Śūnyatā
-
I've been studying Śūnyatā again, lately. I find it..not disagreeable but, I find it purely "notional" much like an abstract algebra equation; something one could do in one's head and even perhaps realize the solution too but outside of the notional it does not have much practicality. Anyone have thoughts to share in regards to Śūnyatā?
-
Śūnyatā makes sense ofter one has realized state called Niroda sammapati.
Mental exuberance won't cut it.
-
which i would argue i have. I had a stretch of evenings years ago in absolute absorption w nothing but blackness, no thought, no feeling, just just.
But i still feel like it's a notional state that the adept projects their consciousness into, regardless of how the experience is described. There is still something there and attempts to use Pratītyasamutpāda in argument don't sway me. I guess it coming down to my Advaita preference vs the Śūnyatā/unfindability concept of Buddhism. Just wanted to see if anyone had considered both/either.
-
@Mercurius said
"But i still feel like it's a notional state that the adept projects their consciousness into, regardless of how the experience is described. There is still something there and attempts to use Pratītyasamutpāda in argument don't sway me. "
Thats not it, then.
@Mercurius said
"
I guess it coming down to my Advaita preference vs the Śūnyatā/unfindability concept of Buddhism. Just wanted to see if anyone had considered both/either."Advaita is somewhat different from nondual or anatta / anatma.
First advocates oneness the later non-duality.Consider this:
"That which is not present in deep dreamless sleep is not real." - Sri Ramana Maharshi -
Advaita is definitely nondual, as is Buddhism, but they part in semantics when describing Ultimate Reality. Advaita phrases this denial in terms of ontology. It speaks of an ontological Absolute and denies that it has any form, etc, etc. Buddhist pose epistemological question and then makes its denial, saying "no essence of self or phenomena can be found." This may seem to be a more complete denial, but I think there will prove to be an infinite regress of possible questions and levels at which to deny absolutely.
Stating my first question, i didn't want to try to lead people with too much opinion. My real issue is that i feel sunyata and pratityasamutpada strip away the false notions of ego, leaving naked awareness and yet buddhists will make no concession about how niroda sammapati is experienced if there is no-self to record it. Sankaracharya's teachings ask "Were you not present to observe that nothingness?"
What im trying to get at..if i have had stripping away experiences where the the ego is dissolved and yet naked awareness is absorbed into the big +1-1=0 and i can come back and report a state i estimate as niroda sammapati then why don't buddhists make an acknowledgment of that naked awareness as what at advaitist would call nirguna brahman?
Thats All!
-
@Mercurius said
""Were you not present to observe that nothingness?" "
I am going to try to not get lost in semantics here...
It is very rare that a person immediately jumps to the experience of 'no-thing-ness' ,
The idea of what that really means is a topic for another time.
Continuing on:
In most cases a person must go through the various levels of seeded samadhi.
Essentially absorbing ones Self into something Else
This Else is then what perceives, experiences no-thing-ness.So, in a way 'you' as you normally conceive it does not observe that no-thing-ness.
-
@Mercurius said
"
What im trying to get at..if i have had stripping away experiences where the the ego is dissolved and yet naked awareness is absorbed into the big +1-1=0 and i can come back and report a state i estimate as niroda sammapati then why don't buddhists make an acknowledgment of that naked awareness as what at advaitist would call nirguna brahman?
Thats All!
"Well, I hear you, and apart from my slight aversion towards intellectual discussions (which this is, IMO), all I can say is that Vedanta proclaims Ultimate reallity as Nirguna Brahman (Ramana Maharshi said that this is I-I, True Self) and Buddhist proclaim the same Ultimate reality as Śūnyatā.
In my experience, the latter is more to the point as there really is nothing/noone there to witness anything. Immediate and nondual (just hearing the heard, seeing the seen etc..., you probably know the text from Udana, yes?
Incidentally, may I invite you to a great source for mapping and comparing states of awareness?
Here:
www.dharmaoverground.org
Some really experienced people there (alas, not so many true magicians, IMO)Edited once:
here's one of my favorite Blogs on the subject under discussion:
awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
May it serve you. -
@Uni_Verse said
"
It is very rare that a person immediately jumps to the experience of 'no-thing-ness' ,
The idea of what that really means is a topic for another time.
Continuing on:
In most cases a person must go through the various levels of seeded samadhi.
Essentially absorbing ones Self into something Else
This Else is then what perceives, experiences no-thing-ness.So, in a way 'you' as you normally conceive it does not observe that no-thing-ness."
Agreed.
Well put.
-
"So, in a way 'you' as you normally conceive it does not observe that no-thing-ness."
For sure, and i definitely didn't jump to no-thing-ness. You're seeded description was well taken.
"and Buddhist proclaim the same Ultimate reality as Śūnyatā."
I think there is discrepancy between different buddhist thought, which is understandable. I was looking for clarification and realize it may be somewhat futile when we try to describe an experiential state, and lofty one at that. I read a Buddhist who opined that Nirguna isn't the same as buddhist ultimate reality, otherwise it would be called nirguna. My feeling is, they are describing the same state in different ways. I just don't have as much experience utilizing buddhist concepts in my mind and language as Advaita.
Thanks for your input, it's been helpful and I'll check out the websites!
cheers
