THE
LARGEST INTERNET SITE FOR TEXTS ON BUDDHISM, NEOPLATONISM AND ADVAITA
NOW,
ALSO THE LARGEST SITE ON THE INTERNET FOR TEXTS ON NEOPLATONISM AND EMANATIONISM
(anatmanas tu satrutve vartetatmaiva
satruvat) “The Spirit is at war with whatever
is not-Spirit (anatman)” [B.G. VI.VI]
“Buddhism (modern)
is an extremely sick religion inhabited by atheists, agnostics, and at
best pantheists. They congregate together at ‘dharma-centers’, which are
little more than outpatient mental wards for depressed materialists, and
engage in idle chatter about attainment of oblivion and the denial of all
things spiritual.
The only difference
between the typical ‘Buddhist’ and the Islamo-Fascist suicide bomber who
straps explosives to himself and enters a crowd of infidels, is that the
‘Buddhist’ has set out to annihilate himself only, thru spiritual euthanasia
practices. Both of these types are the worst lot of demons which roam samsara
and plague others with their bestial ignorances.” -Dr.
Rama T. Guptar
Veritas
Lux Mea
"The
truth is my light"
"Wisdom is the Soul, is Brahman
become""My
Soul is my refuge, none other exists"
“The
create is sacrificed (consumed in the fires) to the uncreate. This is the
meaning of (the word) Jhana (i.e. samadhi)”
[Pati 1.70]
"The
Lord, the Buddha, is That (Brahman) which makes Brahman-wheel (Brahmacakka)
move (unmoved Mover, Atman)" [Itivuttaka
#123]
"The Soul
is having become-Brahman" [MN
1.341]
“The Buddha is
a teacher of non-dualism (advayavadin [i.e. Advaita])”[Mahavyutpatti;
23: Divyavadaana. 95.13]
Buddhism before Theravada existed, Buddhism before Mahayana existed,
Buddhism before Vajrayana existed. Before all schisms were.
The only internet site
where citations and philosophy supercede opinions, speculation and sectarian
dogma.
This internet site is
in honorable memory of the renowned Buddhologists and scholars:
Dr.
C.A.F. Rhys Davids, George Grimm, S. Radhakrishnan, J. Perez-Ramon, G.C.
Pande, I.B. Horner, Dr. A.K. Coomaraswamy, Julius Evola, Rene Guenon, Nikhilananda,
Chandradhar Sharma, Dr. Nakamura and many others;
all of whom denied to a greater or lesser degree the image and teachings
of modern Buddhism as being contrary to the original article.
“I am the Light, thyself,
and come to thee as such. Who thou art, that am I; and who I am, thou art;
come in.”
(www exclusive) "The Original Buddhist Meditation Manual" The method of emancipation as taught in original Buddhism. This is the book the internet has been asking for, the original method of practice for illumination.
THE PREMISE OF ATTAN.COM
“What
is the one benefit, Master Gotama, which you exist for? The one thing that
the Tathagata exists for is the fruit and emancipation by illumination.”
[SN
5.73]
"Followers, this body is to be seen as it really is, it is merely (the product of) past karma (i.e. the body/5-aggregates cannot be purified)." [SN 2.65] “The Aryan Eightfold Path is the path leading to immortality” [SN 5.8] "The Tathagata, the Buddha, is a designation for (means) 'become-Brahman'."[DN 2.84] "The well-centered mind/will (citta) is the path for attainment of Brahman." [SN 4.118] “This is immortality, that being the liberated mind/will (citta) which does not cling (after anything)” [MN 2.265] “This said: ‘the liberated mind/will (citta) which does not cling’ means Nibbana”[MN2-Att. 4.68] "Steadfast-in-the-Soul (thitattoti) means one is supremely-fixed within the mind/will (citta)”[Silakkhandhavagga-Att. 1.168] “Your mind/will (citta) is supremely emancipated, like the full moon on the fifteenth day in dark of night!”[SN 1.233] The single most philosophically
important passage in all buddhist doctrine [MN 1.436]:
“Attained the steadfast Soul,
their mind/will (citta) is calm; they’re cleansed of the entire world,
taintless they have become Brahman” [SN
3.83]
Picture of the Urn containing (some of) the remains of the historical Gotama Buddha. www exclusive |
Buddhist crucifix the holy swastika GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION MAP OF WHERE ANCIENT ICONOGRAPHY WAS FOUND BEARING THE MARK OF A SWASTIKA The true meaning of the swastika, the symbol of Emanationism, the ancient and only true religion The swastika, now incorrectly seen to mean “good luck” (pathetic corruption of meaning), or worse still, only associated with the fascist stooge Nazis, originally was the ‘swirl’ symbol which implied what Plato called the “Good”, the “One”; not a sentient self-aware Judeo-Christian/Muslim God, and certainly not anything associated with the atheistic/nihilistic evolution principle of materialism, but Emanationism, the most ancient and only true religion, which is opposite to BOTH Evolution(ism) and Creationism. Sadly and rather pathetically, there exists not even one book today written on the only true religion as taught by original Buddhism/Vedanta/Neoplatonism, that being Emanationism! The swastika in fact is the symbolic representation of the "God" of Emanationism, the religion/philosophy of Plato, Plotinus, the Upanishads, the historical Buddha, Proclus, Albinus, and, according the writings of ancient Greek Platonist Iamblichus, the religion of the Pythagoreans. -Webmaster attan.com -[Amaravati India, 1st century BC (line copies of the stone carvings)] *PICTURE OF SWASTIKA ON BUDDHIST ICONOGRAPHY* "Buddhapada" (footprints of the Buddha) showing swastikas (pali: sotthi) and the brahmacakka (wheel of Brahman, thousand-spoked). In oldest Buddhist sutta, the swastika is the symbol for the Soul, and in the iconography of the above "Buddhapada", represents metaphorically "to be stationed in (stand) in the Soul (thitatta [Tikanipa’ta-Att. 3.4])", the brahmacakka being that which the Soul is like unto [MN 1.341]. See article below. The Swastika and its symbolic meaning thru history INSCRIPTION ON ANCIENT NORWEGIAN SWORD BLADE, IN TRANSLATION: "OH THORMUTH" "[THIS SWORD] BELONGS TO THORMUTH" The swastika in Buddhist scripture. Its meaning and relevance |
What
is Original Buddhism?
