out when covered by the five sheaths, material and otherwise, although they are the product of its own power, like the water in a pool, covered with algae. On removing the algae, the clean, thirst-quenching and joy-inducing water is revealed to a man.
151-152. When the five sheaths have been removed, the supreme light shines forth, pure, eternally blissful, single in essence, and within. To be free from bondage the wise man must practise discrimination between self and non-self. By that alone he will become full of joy, recognising himself as Being, Consciousness and Bliss.
153. Just as one separates a blade of grass from its sheaths, so by discriminating one's true nature as internal, unattached and free from action, and abandoning all else, one is free and identified only with one's true self.
Vivekachudamani

>> No.17238443

>>17238366
>and that the Atman and the sheath meld together into the same single appearance-at any moment through a lack of discrimination/insight,
To clarify what I meant, there is the basis of self-disclosing or self-illuminating timeless awareness, and the sheathes are overlaid onto this, superimposed onto it, so that the basis and the sheathes becomes confused and one cannot distinguish the awareness from the sheathes within which it's enveloped., but at any given moment what all sentient beings experience is just this continuous self-disclosing sentience with successive sheathes overlaying it. Shankara in his commentaries uses the example of a glass ball seeming to take on the color of the cloth placed behind it, I believe the same metaphor is used in some later Dzogchen literature.

>> No.17238446
File: 447 KB, 1630x1328, 1609474658856.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17238446

>>17238443
I would be careful about reading Advaita Vedanta interpretations such as Shankara's as a commentary to the Upanishads, they are extremely reliant on Buddhist philosophy (Shankara is called a "cryptobuddhist" by most Hindus, and most scholars agree). If you want to read the Upanishads, work through them with editions and commentaries that aren't sectarian, or at least read an interpretation that is closer to the original meaning of the Upanishads, rather than Shankara's 9th century AD quasi-buddhism.

>> No.17238455

>>17237534
"Consciousness, monks, is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which it arises.

Consciousness that arises in dependence on the eye and forms is classified simply as eye-consciousness.

Consciousness that arises in dependence on the ear and sounds is classified simply as ear-consciousness.

Consciousness that arises in dependence on the nose and aromas is classified simply as nose-consciousness.

Consciousness that arises in dependence on the tongue and flavors is classified simply as tongue-consciousness.

Consciousness that arises in dependence on the body and tactile sensations is classified simply as body-consciousness.

Consciousness that arises in dependence on the intellect and ideas is classified simply as intellect-consciousness.

"Just as fire is classified simply by whatever requisite condition in dependence on which it burns — a fire that burns in dependence on wood is classified simply as a wood-fire, a fire that burns in dependence on wood-chips is classified simply as a wood-chip-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on grass is classified simply as a grass-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on cow-dung is classified simply as a cow-dung-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on chaff is classified simply as a chaff-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on rubbish is classified simply as a rubbish-fire — in the same way, consciousness is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which it arises.

Consciousness that arises in dependence on the eye and forms is classified simply as eye-consciousness.

Consciousness that arises in dependence on the ear and sounds is classified simply as ear-consciousness.

Consciousness that arises in dependence on the nose and aromas is classified simply as nose-consciousness.

Consciousness that arises in dependence on the tongue and flavors is classified simply as tongue-consciousness.

Consciousness that arises in dependence on the body and tactile sensations is classified simply as body-consciousness.

Consciousness that arises in dependence on the intellect and ideas is classified simply as intellect-consciousness.

>> No.17238689

>>17236778
a karmic construction of the five aggregates

>> No.17238929

>>17236778
Read the Heart sutra
Just do it, it's short

>> No.17239141

>>17238446
based

>> No.17239300

Is there any legitimacy to the claim that mahayana teachings were transmitted by the Buddha to his wisest disciples?

>> No.17239325
File: 244 KB, 681x1024, Enchoen27n3200.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17239325

Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw3TJLbPPQM

>> No.17239332

buddha nature is the mirror
the self is the dirt on the mirror

>> No.17239385

>>17239300
Hmm no. Mahayana is more like Islam, a hijacking for a previous teaching while claiming it's the real teaching revealed by the prophet to the chosen ones and the bad people were previously given only a provisional teachings which can't get them enlightened because they were too stupid to understand.