Original Buddhism is Buddhasasana (doctrine of the Buddha) which predates all revisionist sects such as Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana, Zen, and other radical hybrids which, while proclaiming to teach Buddhism, are very far indeed from the methodology illumined in the Nikayas (scriptures) of Buddhism for finding immortality. Contrary to modern misunderstanding, Buddhism never denied Vedic nor Upanishadic philosophy; in fact, the historical Buddha praised the Vedas numberless times in Sutta [Ud-A #55; Ud #3]. It is commonly misunderstood that the Nikayas 'belong to the Theravada tipitaka', however this is completely inaccurate as most experts will testify to, for Theravada itself did not exist prior to the 2nd century A.D. nor are the Nikayas, Vinaya (many versions), and Abhidhamma (numberless versions which post date the Nikayas by many centuries) homogenous works; and as G.C. Pande and others elucidate “The major portion of the Nikayas appear to have certainly existed in the 4th century B.C.E.” [Studies in the Origins of Buddhism p.15]. The only presectarian corpus of Buddhism exists within the ancient scriptures of the Pali Nikayas and are, unquestionably, the oldest group of materials that exist which can illuminate for us that which the historical Gotama Buddha did or did not teach and his philosophical system culminating in emancipation and immortality. Both the Vinaya and the Abhidhamma are post-Buddhistic creations by sectarian monastic "Buddhism", which have no bearing nor connection to either Buddhism or its philosophical system of liberation. The more superficially one studies Buddhism, the more it seems to differ from the Brahmanism in which it originated; the more profound our study, the more difficult it becomes to distinguish Buddhism from Brahmanism, or to say in what respects, if any, Buddhism is really unorthodox. At the time frame of the historical Buddha Sakyamuni, Vedic methodology had become a corrupt system of rites and petty ritualism (eerily reminiscent of modern ‘Buddhism’ today), such as: “the Buddha is critical of the two dead ends in which he takes the Brahmins to have excessive indulgence in the pleasures of the senses, and excessive asceticism; both of which diverge from the old true Vedic ideal of the rishis of few wants. The true brahmin is that which the Buddha clearly approves of, such that he proclaims his Arahants to be the ‘true brahmins” [DN 1.167; Ud. 3, 4, 6, 29; Sn 612,656, 284-306; Dhp. 383,423]. Buddhism, as are the Upanishads, a means of emancipation (vimutta) from samsara (transmigration) through the perfection of wisdom and making the will/mind (citta) self-assimilated, therein being established in one's Soul [DN2-Att. 2.479]. Modernity, in refutation to Buddhism, has inverted the teachings of Buddhism to imply that mere superficial compassion, secular morality, and merit-making are the core of Buddhism [this superficial view of the path is denied at MN 3.72], and that Buddhism denies empirically the notion of autonomous stasis, i.e. the Soul, the Subjective and ontological nexus of noetic being. There are only two absolutes in Buddhism: “Emancipation of mind (cittavimutti) and emancipation by wisdom (pannavimutti), this is a designation for both ways liberated” [DN 2.71]; emancipation of mind achieved through Jhanic Samadhi, and emancipation by wisdom achieved through transmundane gnosis thereby eliminating avijja (nescience/agnosis/ignorance) which is the impetus for perpetual transmigration and the very root of suffering itself. Having achieved these two is deemed amata [immortality SN 5.8] and “emancipated in the Soul” [SN 3.54]. Logically one surely would ask, "why then is there a need for Buddhism, if in fact it is true that Buddhism in no way treads contrary to the Vedas or the Upanishads"? Firstly, Buddhism is to Vedanta, as Plotinus is to Plato, that being that Buddhism is highly more condensed philosophically, infinitely less verbose, and is not, generally, steeped in highly complex mytho-poetic metaphor that only supreme experts of Vedanta and sanskrit are able to see clearly through to realize content. Secondly, Buddhism, as the sramananic movement it was, sought to deprive from the select ‘elite’ of 500 B.C.E. Vedic masters, that hidden means which kept those who were “intelligently ripe”, and desired emancipation from samsara, from achieving that same goal without having to pass through a convoluted maze of pomposity, rite, and unobtainable prestige required to sit at the foot of him who would illuminate the path to immortality. In saying this, it must be pointed out that Buddhism was never an ‘everyman’s religion’, for as Gotama himself said, his teachings were for but those of “little dust in their eyes” [MN 1.168], however there were those Aryan-minded few who were “wasting away from lack of hearing the teachings”, and to them he was inclined to instruct the ancient path leading from mortality to immortality. “I have seen” says the Buddha, “the ancient path, the old road, which was tread upon by the illumined Brahmins of old, that is the path I follow. Just like an over covered path lost long ago is that which I have rediscovered” [SN 2.106]. As it happens, the only thing denied in oldest doctrine by the historical Buddha was that one was a "Brahmin by birth" (Brahmabandhu), rather than a "Brahmin by gnosis" (Brahmavit). The untaught, average man, when the end is at hand, "mourns, pines, weeps and wails"; but not so the Aryan disciple in whom the fires of selfhood (corporeal) have been quenched he knows that death is the inevitable end of all born beings and having made "the Soul his refuge" [DN 2.100], and taking this fate of the body for granted, only considers, "How shall I best apply my strength to what's at hand?" [A., III. 56] until he dies. Having already died to whatever can die ("a dead man walking"), he awaits the dissolution of the temporal vehicle with perfect composure and can say: "I hanker not for life, and am not impatient for death. I await the hour, like a servant expecting his wages; I shall lay down this body of mine at last, foreknowing, recollected" [Th., I. 606, 1002]. Or even if the Aryan disciple, whether a mendicant or still a householder, has not yet "done all that there was to be done," he is assured that having come into being elsewhere according to his deserts, it will still be possible for him to work out his perfection there. The words, "O grave, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?" might well have been the Buddha's or those of any true Buddhist. For him, there will be no more becoming, no more sorrow; or if there is, it will not be for long, for he has already gone far on that long road that leads to Nirvana, "and, indeed, he will soon have reached the goal." As the oldest texts of Buddhism say, wherein Lord Gotama called his path: "Brahmayana (path to Brahman/the Absolute)" [SN 5.5]. "And what, followers, is ‘Brahminhood’? It is our Aryan Eightfold Path" [SN 5.25]. "How is one a Brahman, is deemed crossed over, and gone beyond? Herein him, whose mind (citta) is freed, devoid of defilements, is liberated by wisdom. Such a one is a Brahman, is deemed crossed over, and gone beyond" [AN 2.6]. "The peoples say that Gotama is the supreme teacher of the way leading to the union with Brahman.” [DN 1.248] "The Tathagata, the Buddha, is a designation for (means) 'become-Brahman'." [DN 2.84] "The well-centered mind/will (citta) is the path for attainment of Brahman."[SN 4.118] *A MUST READ!! Against no-Soul theories of Anatta in PDF (187 KB)* ANATTA/ANATMAN. Reversing the ignorance on this term. The actual scriptural meaning of anatta. Nowhere does it occur in sutra implying "No-soul [doctrine]". Read what nihilistic modern pseudo-Buddhism has been hiding for so long about the term anatta. Books of highest recommendation regarding original Buddhism found on amazon.com The Living Thoughts of Gotama the Buddha by Dr. A.K. Comaraswamy Doctrine of the Buddha by George Grimm Studies in the Origins of Buddhism by G.C. Pande Sakya or Buddhist Origins by Dr. C.A.F. Rhys Davids (and other books by same author) The Doctrine of Awakening by Julius Evola Indian Buddhism by Dr. Nakamura Divine Revelation in Pali Buddhism by Peter Masefield Self & Non-Self in Early Buddhism by Perez-Ramon The Advaita Tradition in Indian Philosophy by C. Sharma Indian Philosophy by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan [Studies in the Origins of Buddhism. Govind Pande Chandre; Motilal publishers ISBN 8120810163 1999] -"It follows that only the Nikayas go back to a period which predate the formation of Buddhist sects, which is important in discerning doctrinal matters." [page 12] -"Also it is of great note that from the standpoint of doctrinal evolution, that the stage of thought as reflected in sectarian controversies is much later that the formation and recording of the nikayas." [page 13] -"Only the Nikayas thusly, reflect the first and earliest period of the history of Buddhist thought when the Sangha was in doctrine at one." [page 13] - "Since only the Nikayas make no note of the massive schisms within the Buddhist Sangha, this is further evidence that it is only the Nikayas themselves that predate all sectarian divisions within the Buddhist Sangha." [page 16] -"The Nikayas would have to be placed as having been recorded no later than the first half of the 4th century B.C." [page 13] -“The vast majority of the Nikayas appear to have existed in record no later then 460 B.C." [page 14] -"An examination of the Sanchi inscriptions [one of Buddha’s stupas], show that some time before the early 4th century B.C. there was already a well established collection of Buddhist sermons of the Nikayas." [page 14] |
The 'secret' principle behind Emanationism (Monism, Platonism, original Buddhism, and Advaita Vedanta) Copyright 2006 Author: Webmaster attan.com Avijja is literally meant Emanationism, the extrinsic attribute of the Absolute which is the indefinite dyad (aoristos dyas) for all creation, if the Absolute were devoid of an attribute, creation would be impossible, for even the most simplex of things have at least one attribute, the illumination of light and fluidity of water, for example (both attributes of a simplex principle). From the perspective of the Absolute, the very ‘stuff’ of will (citta/Brahman), there is no attribute, it is will utterly and only; as such the nature of the Absolute and its ‘act’ must be wholly indistinguishable, otherwise the presupposition of two subjects, the Absolute and X, would be posited and the very premise of Monism (Monism in meaning = 1 only) and of Emanationism would be utterly negated. Avijja is a compound term composed of the privative A (not, opposite to, other than, lack of) and VIJJA (Light, Soul, Atman, Brahman). The very nature of the Absolute (vijja), which is objectively directed (a) away from its very Subject (vijja/Brahman), which is also that very same nature of the Atman (“Atman is [of the nature of] Brahman”-Up, and Buddhism: ‘Brahmabhutena attano’). The confusion over avijja lies in the fact that it is both subjectively and objectively directed simultaneously. Avijja itself being the “light from itself (directed)” is meant that avijja has the Subjective (Self and Absolute) as its object, namely the concealment or privation (a) of the Subject (Atman) from itself. Avijja is objectification by its very definition, i.e. Emanationism. The object of avijja is the Absolute (the light, or vijja, from itself, a), meaning that the Subject, the Absolute, is self-objectifying, i.e. the very nature of will (citta,chit,Brahman) itself, being ‘to will’, not to itself, but to other. Avijja is itself objectification (by the Subject to other), but the very lack of (a) wisdom (vijja) in the will of a being is as pertains its nature, the Subject to which avijja is the very object of. Brahman is Atman, and Atman is of the nature of Brahman and in no doubt the very premise of both the Upanishads and of original Buddhism, the only differentiation between the two is Atman is devoid of the objectively directed attribute of Brahman, such that the Atman is self-reflexive and self-assimilative, i.e. completely dis-objectified =self-actualization,... the actualization (Atman) of what was before merely potential due to the objectively (avijja) directed nature of the Absolute. Atman is the actualization (by wisdom, self-assimilation) of Brahman which is sheer potential and unmediated (avijja). Just as one cannot differentiate light from its attribute (to illumine), neither can the nature of the Absolute be thought different or a separate entity from its attributive or extrinsic principle, that of self-objectification, that will wills (citta cetasa). Agnosis is Emanationism itself, the objectively directed “light” from itself to other. Avijja is not a thing itself, but a privation, the uncaused cause for all becoming (bhava). Unlike Creationism which posits a sentient all-aware Superbeing (God) as the principle (1st cause) behind the complexity we see in nature, Emanationism differs to the logic necessity of merely the extrinsic side of the nature of the Absolute as such that it is, by its very attribute, the “unmoved Mover” behind all things composite, phenomenal and noetic. Complexity in nature and the cosmos at large is in dispute by none, neither by Creationist, Nihilist, or Monist (Emanationist), only the nexus for said complexity is disputed. As pertains the Absolute, its nature and activity are inseparably one thing only, this is the long lost ‘secret’ behind avijja. There is no first cause behind the phenomenal cosmos nor for the spiritual, the noetic will(s) which encircle and underlies the visible world. With attribute as ‘cause’, all things are manifest as the artifice (maya) of the visible world we covet in ignorance (avijja). First cause necessitates an irreconcilable duality, which cannot be enjoined in Emanationism, that A: something other than the Absolute is cause for all things become, or that B: the Absolute is complex being (God) that chose and created the cosmos. The reconciliation of the ignorant proposition of a “first cause for all things become” is merely that of the attributive and extrinsic nature of the Absolute itself, avijja, or the will to other, the ‘lighting outwards of the nature of light itself’, or as is meant here, the Absolute, which is of the nature of will (citta). “Bhavanirodha nibbanam” (subjugation of becoming is meant Nirvana) is absolutely identical in meaning to “Yoga chita vritti nirodha” (Yoga [samadhi/assimilation] is the subjugation of the will’s [citta] turnings/ manifestations/ perturbations); as such becoming (bhava) and vritti (perturbations) are meant the inchoate nature of the will to objectively direct itself in perpetuity is the beginningless and the primordial principle of the Absolute to other. Overcoming the attributive privation of the Subject to have itself as an object (an impossibility) must be surmounted for liberation to occur such that the Subject has itself as object indirectly thru the via negativa methodology wherein the will ‘knows’ itself as ‘none of this’ and becoming is halted and Self-objectification ceases (nirodha). Avijja and anatta (Skt. Anatman) are interchangeable terms, the principle of the Absolute to objectification (a-vijja) is meant anatta, for what is other than the Atman, the Light/Vijja than all the 22 named phenomena which are not (a/an) the Soul (vijja/atman)? The finer distinction however between anatta and avijja is that anatta is the purely phenomenal manifestation of the ontological attribute of the Absolute, avijja. How can what does not exist in anyway be the cause for all things and namely for suffering itself? Surely as a man lost in a barren dessert suffers thirst by the non-existence of waters in said barren lands; so too does the Samsarin (person lost in samsara) suffer at the ‘hands’ of his will which is objectively (avijja) directed to the world of phenomena and sense pleasures, all of which are anatman and which is meant by the very term avijja, for avijja is the privation of illumination/revelation/ditthi in the being as relates to his very nature and true Self, of which the Atman is vijja. That his will (the very Self) is objectively (anatta) directed, instead of Subjectively assimilated (vijja, Atman), “therein does he suffer” -Gotama. Liberation via wisdom (vijjavimutta, i.e. pannavimutta) is the actualization of the light of the will upon itself (vijja) instead of, as primordially and without beginning from the Absolute, objectively (avijja) directed. Avidya (avijja Pali) has befuddled (and continues to do so) Vedantists now for thousands of years as witnessed to in lively debates we still have record of. Namely it was impossible for them to come to odds with the nature of avidya, such that “how can what is mere privation (lack of gnosis, avidya) be the cause for all things? Was Avidya real or unreal? Was it both or neither? What is the locus of avijja? Is it the Absolute, or the Atman, or the mere (phenomenal) self, or neither, or both?” None of these questions are tenable, for avijja is not a thing in itself, but the principle of the Absolute, the primordial principle antecedent to being, or the empirical principle of avijja as manifest in the composite being. What would the locus of a shadow, the privation of light, be? Certainly we can point to X shadow, but that cannot be the locus of avijja, for something precedes the shadow, so would it be that which casts the shadow? No, for that shape which casts the shadow is preceded by the light which is blocked by that shape. The shadow belongs neither to the form nor the light, but is the objective construct of both. Avijja is subjectively directed and objectively manifest. Since avijja is merely the extrinsic and Subjective attribute of the will (willing to other [object] = avijja), there is no locus for avijja, for if one were to say: “avijja is the attributive principle of the Absolute, therefore avijja’s locus is the Absolute/Brahman”, this is a nonsensical statement since the locus for illumination (avijja) as pertains light, is also unanswerable since neither the object of illumination, nor the light itself is the locus of illumination. Avijja is act, nature and necessity of the Absolute, all three, for its as impossible to separate illumination from light as to separate willing from will, or avijja from vijja, for avijja implies vijja, just as anatta implies the attan! Would so the fool speak of avijja or anatta without attempting to (in negative dialectics) point to the vijja, the attan (Atman. Skt.)