>> No.17239404
File: 107 KB, 500x637, 1489720161251.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17239404

>>17236786
holy fucking based

>> No.17239420
File: 407 KB, 796x1060, 1579471490563.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17239420

If I accept non-dualism , does it matter? If there is no free will, then like Nietzsche’s Zarathustra can I not go down the mountain and seek to play the game. I can have this knowledge, yet there is no reason I ought or ought not accept it. Only that there is what there is and I shall do what I do. Can one know the truth and live the lie? If all is one than the truth and the illusion are the same, and there only is, and what I shall do is no different than if I didn't do it, no different than being a guru, a dictator, or a libertine soul. So then Augustine is right, that only grace can free one's heart. Only in knowledge that there is no free will, only then are we free to do anything. Perhaps I shall become a Catholic, perhaps I will do nothing.
It is the disappearance of the self that is to be the final step of advaita, yet if all is one that am I not already disappeared, the living death. Whether or not the ego illusion remains or goes, it is no choice of mine, of the ego.
If reincarnation is a metaphor then is not nirvana inevitable in death, so then as the universe knowing itself, why not know thyself. Of course asking is only world play here for there is not I to write this.
I am death, I am unknowing. For if I where to have knowledge than I would be alive, it is than that I am the living death, the being that is not so and, the so being that isn't. Alpha and Omega, a god and a salve, a one and a zero in super position, a chance of happening. To live as a saint is not different than to live as a villain. To meditate is no different than to think. Those eastern faith are only tools to see this truth. Most humans are kind in nature, and thus act such in gaining this knowledge. Than to have an ego or to not, does not matter for it is all the same. Either was is equally crazy and sane in there own ways. I am the living death, I am that I am, and what I do is so and shall be done no matter what it is. Only guilt than is the illusion. Nihilism is then the meaning. With great ego I say, I am nothing.


So where am I right and wrong on this?

>> No.17239429

>>17239332
Who looks into the mirror?

>> No.17239437

>>17239325
The wisdom of Sun Poo will never fail to enlighten me

>> No.17239460

>>17239385
I don't know, the notion of emptiness makes a lot of sense to me. Extending nondualism to nirvana and samsara also seems natural

>> No.17239464
File: 45 KB, 359x388, 1581453636107.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17239464

>>17236786
BASED

>> No.17239467
File: 63 KB, 1200x1200, 1605307354719.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17239467

>>17239464

>> No.17239474

>>17239467
Margarjuna

>> No.17239480

>>17239474
>I'll enter the fourth jhana with you sweetie pie

>> No.17239562

>>17238929
It describes emptiness/shunyata but prescribes no specific method to achieving it.
Okay, so how do I actually perceive shunyata experientially and not just intellectually?

>> No.17239578

>>17236786
maybe it makes sense in poo language but here it's completely retarded

>> No.17239579

>>17239562
With meditation. There's no secret technique anon (unless you're into the weird Tibetan shit)

>> No.17239610

>>17239578
Why?

>> No.17239729

Why is Buddhism so much more internally consistent than Advaita? The latter is logically barren when it is subjected to scrutiny and lacks a cohesive methodology to achieving liberation, simply preferring 'metaphysical speculation' aka mental masturbation rather than equanimity.

>> No.17239739

Does anyone know if the bardos are a tibetan-only thing, or if other schools of buddhism recognize their existence?

>> No.17239838

This shits so stupid lol

>> No.17239843
File: 10 KB, 274x184, images (47).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17239843

...

>> No.17239880
File: 544 KB, 885x442, images (48).png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17239880

...

>> No.17239882
File: 202 KB, 606x731, 1604313603192.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17239882

>>17239880
based

>> No.17239937

>>17239610
if there is observing there is an observer, one implies the other

>> No.17239940

>>17239937
This, buddhists are dumb. Must be why all their monks and priests are pedophiles

>> No.17240025

>>17239937
Why?

>> No.17240031

>>17239880
Where is the temple on the right? Looks nice

>> No.17240049

>>17240025
because its concept makes it so, in the concept of any action there is also an understanding of the actor and one can't be fully understood without the other

>> No.17240053

>>17240049
You're operating on assumptions that you take to be axiomatic.
>in the concept of any action there is also an understanding of the actor
Dependent origination will clear this up for you.

>> No.17240080

>You're operating on assumptions that you take to be axiomatic.
Where am I wrong then? An action is performed by something or someone, it is in its concept, likewise observing is performed by an observer or it wouldn't be observation otherwise.

>> No.17240091

>>17240080
>likewise observing is performed by an observer or it wouldn't be observation otherwise.
huh no. You're just dumping the prejudice of the western rationalists.

>> No.17240105

>>17240091
I'm not making any metaphysical claim, i'm just saying than an action without an agent performing it is contradictory

>> No.17240150

>>17239739
Bardos are a Tibetan only thing. Other big Mahayana schools acknowledge some kind of transition period that is usually elaborated by local religions/cultures. Theravadins generally posit that the next life begins as soon as you close in your eyes in death.

>> No.17240158

>>17240150
>Theravadins generally posit that the next life begins as soon as you close in your eyes in death.
Then what is meant by theravadins when they allude to "being reborn spontaneously" in some cases (like that of the non-returner)? This idea of spontaneous rebirth is contrasted with "normal" rebirth in suttas.
The theravadin view seems kind of contradicted by NDEs, too.

>> No.17240166

>>17240105
I am not >>17240091 but I think that Buddhism argues that awareness is impersonal because you do not have explicit control over it. Therefore it is not perfect and whole and nature can cannot be any kind of self.

>> No.17240179

>>17240166
you can control awareness though

>> No.17240188

>>17240158
That is a really good question. I know very little about Theravada and NDEs admittedly but I can try to explain.
So being reborn spontaneously means to be born without a mother and father if that makes any sense. This generally refers to devas in the Five abodes who have abandoned the lower 5 fetters
>belief in a self
>doubt in the buddha
>attachment to rites and rituals
>sensual desire******
>ill will
So spontaneously reborn beings are beings that are born by a mechanism other than sex between two other beings.

As far as the time elapsed between rebirths, it is said to be literally spontaneous. There's a sutta somewhere in which the Buddha describes how fast karma and mind can travel.

>> No.17240196

>>17236903
Probably because you haven't read very much Vedic philosophy. There are so many concepts in the lexicon you could draw from to justify that statement that its truth should be near self-evident.

>> No.17240199

>>17236786
Fpbp

>> No.17240200

>>17240179
when you hear an unpleasant noise can you command your ears to stop hearing it? can you tell your mind not to cognize those particular sound waves? when you see an unpleasant sight can you command your eyes to stop perceiving it?

>> No.17240210

>>17240188
What draw me to Buddhist metaphysics for the first time a few months ago was actually the uncanny similarity between descriptions of the bardos and NDE reports. It's quite interesting.
>be born without a mother and father
Alright, I get it, thank you.
Doesn't abandoning the lower fetters already place you above devas? I think only the sotapanna can be reborn as a deva, while the higher levels of attainment are spontaneously reborn in the formless realms. This is a technicality though.

>> No.17240236

>>17240166
>but I think that Buddhism argues that awareness is impersonal because you do not have explicit control over it
I can understand that though I'm sure there is more to it than just the absence of explicit control of perceptions, I have no objection to the individuality and the pureness of the I being appearances but when I read "observing without observer" I just think it's lazy nonsense

>> No.17240244

>>17240200
I can close my eyes and put my fingers in my ears lmao

>> No.17240247

>>17240210
You are welcome friend.
In Theravada there are the Pure Abodes which are kinda analogous to the Pure Lands. To be reborn there you must have abandoned the lower 5 fetters as I mentioned before, so only beings that live here only exist because of the teachings of the Buddha. Bodhisattva in Theravada won't go there because they always have to be reborn as humans. If you just search Pure Abodes you can find a lot of information about the different devas that inhabit them.
I am glad that you are interested in the Bardo friend. There is an excellent documentary that you can find on YouTube narrated by Leonard Cohen where he narrates the experience of a lama reading it to a dying man, with dark psychedelic animations to complement it.

>> No.17240266

>>17240244
You're not actually modulating your awareness though. You're just managing what your awareness has access to. There's an ontological distinction between the two. While your eyes are closed and your ears plugged, your senses are still receiving at full attenuation, it's just that there's little to focus on.

>> No.17240288

>>17240247
From what I understand of the Pure Lands/Abodes (I'm assuming they can be referred to interchangeably), they're realms located outside of the cycle of rebirth where beings are guaranteed enlightenment, even if it can take from a single day to several kalpas. Is there much difference between how these realms are described in Theravada and Mahayana? I know the way to be reborn there are different (becoming a nonreturner in Theravada vs. practices such as recitation of the Amitabha mantra in Mahayana).
>There is an excellent documentary
Are you referring to youtube.com/watch?v=0gloEua0RSs ? I've seen it, it's beautifully made.
Do you know of any other good documentaries or talks on the subject? Or just Buddhism in general.

>> No.17240309

>>17240179
You're thinking of attention, which is psychological. You can't control whether you cognize or not.

>> No.17240311

>>17240309
>You can't control whether you cognize or not.
Not him, but you can, through the jhanas.

>> No.17240327

>>17240309
you can though

>> No.17240350

>>17240311
are you referring to the formless realms/higher jhanas?

>> No.17240383

>>17240288
That is pretty much how I understand it. All Mahayana Buddhism practices some form of Pure Land practices, which is evident in the homage in Amitabha in almost every Mahayana sect.
Also, the Pure Abodes are viewed as just the upper Heaven planes of the 31 realms of samsara. The Pure Lands are realms that created by the infinite passion of the Buddha (through beings like Amitabha) that exist outside the cycle of birth and death. These beings will DEFINITELY attain enlightenment, unlike those in the Pure Abodes.