? Avijja has no meaning outside the conjunct of will and matter, the empirical consciousness (vinnana). The very nature of the Light (vijja) is its outwardly principle to illumine (avijja), principle nor privation have a locus. The Absolute, or Brahman is most certainly vijja, simplex in every way, so to proclaim that the locus of avijja is “in the Absolute” would be both untrue but also illogical. Light (vijja) and illumination (avijja) are inseparably one thing only; this is the indefinite dyad (aoristos dyas) of the ancient Greek Platonists. Specifically ancient Pali is revealing, for the very word for consciousness, vinnana, is literally meant agnosis (avijja): vi (opposite to, contrary of, other than) + ñana (gnosis, vijja, Knowledge, Light, Atman, Brahman), i.e. Vi+nana (vinnana). For the “unknowing” (vinnana), the consciousness of being is the resultant manifestation directly attributive to the Absolute and its very extrinsic nature. As pertains Buddhism specifically, avijja is the first position in the chain of contingent manifestation (paticcasamuppada), however one need ask: “agnosis (avijja) OF what and BY what”? Ignorance itself is not a thing, but an attribution of something, be it in one of two modalities, primordial agnosis (avijja), or empirical agnosis. Samyutta 2.4 specifically (as well as countless other passages) equate avijja with agnosis (anana): [Katama ca, bhikkhave, avijja? yam kho, bhikkhave, dukkhe aññanam”]. Two entirely different levels of agnosis are at play in the model of being, one being the primordial agnosis which is beginningless, and the agnosis which is willed by a being from second to second, as pertains his will (citta), be it by wisdom or lack thereof ; ignorance is manifest which either perpetuates becoming (bhava) and actions (karma), or wisdom in its place which subjugates (nirodha) them; specifically [SN 5.127] speaks of the empirical side of agnosis in the being who so wills them at the discretion of his (level of) ignorance. “As above, so below” this is true of the Absolute that primordial agnosis is the higher principle behind empirical agnosis as manifest in being. The self-privative avijja of the nature of the Absolute that it is subjectively directed inwards, and the empirical ‘shadow’ of the being who marvels in the logos of Emanation as cast by the Absolute, but is unknowing (avijja) as to the Subjective “light” of which he is by nature which is also identical to the Absolute itself, being will (citta). Entirely in line with Platonism, Buddhism proclaims: [AN 5.113] “Followers, the beginning of ignorance can never be discerned (beginningless) such that it cannot be said “Here is the First where ignorance is not, here is the contingency which generated it.” Such that it should be discerned, followers, “ignorance is a condition” (Purima, bhikkhave, koti na pañña’yati avijja’ya– ‘ito pubbe avijja’ na’hosi, atha paccha’ samabhavi’’ti. Evañcetam, bhikkhave, vuccati, atha ca pana pañña’yati– ‘idappaccaya’ avijja’’ti.). In Buddhist sutta, avijja is forerunner, as it should be, being first in paticcasamuppada: [AN 2.12] “Above karma, becoming, and views, ‘agnosis encircles (all of them)’ as the (source for) samsara.” (“Ka’mayogena samyutta’, bhavayogena cu’bhayam; ditthiyogena samyutta’, avijja’ya purakkhata’”). Also: [SN-Att. 1.236] Nanajotim (the light of gnosis) = atman; meaning that the wisdom (vijja) made manifest in the disciple is the very premise for liberation as such that agnosis (avijja) has been cut off = end of Self-objectification (avijja, also = atta-an, i.e. anatta). In fact, in Buddhist doctrine the only noun “freed” of avijja is the citta, which logically presupposes the fact that as pertains our earlier question: “agnosis (avijja) OF what and BY what”? , must be meant avijja of the will’s nature (atman) by the will (citta): [AN 1.196] "With mind (citta) emancipated from ignorance (avijja)…this designates the Soul is having become-Brahman.", [AN 1.195] “Citta is freed of the sensuous taint, citta is freed of the taint of becoming (bhavaasavaapi), citta is freed of the taint of nescience/ignorance (avijja), Liberation! Gnosis is this, therein (utter) liberation.” [MN 1.279] “When his steadfast mind was perfectly purified, perfectly illumined, stainless, utterly perfect, pliable, sturdy, fixed, and everlastingly determinate then he directs his mind towards the gnosis of the destruction of defilements. Knowing thus and seeing thus his mind is emancipated from sensual desires, his mind is emancipated from becoming, his mind is emancipated from ignorance.” “This said: ‘the liberated mind/will (citta) which does not cling’ means Nibbana”[MN2-Att. 4.68]. "Steadfast-in-the-Soul (thitattoti) means one is supremely-fixed within the mind/will (citta)”[Silakkhandhavagga-Att. 1.168]. “'The purification of one’s own mind/will', this means the light (joti) within one’s mind/will (citta) is the very Soul (attano)” [DN2-Att. 2.479]. |
Or, the empirical self (namo-rupa, anatta), and the Spiritual (attan) Self Copyright 2007 Author: Webmaster attan.com *A MUST READ!! Against
no-Soul theories of Anatta in PDF (187 KB)*
What has Buddhism to say of the Self? "That's not my Self" (na me so atta); and the term "non Self-ishness" (anatta) are predicated of the world and all "things" (sabbe dhamma anatta); identical with the Brahmanical "of those who are mortal, there is no Self/Soul", (anatma hi martyah), [SB., II. 2. 2. 3]). [KN J-1441] “The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto”. For anatta is not said of the Self/Soul but what it is not. There is never a ‘doctrine of no-Soul’, but a doctrine of what the Soul (The Self) is not (form is anatta, feelings are anatta, etc.). It cannot be denied that what is anatta is indeed the mere and petty self for [SN 3.196], and countless other passages, the mere self of psycho-physicality is = anatta = khandhas; that same self which the disciple is instructed to have his will (ctta) reject in the face of illumination and insight. Of the Metaphysician, the common-fool (puthujjana) who knows “only of his self, is fated to most certainly die when his time comes”, but of that noble Aryan sage who has claimed the summit of wisdom and is “freed the will/nous (cittavimuttati)”, he is a “dead man walking”; meaning he has “died to that mere self and lives in The Self”. Such a person in quest for same is commanded “die before ye die!”, or that before physical death come and lest you still suffer the delusion of The Self to be this (foul) self of flesh and bone you have dispirited and disobjectified the will (Self-assimilation = Atman) in upon itself (samadhi, liberation). The common fool who ruminates over immortality envisages the survival of the personality (of person so-and-so; Bob, Sue); confusing the empirical self of “flesh, urine, blood, bone, feces” [Dhm] with the Spirit (atman). This empirical self is in doubt by none, that very same self “headed to the grave” and which “goes in its own time”. The Metaphysician knows that any ‘self’ created in time must also perish in those same (“fires of”) time. [Dhm. 147] "Behold! That painted puppet this body, riddled with oozing sores, an erected façade. Diseased heap that fools fancy and swoon over”; of which Buddhism in no way quarrels with modern and corrupt ‘Buddhism’, that of which this very self, the temporal phenomena of that person so-and-so is equally as much ‘dukkha, anicca, and anatta”. The ‘reflexive position’ taken by illogical modern ‘Buddhism’ proclaims the Pali term Attan (Skt. Atman, Self) to be merely a reflexive term meaning “oneself, himself, herself”, however the reflexive and empirical mere self is, regardless of translation, “anatta” i.e. “na me so atta” (not my Soul), or also “eso khandhassa na me so atta” (these aggregates [forms, feelings, perceptions, experiences, consciousness =mere self] are no the Self, the Soul). As pertains the reflexive self, of who proclaim “myself, himself, herself” we are referring to “that person so-and-so (Larry, Sue, etc.)”, the empirical and psycho-physical (namo-rupa) self of blood and sinew which is “doomed to fall into the grave at long last”, the very same self the poetic dead are said to cry out to the living “what you are, we (the dead) once were,. what we are you shall be!”. Even more illogical is the double standard of commentarialist and sectarian ‘Buddhists’ who desire anatta to mean ‘no-Soul’ as well as atta to mean simply ‘myself, himself, herself’; wherein illogically atta in the adjective anatta is, to their ignorant minds = Soul (‘no-soul’), but atta in standalone = ‘myself’. As illogical an end result, modern Buddhism has proclaimed atta = anatta! Its quite hard to fathom any position more senseless than this, however this is one of the countless reasons modern ‘Buddhism’ is illogical without end. However doctrinally and logically so, what IS anatta (the five psycho-physical aggregates of the mere self) are indeed ‘myself’, in so meaning the mortal (mata) self composed of the bodily humors which is fated to death. That mere self is never implied nor meant when Buddhism speaks of immortality and the path leading to same (amatagamimagga) [SN 5.9], of which “the body cannot pass that gate to fare beyond,..only the Soul (The Self)” - Homer The great dictum of the Upanishads is “That (Brahman) thou art” (tat tvam asi). “That” is here, of course, the Atman or Spirit, Sanctus Spiritus, the Greek pneuma; this Atman is the spiritual essence, impartite whether transcendent or immanent; and however many and various directions to which it may extend or from which it may withdraw, it is the unmoved mover in both intransitive and transitive senses. It lends itself to all modalities of being but never itself becomes anyone or anything. That than which all else is vexation- That thou art. “That”, in other words, is Brahman, or Godhead in the general sense of Logos or Being, considered as the universal source of all Being. That