>> No.17240399

>>17240350
Yes.

>> No.17240429

>>17240383
Right, so there is a difference.
I remember reading something about how Sukhavati took a precise number of kalpas to build, doesn't that mean that, as all conditioned things, it will also eventually end, even if it takes an incalculable amount of time?

>> No.17240531

>>17240429
I am not sure. I guess that because Sukhavati exists because of the infinite compassion of Amitabha it will only stop existing when all sentient beings have achieved enlightenment.
Amitabha pretty much made the vow when he was a Bodhisattva in another life that he would accumulate so much merit that he could create a realm where people could practice the Dharma uninterrupted and without fetters until they gained Enlightenment.

>> No.17240687

>>17240311
>>17240350
What are the jhanas actually? Like AP?

>> No.17240808

>>17236786
This. Sight creates sight-conciousness and so on. The whole five aggregates thing is not super far removed from scientific conclusions on how a person works and self identifies.

>> No.17240812

>>17240808
Except materialism posits that the aggregates are all there is, while Buddhism says this is not so.

>> No.17240821
File: 186 KB, 1600x1231, Mind Works-The Five Aggregates.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17240821

>>17237534
This might help. Shows how the aggregates depend on each other without there ever being a self.

>> No.17240823

>>17240812
yeah but it is still materialistic and soulless

>> No.17240825

>>17240823
nope

>> No.17240827

>>17240812
Right. Buddhism is a religion because it has a faith component.

>> No.17240833

>>17240827
yes, it is similar to the other world faiths

>> No.17240835

>>17240827
Mahayana has a faith component, the barebones teachings were more or less "don't take my word for it, experience this shit for yourselves, anything I say about it pales compared to the actual thing"

>> No.17240856

Why don't western Buddhists venerate the various deities and saints?

>> No.17240862

>>17240856
What makes you assume none of them do? Corporate mindfulness drones aren't "western buddhists" by the way

>> No.17240872

>>17240862
They are the face of western buddhism, as minuscule as that group is it is the truth.

>> No.17240882

>>17240856
There is no worship in Theravada.
There is little to no "worship of saints and deities" in Zen either, which is the most popular school of Buddhism in the west by far.
There are little to no Pure Land practicioners on the west.
Western Vajrayana initiates definitely do worship the various deities introduced by Tibetan Buddhism.

>> No.17240898

>>17240872
That's absolutely wrong.

>> No.17240913

>>17240882
Theravada absolutely venerates many beings doe

>> No.17240916

>>17240913
Have you ever been to a Theravadin temple?

>> No.17240936

>>17240916
I live in a civilized latin american nation so no.

>> No.17240949

>>17240936
Then you wouldn't know what you're talking about since you have had no actual exposure to a sangha.

>> No.17240950
File: 31 KB, 600x909, 1580611801142.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17240950

>>17240936
>civilized
>latin american nation

>> No.17240952

>>17240916
>we make offerings in temples full of statues of dozens of beings and think about them constantly but its not veneration :)

>> No.17240955

>>17236778

The same as it is for all of us. The observer is God, the Father.

>> No.17240957

>>17240950
Racism and Buddhism goes hand in hand I see. I accept your concession btw.

>> No.17240960

>>17240957
Cope

>> No.17240971

>>17240952
Thanks for confirming you have absolutely no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Read up on the doctrines you're "arguing" against sometime instead of making things up in your head.

>> No.17240975

Buddhisms insistence on a nonsensical eternal materialistic universe is its a great flaw, hence why they are shrinking in the face of superior and more moral Vedic and Abrahamic religion.

>> No.17240978

>>17240975
>nonsensical
nope
>eternal
nope
>materialistic
nope
try again :^)

>> No.17240982

>>17240975
Hinduism isn't even a thing outside its own home town.

>> No.17240988

>>17240982
>India is one small place
???

>> No.17241021
File: 217 KB, 1200x675, ENpAFktWwAAWwu9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17241021

Believers fight for the cause of Allah, whereas disbelievers fight for the cause of the Devil. So fight against Satan’s evil forces. Indeed, Satan’s schemes are ever weak.

>> No.17241034

>>17241021
>reveals countless priceless artifacts and texts
Based. The power of Emptiness on display.

>> No.17241081
File: 39 KB, 640x360, The-Buddhist-statues-after-being-destroyed.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17241081

And together fight the polytheists as they fight against you together. And know that Allah is with those mindful of Him.

>> No.17241096

>>17241081
>work towards the arrival of the next Buddha
Based Muslims proving they were the real Buddhists all along.