which is “in” him as the finite (1) in the infinite (2-infinity, i.e. phenomena, namo-rupa), though not a “part” of him. Referring back to "of those who are mortal, there is no Self/Soul", the common fool doesn’t 'have' an atman as such that we might agree with heretical modern ‘Buddhism’ which denies Selfhood in the absolute; for those same peoples who, in the grand bloom of ignorance, accept the foul self and deny the Great-Self, they are objectively (self-khandhas) assured that no underlying Subject (The Self) is immanent, or transcendent. Just as a man might have gold on his land, undiscovered and unknown, he has no gold, no wealth, even though it be his by measure of being present upon his very lands; so too those common fools (puthujjana), the ‘Buddhists’ who are certain and proud in their ignorance that this temporal personality, this self, is all there is. Theravada, in great illogic, goes one further to say that Gotama’s denial of nihilism (ucchedavada) was aimed at meaning that even the empirical self, since it itself was merely a composite and temporal construct, had no existence to be annihilated; thereby subverting the doctrinal ‘heresy of nihilism’ to be placed upon the view of denying the empirical self rather than The Self, the Atman. Of course, to ‘have an atman’ implies possession, and certainly so the immanent Subject, The Self, is a possession by nothing and by nobody; in this too the wiseman agrees with the common materialist who ignorantly proclaims “I don’t have an atman/Soul”, most certainly that foul self does not ‘have’ The Self any more so than that object which is illuminated from afar ‘has (of itself) light’. “There are two within us” [Plato’s Republic 439d, 604b]; in the expression of “self-control” implying that there is one that controls and the other (self) subject to control, for we know that “nothing acts upon itself”; for the one self “becomes”, and the other self “is”. “The ‘fair’ self (kalyanam attanam)…the ‘foul’ self (papam attanam)” [AN 1.149]; i.e. the “great Self” (mahatta) and the “petty” (appatumo) [AN 1.249], or that “self whose Lord is the Self” [Dhm 380]. In that modern so-called Buddhism has denied The Self, it has constructed an illogical impossibility in thereby positing empirical purity of which the doctrine of Buddhism itself, not to mention logic alone most heartily protests, for there is no possibility of empirical purity within the teachings of Buddhism. It is of course true that the Buddha denied the existence of the mere empirical “self” in the very meaning of “my-self” (this person so-and-so, namo-rupa, an-atta), one might say in accordance with the command ‘denegat seipsum, [Mark VII.34]; but this is not what modern so-called Buddhism means to say, or are understood by their readers to say; what they mean to say is that the Buddha denied the immortal (amata), the unborn (ajata) and Supreme-Self (mahatta’) of the Upanishads. And that is palpably false, for he frequently speaks of this Self, or Spirit (mahapurisha), and nowhere more clearly than in the too often repeated formula 'na me so atta’, “This/these are not my Soul” (na me so atta’= anatta/anatman), excluding body (rupa) and the components of empirical consciousness (vinnana/ nama). "What of this short-lived body which is clung to by means of craving? There is nothing in it to say ‘I’ or ‘mine’ or ‘me’." [MN 1.185]. "What do you suppose, followers, if people were carrying off into the Jeta grove bunches of sticks, grasses, branches, and leaves and did with them as they wished or burned them up, would it occur to you: These people are carrying us off, are doing as they please with us, and are burning us? No, indeed not Lord. And how so? Because Lord, none of that is our Soul." [MN 1.141]. “What do you think, is form lasting or impermanent? Impermanent Gotama. Is that which is impermanent suffering or blissful? Indeed its suffering Gotama. Is that which is impermanent and suffering and subject to perpetual change; is it fit to declare of such things ‘this is mine, this is what I am, this is my Soul? Indeed not Gotama!” [MN 1.232]. Buddhism’s command, same as that of Plotinus and the Pythagoreans before him, was the utter disobjectification of the will by inversion of that primordial attribute which is uncaused and without beginning (attribute/avijja). For only the wise and illuminated fully know the two selves, differentiate the two by means of wisdom with which they are endowed, and certainly do not see “Self in what is (mere) self (anatta)”. |
Correcting one of the many lies of modern ‘Buddhism’ Copyright 2007 Webmaster of attan.com The term Tathagata is composed of two parts, Tat, and agata. Tat has been since time immemorial in India, meant Brahman, the Absolute, as in the famous Upanishadic dictum: “That (Brahman) thou art” (tat tvam asi). “That” is here, of course Brahman, the Godhead, the Subject of Selfhood which the muni, or sage, has reached at the pinnacle of his having fulfilled wisdom’s perfection. Agata is the past tense denotation of gata (going, traveling, trekking), here being meant “arrival, gone-unto, attainment of, arrival-at”. As such, Tathagata in the ancient Prakrit Pali, is meant literally “(The sage who has) arrived at the Absolute”, or in Sramanic context of Vedanta and Buddhism, “(He-thou) is (arrived at) That”. The very term Tathagata, which has of yet never been discovered by anyone until now, is none other than a personal appellation of that very rare someone who has realized by wisdom “tat tvam asi”. The Tathagata, therefore, is equally as well meant “The ‘tat tvam asi’ comprehensor/sage”. It is unfathomable that modern so-called Buddhism’s position is that the spiritual appellation of the Buddha’s attainment, “attained/arrived at Brahman” (Tathagata) is merely an honorary designation for a popular sage. As [It 57] and other passages clearly show, “become-Brahman” is the meaning of the term Tathagata, or he who has arrived (agata), again being meant the transfiguration and assimilation of the mind (citta) in upon itself (bhava), and thereby achieving the Absolute, i.e. Brahman, as such (brahmabhutam tathagata) is said. To say that Tathagata, is meant by nonsensical “Buddhism”, to the effect: that Tathagata denotes the “thus-come one”, or “thus-gone one” has no contextual validity, is utterly illogical to read Pali as such, and carries no meaning whatsoever, which is all the more so magnified given that the very term Tathagata carries, regardless of translation, a very weighty importance and denotation; thereby secular ‘Buddhism’ intends to castrate the meaning of the term Tathagata, is yet another resection of original Buddhism by modern sects to turn Buddhism into a moralistic movement devoid of metaphysics. Scriptural collaboration of same: (Tathagatassa hetam, adhivacanam brahmabhuto itipi)-“The Tathagata means 'the body of Brahman', 'become Brahman'” [DN 3.84]. (brahmabhutam tathagata)-“Become-Brahman is the meaning of Tathagata” [It 57]. Many more such passages are preset in suttana. |
I
appreciate the permission by the son of Dr. A.K. Coomaraswamy, Dr. Rama
P. Coomaraswamy, to put up some of the works of his father here on attan.com.
His kind permission is greatly admired and will serve to give his fathers
writings greater exposure for the genius they are.
METAPHYSICS by Dr. A.K. Coomaraswamy A www exclusive here on attan.com, this very rare book is the finest description of Indian Buddhism and Vedanta metaphysics ever written! All files below from the book Metaphysics, are the respective chapters, and are in Adobe PDF format. If you download just one book on this site, make this the one. The fact that this book is going for $250.00 used at online booksellers is some indication. An entire pantheon of famous authors and scholars in this field have praised “Metaphysics” by Dr. Coomaraswamy like no other. An absolutely exquisite work without any equal, and truly the crown jewel of books on Indian metaphysics. Bhakti Aspects of the Atman Doctrine (581KB) Vedic "Monotheism" (568KB) The Tantric Doctrine of Divine Biunity (541KB) The Vedanta and Western Tradition (1MB) The Meaning of Death (159KB) On the One and Only Transmigrant (1.07MB) Vedic Exemplarism (1.07MB) The Vedic Doctrine of "Silence"(608KB) Measure of Fire (337KB) Who is "Satan" and Where is "Hell"? (572KB) Kha and other words denoting "Zero"; Indian Metaphysics of Space (540KB) Manas (584KB) Maha Purisha: "Supreme Identity" (464KB) Atmayajna: Self-Sacrifice (2.03MB) Akimcana: Self-Naughting (1.13MB) Recollection, Indian and Platonic (885KB) Indian Traditional Psychology, or Rather Pneumatology (2.43MB) Ramakrishna and Religious tolerance (1.2MB) "Socrates is old" the meaning of words (2.2MB) Some Pali words (8.7MB) The Seventieth Birthday Address (314KB) Dante's Paradiso (1.95MB) The "E" at Delphi (460KB) The Flood in the Hindu Tradition (1.18MB) Lila (1MB) Nirukta (1MB) Play and Seriousness (427KB) Traditional Art and Symbolism by Dr. A.K. Coomaraswamy A www exclusive here on attan.com, this rare book in its entirety for download. In Adobe PDF format. Traditional Art and Symbolism (58.1 MB) Time and Eternity (Buddhism section) by Dr. A.K. Coomaraswamy A www exclusive here on attan.com, this chapter on Buddhism is the best description of time and being in Buddhist doctrine. A must read! Buddhism Section of Time and Eternity (1.77MB) GREEK Section of Time and Eternity (2.68 MB) Elements of Buddhist Iconography by Dr. A.K. Coomaraswamy A www exclusive here on attan.com, this book in its entirety for download. In Adobe PDF format. Pythagoras, Plato and the Golden Ratio A www exclusive here on attan.com, this book in its entirety for download. In Adobe PDF format. Pythagoras, Plato and the Golden Ratio (2MB) Hinduism and Buddhism by Dr. A.K. Coomaraswamy A www exclusive here on attan.com, this book in its entirety for download. In Adobe PDF format. Am I My Brothers Keeper? by Dr. A.K. Coomaraswamy A www exclusive here on attan.com, this very rare book in its entirety for download. In Adobe PDF format. A New Approach to the Vedas by Dr. A.K. Coomaraswamy A www exclusive here on attan.com, this book in its entirety for download. In Adobe PDF format. A New Approach to the Vedas (4.49MB) Perception of the Vedas by Dr. A.K. Coomaraswamy A www exclusive here on attan.com, a portion of this book for download. In Adobe PDF format. Perception of the Vedas (5.52MB) The Principle Upanishads by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE AND WORKS OF RADHAKRISHNAN, EXPERT IN VEDANTA, FORMER PRESIDENT OF INDIA. SHORT INTRODUCTION OF THE INTRO TO THE "PRINCIPLE UPANISHADS" BY RADHAKRISHNAN Brhad-aranyaka Upanishad Kausitaki Brahmana Upanishad (1.47MB) Chandyoga Upanishad Maitri Upanishad Aitareya Upanishad (393KB) Subala Upanishad (1.13KB) Taittiriya Upanishad (1.27MB) Jabala Upanishad (238KB) Isa Upanishad (486KB) Paingala Upanishad (815KB) Kena Upanishad (489KB) Kaivalya Upanishad (196KB) Katha Upanishad (1.95MB) Vajrasucika Upanishad (196KB) Prasna Upanishad (686KB) Mandukya Upanishad (427KB) Mundaka Upanishad (789KB) Appendix (590KB) Complete Text of the Mahayana Mahaparnirvana Sutra in HTML (2.25 MB) The entire text of the MPNS has been revised, edited by and copyright: Dr. Tony Page, who is webmaster of www.nirvanasutra.org.uk [Taisho T .374, trans. Dr. Kosho Yamamoto. Published 1973 Karibunko press. Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra] "All Sutras lead to the Mahaparinirvana Sutra"-MPS A WWW Exclusive on attan.com, the complete text, whole and entire! 336 Pages. |
The Origin of the Buddha Image by Dr. A.K. Coomaraswamy A www exclusive here on attan.com, this book in its entirety for download. In Adobe PDF format. The Origin of the Buddha Image (6.33MB) The Living Thoughts of Gotama the Buddha by Dr. A.K. Coomaraswamy A www exclusive here on attan.com, the introduction of this book for download. In Adobe PDF format. Introduction of The Living Thoughts of Gotama the Buddha (1.64MB) Buddhist Wisdom by George Grimm A www exclusive here on attan.com, this book in its entirety for download. In Adobe PDF format. The famous Buddhist scholar Edward Conze commented on this book and the author saying: “The more I am convinced that George Grimm’s interpretation of the Buddhist theory of Atman (as light, as refuge) comes nearest to the original teachings of the historical Buddha.” This small book is a must read for anyone who wants to penetrate what the Buddha came to search for, which gave him final liberation from identity with phenomenal existence to a True ‘existence’ formerly hidden by ignorance. Doctrine of the Buddha by George Grimm A www exclusive here on attan.com, this book in its entirety for download. In Adobe PDF format. This book, “The Doctrine of the Buddha”, presents the old genuine Buddha-doctrine with the aim of developing a new type of man. It represents not only the flower of Indian religious feeling and philosophy but also the crowning summit of the authentic doctrine of the Buddha. The author in this work goes into great detail to explain to the reader the real meaning of the teaching upon the Atman by the historical Buddha in its oldest texts and reveal the original Self-affirming doctrine of light and wisdom which made Buddhism so beloved, and explains the true misunderstanding faced by modern Buddhists who missed the via negative (not this not that, anatman, ‘this is not my soul’) method so often used as a teaching tool by the Buddha to in fact point to, indirectly, to the everpresent Subject, the Self, the Soul which was in the Buddha’s dying words “the only refuge, the light, the lasting, that which must be sought above all else”. This book is an absolute must read for anyone formerly confused by pouring through profanely inaccurate descriptions upon Buddhism by less than intelligent commentators and unwise pundits who so often are publishing miserable little books under the title and topic of "Buddhism". A higher recommendation doesn’t exist than for this very book! A.P. Buddhadatta, the well known Sinhalese Pali scholar and head of the Aggarama at Ambalangoda in Ceylon (appointed as the Agga-Mahapandita at the Council of Rangoon) wrote on 4th March 1947 concerning the English edition of George Grimm's main work in a letter to his daughter:" I read that book [DOCTRINE OF THE BUDDHA by George Grimm] , and (found it to be) as you have stated in your letter that ‘he (Grimm) recovered of the old genuine doctrine of the Buddha which had been submerged'. When we (Theravada) read our Pali texts (Abhidhamma) and commentaries (Buddhaghosa, Vishudhamagga), we get the idea that Buddhism is a sort of Nihilism….Thus I was puzzled for a long time to understand the true meaning of Buddhism though I was born a Buddhist. Many peoples do not go so far in these matters (of doctrine)." Preface-Introduction (3.16MB) Section 3 (2.28MB) Section 1 (5.86MB) Section 4 (5.07MB) Section 2 (3.56MB) Appendix-Notes (2.12MB) Sakya or Buddhist Origins by Mrs. C.A.F. Rhys Davids A www exclusive here on attan.com, this extremely rare book in its entirety for download. In Adobe PDF format. Section 1 (8.98MB) Section 3 (4.26MB) Section 2 (6.65MB) Section 4 (5.45MB) Study of the Buddhist Norm by Mrs. C.A.F. Rhys Davids A www exclusive here on attan.com, this extremely rare book in its entirety for download. In Adobe PDF format. Study of the Buddhist Norm (33.2MB) What Was the Original Gospel in Buddhism? by Mrs. C.A.F. Rhys Davids A www exclusive here on attan.com, this extremely rare book in its entirety for download. In Adobe PDF format. What was the original gospel in Buddhism? (20.2MB) Outlines of Buddhism by Mrs. C.A.F. Rhys Davids A www exclusive here on attan.com, this very rare book in its entirety for download. In Adobe PDF format. Outlines of Buddhism by Mrs. C.A.F. Rhys Davids (3.09MB) Early Buddhist Theory of Man Perfected by Mrs. I.B. Horner A www exclusive here on attan.com, this rare book in its entirety for download. In Adobe PDF format. Early Buddhist Theory of Man Perfected (48.4MB) Introduction of The Upanishads by Swami Nikhilananda A www exclusive here on attan.com, the introduction of this book for download. In Adobe PDF format. Enquiry Into the Nature of the Human Soul by Andrew Baxter Incredibly rare book on the validity of the Soul, and the philosophical argument against Atheism. A www exclusive here on attan.com, this book in its entirety for download. In Adobe PDF format. His argument, according to the learned Lord Woodhouselee, is as follows: "There is a resistance to any change of its present state, either of rest or motion, essential to matter, which is inconsistent with its possessing any active power. Those, therefore, which have been called the natural powers of matter, as gravity, attraction, elasticity, repulsion, are not powers implanted in matter, or possible to be made inherent in it, but are impulses or forces impressed upon it ab extra. The consequence of the want of active power in matter is, that all those effects commonly ascribed to its active powers, must be produced upon it by an immaterial being. Hence we discover the necessity for the agency of a constant and universal providence in the material world, who is GOD; and hence we must admit the necessity of an immaterial mover in all spontaneous motions, which is the Soul; for that which can arbitrarily effect a change in the present state of matter, cannot be matter itself, which resists all change of its present state: and since this change is effected by willing, that thing which wills in us is not matter, but an immaterial substance. From these fundamental propositions, the author deduces as consequences, the necessary immortality of the soul, as being a simple uncompounded substance, and thence incapable of decay, and its capacity of existing, and being conscious when separated from the body." The Wayfarer's Words in 3 Volumes by Mrs. C.A.F. Rhys Davids A www exclusive for purchase here on attan.com of these 3 books. These books cannot be found for purchase anywhere, but a copy is available here only. "The Wayfarer's Words" by Mrs. Rhys Davids, the most prolific Pali translator and co-founder of the Pali Text Society, set a milestone in Buddhist studies. These books set out to reestablish and reclaim original Buddhism from its current stream of nihilism and moralization, and did exactly that. These books have been quoted by more Buddhologists past and present than nearly all other commentarial books combined. Full of elaborate examples from Buddhist doctrine, these books are an awesome research tool and insight into the original Buddhism of Gotama. Mrs. Rhys Davids explains how and why modern Buddhism became a petty doctrine which denies the Soul, and vehemently attacks Theravada and their secular catechism, the Abhidhamma. Incredibly well referenced and brilliantly written, no finer example of an in depth examination of original Buddhism exists. $20.00 for a DVD copy of these very rare 3 books. Email: ancientbuddhism@insightbb.com on purchasing a copy of these books. |
What
does the word Attan mean?
Attan is the Pali Buddhist term for the Soul (Atman in Sanskrit). Although denied by modern secular Buddhism, in the original Buddhism of Gotama as expounded in the Pali Nikayas, the attan is the "Charioteer"[Jataka-2-1341], “ones True-Nature (Svabhava)” [Mahavagga-Att. 3.270], and “the dearest beloved" [AN 4.97]. In Buddhism, the attan is the everpresent Subject beyond all denial and negation, the unobjectified Discriminator and Witness to change. This “light (dipa)” [SN 5.154], which is the “only refuge”, is the actualization of the end of the holy quest for emancipation from samsara (round of becoming), which is merely potential to the fool (bala) in samsara who falsely and profanely presumes the corporeal mere self (namo-rupa) in the mirror before him as “who he is, as his true nature”. The attan (Skt. Atman, Soul) “most dear” is the unknown Subject denied by modern heretical so-called ‘Buddhists’ who confuse the negation methodology of the Buddha for and outright denial of the Soul. Throughout the doctrine of the Buddha, the Tathagata has told his followers that there is no-Soul (anatta) within the five corporal constituents (form, feelings, perceptions, experiences, consciousness, i.e. the five khandhas) of empirical existence, nor should one seek therein. Over the millennia the understanding of those of small mind had hijacked this “not this, not that (neti neti)” methodology of the Buddha common to Monism, to deny the “only refuge” [DN 2.100] and turn Buddhism into a religion of secular Humanism and epistemology centered in petty morality and ultimate anti-foundational nihilism. Oddly, or humorously, there are many hundreds of books, from both well-respected dictionaries to commentaries upon the philosophy of Buddhism, claiming the attan (Atman, soul) “was denied/rejected by Gotama Buddha”, however there exists nary one passage given as evidence for these claims. Due to such a plethora of unsubstantiated texts making baseless claims of Buddhism as ‘no-soul-ism’, Buddhism has rightly come to be regarded as a heinous religion of nihilism, not to be given a second glance by any intelligent person who feels a gut-rejection from the heart towards such a dismal philosophy of spiritual-suicide. Unfortunately Buddhism in Western research is very young, only going back approximately 95 years; since all early Western Buddhist philosophical research used the tutelage of the nihilistic Theravada (Ahbidhamma school contrary to original Buddhism) for text translation and interpretation, nearly all current books upon Buddhist philosophy erroneously reflect the unfounded ‘no-soul’ dogma contrary to scriptural Buddhism. This light, the attan, is “the refuge that I have gone unto" [KN Jatakapali 1441] which the modern illiterate Buddhist has come to gleefully deny. Both Buddhism and Vedanta have taught that there is no Soul in the mere body, just as there is no Light in what is merely illumined from afar, this however does not constitute the denial of either Light or of the Soul, the attan, the “only refuge”. Those lacking a discriminating mind cannot grasp the subtlety of the doctrine of the “Supremely wise”. As is the case, all doctrines of all religions become twisted beyond recognition over time after passing thru the minds of the unwise to younger ears, the next generation of followers. Attan.com is in place as an island of reference for original Buddhism of the historical Gotama the Buddha who taught the wisdom for gnosis of Self-nature (svabhava), the attan, the only refuge for those lost in an ocean of primordial and “beginningless” agnosis (avijja/nescience) since time immemorial. “When original Buddhism has been lost to the secular winds for nearly 1800 years, to speak of it is akin to heresy amongst those who consider themselves Buddhists"-Webmaster attan.com What is a Sammasambuddha? A Tathagata[gone unto tat [Brahman] Br-Ary. V.IV.I], who is in possession of ‘anuttara samma'sambodhi’ is a Samma'sambuddha. Samma' does not, as commonly misconceived, mean ‘right’ but is an ancient Vedic term denoting coherency of mind (citta) with itself, which is equal to Brahman, or the imminent Soul made become through wisdom and Jhanic progression by the sage. [AN 2.29] “Within the sovereign mind one is established in the supreme Soul”. [DN 2.83] “Supremely within fixation of mind (supatitthitacitto), is anuttara samma'sambodhi (unexcelled coherency of awakened mind [sanskrit: anuttara-samyak-sambodhi]). Samma': The resting of the mind (citta) steadfastly upon its Goal (viz. Brahman) after having detached itself from manifold sense objects (i.e. corporeality), by continually observing their defects (through the Jhanas), is called Sama (Pali: Samma') or calmness; [#22 Shankaracharya Vivekachudamani]. In brief, a Samma'sambuddha is one in whom the mind no longer identifies itself with phenomenal attributes (khandhas, aggregates), with psycho-physicality (namo-rupa, anatta), but with itself (svayambhu or Self-nature [Pati. 1.174]) alone; therein attaining immortality [SN 5.8] (amata), so deemed by the Buddha as “having made refuge in the Soul” (Saranamattano [DN 2.120]). |
(A terrific translation) Buy the entire 4 Volume set with lengthy introduction and commentary by Sankara at amazon.com! The single best collection of spiritual materials one can buy for the comprehension of Buddhism and its source, Vedanta. Highest recommendation! The Upanishads, Vol. I-IV (4 Volume Set)
The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad
|
Si ignoras te, egredere "Know thy Self not, begone" |
The topic of most of the early
Upanishads is the identity of the individual self or Atman with the Cosmic
Absolute, Brahman. These and other philosophical concepts are presented
in a rather unsystemmatic form, due to the fact that these Sages had not
yet broken completely free of the earlier Vedic mythic thinking,
and so had not yet achieved the system-matic clarity of thought that characterizes
later philosophical speculation. Yet even so we have here the first
definite expression of true Monism
This Monism began with the Great or Revealed Sayings (Mahavakya, Shruti Vakya) of the early and middle Upanishads (8th to 3rd Century B.C.E.): Aham Brahma'smi - "I am Brahman" [Brihadaranyanka Upanishad, I. 6.10-11] "This Atman (Self) is verily Brahman" [Brihadaranyanka Upanishad, II.5.19; IV. 4.5] "All this is Brahman alone" [Mundaka Upanishad II-2-11] "Nothing whatever that is variegated here exists [Katha Upanishad, II-1-11] [cited in D.B.Gangolli, The Magic Jewel of Intuition, p.14;Adhyatma Prakasha Karyalaya, Holenarasipur, 1986] and of course the renowned "That thou art" (tat tvam asi) of the Chandogya Upanishad; perhaps one of the most inspiring pieces of mystical prose ever written: "That which is the subtle essence this whole world has for its self. That is the true. That is the self (atma). That art thou, Shwetaketu."[Chandogya Upanishad, VI.8.7; translated by S. Radhakrishnan, The Principle Upanishads, p.458;George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London, 1953] The distinction between monism and emanationism appears as early as the oldest Upanishads. A full-fledged statement of emanationism occurs as early as the Chandogya Upanishad, which says: "3....understand that this (body) is an offshoot which has sprung up, for it could not be without a root. 4. And what else could its root be than food? And in the same manner, my dear, with food as an offshoot, seek for water as the root; with water, my dear, as an offshoot seek for heat as the root; with heat, my dear, as an offshoot, seek for Being as its root. All these creatures, my dear, have their root in Being. They have Being as their abode, Being as their support." [Transl. S. Radhakrishnan, The Principle Upanishads, p.457] It was only much later, with the development of the non-dual Vedantic philosophy, that this Monism was expressed in a proper systematic form Yet already at this early stage we find the tension between the two primary mystical-metaphysical paradigms, that is, between Monism and Emanationism; or perhaps more precisely (in view of the all-pervading presence of some form of Monism in all early Indian philosophy) between strict Monism and emanationist Monism. NOW! THE ENTIRE TEXT OF THE UPADISA SAHASRI (in PDF 41.9MB) BY SANKHARA; TRANS. SWAMI JAGADANANDA. A WWW EXCLUSIVE ON ATTAN.COM. THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT TEXT OF ADVAITA The Upadisa Sahasri by Sankhara; trans. Jagadananda (chapters 1-14) The Vivekachudamani by Sankhara; trans. Madhavananda (complete text) The Aparokshanubhuti by Sankhara; trans. Vimuktananda (complete text) The Vakya Vritti by Sankhara; trans. Chinmayananda (complete text) |
Excellent professionally read audio. A WWW EXCLUSIVE here on attan.com VOLUME #1 VOLUME #2 VOLUME #3 VOLUME #4 The
Dhammapada on audio
|
[Silakkhandhavagga-Att. 1.168] "Steadfast-in-the-Soul (thitattoti) means one is supremely-fixed within the mind (suppatitthitacitto)” [SN 1.26] Those followers absorbed, their minds (citta) flawless having assimilated the Soul; a charioteer (Soul) in control of the reigns, sages like them guard this supranormal-power! [AN 2.6] "Him who is Lord of the mind (citta) possessed with supernormal faculties and quelled, that One is called 'fixed-in-the-Soul' (thitattoti)" [AN 1.196] "With mind (citta) emancipated from ignorance…this designates the Soul is having become-Brahman." [AN 1.124] “What, followers, is a being who has a diamond-mind (vajiru’pamacitto)? That one who has destroyed the taints (asavas) and has both a liberated mind (citta) and is liberated by wisdom. Just as there is nothing which a diamond cannot cut, be it stone or gem; so to is one with a diamond-mind who has destroyed the taints and has both a liberated mind (citta) and is liberated by wisdom. This is one who possesses a diamond-mind.” [AN 1.124] “What, followers, is a being who has a mind of Light (vijjupamacitto)? He comprehends things as they are or have become; that being suffering and the path leading to the subjugation of suffering. Just as a flash of light in pitch of night illuminates things; so to is him who possesses holy vision into the nature of things are they are or have become such that he comprehends suffering and the path leading to the subjugation of suffering. This is one who possesses a mind of Light (vijjupamacitto).” [AN 1.6] "I do not have, followers, insight into anything or any dharma which, when made to become and made to expand that brings greater bliss than the mind (citta). The mind, followers, when made to become and made to expand, brings the greatest bliss." [AN1.10] "The mind (citta) is primordially luminous, but due to defilements which come from without, it is defiled. The mind (citta) is primordially luminous once again, when defilements which come from without are cleansed from it." [MN 1.197] "Followers, this Brahma-faring is lived for the sole preeminent purpose of emancipation of the mind (citta) alone, which is the quintessential final core" [MN 1.213] "The collected and quelled mind is the Supreme Soul" [MN 1.301] "What is samadhi (the culmination of the entire Aryan path) for? Samadhi, friend, is for making the mind (citta) sovereign." The mind/will (citta) as differentiated from the aggregates of phenomena: [Th2 96] “Behold ultimate Truth (thing as they are or as become), these very aggregates as manifest; my mind is emancipated (vimuttacitta) from these, now fulfilled is the Doctrine of the Buddha.” [Nettippakarana 44] “The mind (citta) is cleansed of the five khandhas (pañcakkhandha’); is to be cleansed from these, hence the Bhagavat says ‘The purification of the mind (citta) is the Brahma-faring of the Tathagata’..” [SN 3.234] The Aggregate Sutra. At Savatthi “Followers, the desire and lust for formations is a defilement of the citta, the desire and lust for feelings is a defilement of the citta, the desire and lust for cognition is a defilement of the citta, the desire and lust for experiences is a defilement of the citta, the desire and lust for vinnana is a defilement of the citta. But, followers, when one abandons the defilements of the citta regarding these five stations (aggregates), then ones citta inclines towards renunciation. Ones citta is made pliable and firm in renunciation by direct gnosis.” [MN 1.511] “For a long time I have been cheated, tricked and hoodwinked by my citta. For when grasping, I have been grasping onto form, for when grasping, I have been grasping onto feelings, , for when grasping, I have been grasping onto perceptions, for when grasping, I have been grasping onto experiences, for when grasping, I have been grasping onto consciousness.” [MN 1.436] “Whatever form, feelings, perceptions, experiences, or consciousness there is (the five aggregates), these he sees to be without permanence, as suffering, as ill, as a plague, a boil, a sting, a pain, an affliction, as foreign, as otherness, as empty (suññato), as Selfless (anattato). So he turns his mind (citta, Non-aggregate) away from these; therein he gathers his mind within the realm of Immortality (amataya dhatuya). This is tranquility; this is that which is most excellent!” The purified mind/will (citta) being equal to Parinirvana: Said immediately after the physical death of Gotama Buddha wherein his mind (citta) is =parinirvana=the essence of liberation. A triple emphasis on the citta of the Buddha at death: [DN 2.157] “No longer with (subsists by) in-breath nor out-breath, so is him (Gotama) who is steadfast in mind (citta), inherently quelled from all desires the mighty sage has passed beyond. With mind (citta) limitless (Brahman) he no longer bears sensations; illumined and unbound (nibbana), his mind (citta) is definitely (ahu) liberated.” The perfect (anasava) mind (citta) being = parinirvana: [SN 3.45] “The mind (citta) being so liberated and arisen from defilements, one is fixed in the Soul as liberation, one is quelled in fixation upon the Soul. Quelled in the Soul one is unshakable. So being unshakable, the very Soul is thoroughly unbound (parinirvana).” |
The consciousness (vinnana) and the mind (citta) in Buddhism. [Refuting
Theravada materialism and reestablishing Buddhist orthodoxy]
Both ways liberated = Emancipated in the Soul. A scriptural examination. The 17 proprietary declarations made about the mind (citta). C.A.F. Rhys Davids on the Soul in original Buddhism. The mind (citta) in Buddhist Sutta and its connection to the Soul. To become Brahman in Buddhism. Examining its relationship to Vedanta. The Buddhist transmigrant. In refutation to the nihilism of Theravada. What the nihilistic, evil Theravada are afraid of translating and discussing. 'Sabbe dhamma anatta' explained in refutation to Theravada nihilism. Anatta. The full explanation of this misunderstood adjective. What the Soul-haters don't want you to know. Against no-Soul theories of Anatta (PDF) Critique of Buddhist empiricism (PDF) |
What
does anatta mean?
What has Buddhism to say of the Self? "That's not my Self" (na me so atta); this, and the term "non Self-ishness" (anatta) predicated of the world and all "things" (sabbe dhamma anatta; Identical with the Brahmanical "of those who are mortal, there is no Self/Soul", (anatma hi martyah, [SB., II. 2. 2. 3]). [KN J-1441]: “Atta’ ca me so saranam gati ca” “The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto”. For anatta is not said of the Self/Soul but what it is not. There is never a ‘doctrine of no-Soul’, but a doctrine of what the Soul is not (form is anatta, feelings are anatta, etc.). Due to 105 years of inept Western scholarship and the anti-foundational dogma of S.E. Asian ‘Buddhism’, Theravada, anatta as a term has come to be promulgated as a soul denying doctrine “in contradiction to ‘Hinduism’”. For example Winifred Stephens in “Legends of Indian Buddhism”, 1911, p.7, said “Buddhism in its purity ignored the existence of God; and it denied the existence of the Soul; it was not so much a religion as a code of ethics.” Similarly M.V. Bhattacharya maintains that in the Buddha taught that: “There is no Self, no Atman.” [Cultural Heritage of India, p.259]. Even in 1925 a presumed Buddhist scholar could get away with writing in the PTS Pali-English Dictionary by Mr. Rhys-Davids (later rebuked in very death by his much wiser half, his very wife, Mr. C.A.F. Rhys-Davids) that: “The soul…is described in the Upanishads as a small creature in shape like a man…Buddhism repudiated all such theories.”[PTS Dictionary., s.v. attan]. It would be as reasonably illogical to say that Christianity is materialistic because it speaks of an “inner man”. Few scholars would write in this manner today, one would presume, but however ridiculous as such statements may appear, (as it as much an ignorance of any ontological doctrine as it of Vedanta amd Buddhism that is involved), these nonsensical and utterly profane statements make their way into so-called respected accounts and texts upon Buddhism. It is of course true that the Buddha denied the existence of the mere empirical “self” in the very meaning of “my-self” (this person so-and-so, namo-rupa, an-atta), one might say in accordance with the command ‘denegat seipsum, [Mark VII.34]; but this is not what our writers (above) mean to say, or are understood by their readers to say; what they mean to say is that the Buddha denied the immortal (amata), the unborn (ajata) and Supreme-Self (mahatta’) of the Upanishads. And that is palpably false, for he frequently speaks of this Self, or Spirit (mahapurisha), and nowhere more clearly than in the too often repeated formula 'na me so atta’, “This/these are not my Soul” (na me so atta’= anatta/anatman), excluding body (rupa) and the components of empirical consciousness (vinnana/ nama), a statement to which the words of Sankhara are perculiary apposite, “Whenever we deny something unreal, is it in reference to something real”[Br. Sutra III.2.22]. It was not for the Buddha but for the nihilist (natthika) to deny the Soul! "Nihilists (natthiko) [those who deny the Soul] go to terrible hell"[SN 1.96]. Anatta as a nihilistic dogma is a relatively modern Abhidhamma-borne conception only, of what was in earliest Buddhism, the methodology of negating (neti neti) all objective attributes falsely seen as Self/Soul, but which were in fact not the Soul (anatta). “None of these (aggregates) are my Soul indeed”, arguably the most common passage in Buddhism. No place in Sutta does the context of anatta forward or imply the negation, the denial of the Soul "most dear, the light, the only refuge" [DN 2.100, AN 4.97], but rather instructs and illuminates to the unlearned what the Soul was not. Due to massive ignorance and ineptitude of the ancestors of modern-day Theravada, a teaching upon the denial of all phenomena as being utterly devoid of Selfhood (attan), has been subverted without basis in doctrine, as a nonsensical dogma advocating the non-existence of the Soul (natthika). [SN 3.196] At one time in Savatthi, the venerable Radha seated himself and asked of the Blessed Lord Buddha: “Anatta, anatta I hear said venerable. What pray tell does Anatta mean?” “Just this Radha, form is not the Soul, sensations are not the Soul, perceptions are not the Soul, assemblages are not the Soul, consciousness is not the Soul. Seeing thusly, this is the end of birth, the Brahman life has been fulfilled, what must be done has been done, he discerns there is nothing further than this very Soul.” [AN 4.422] In the first Jhana he dwells. Whatever form there be, feelings, perceptions, impulses, or consciousness, these he sees to be without permanence, as suffering, as ill, as a plague, a boil, a sting, a pain, an affliction, as foreign, as otherness, as empty (suññato), as Soulless (anattato). So he turns his mind (citta) away from these; he gathers his very mind in the realm of Immortality. [MN 1.232] “What do you think, is form lasting or impermanent? Impermanent Gotama. Is that which is impermanent suffering or blissful? Indeed its suffering Gotama. Is that which is impermanent and suffering and subject to perpetual change; is it fit to declare of such things ‘this is mine, this is what I am, this is my Soul? Indeed not Gotama!” *A MUST READ!! Against no-Soul theories of Anatta in PDF (187 KB)* |
[AN
1.60] "These
two slander the Tathagata. Which two? He who declares a saying of the Tathagata
which he never said; and secondly him who denies what the Tathagata has
declared. These two slander the Tathagata."
[DN 2.124] "You should neither approve nor disapprove of the words from him who is proclaiming to repeat the teachings of the Blessed One, the Buddha. Rather you should carefully note his words and compare them with the Sutras. If on such a comparison and review they are found not to conform to the Sutras or discipline, the conclusion must be: 'assuredly this is not the word, the teachings of the Buddha!'" |
Why
is modern “Buddhism” so evil? copyright
2003 by Webmaster attan.com
Modern Buddhism, sadly like nearly all religions, is wholly devoid of its formerly original content. Original Buddhism being about “union with the Absolute/Brahman”, is now centered around secular humanism, originally about the gnosis leading to liberation from the round of becoming and the Soul as the “only refuge” is now a nihilism utterly and erroneously convinced that Buddhism denied the Soul. One can and should argue with ease that Buddhism in name only is not Buddhism at all. Let us consider in fact that Modern Buddhism is and has become a magnet for the mentally depressed and moralistic neophytes who are former Christians in quest of a religion superior to but equal in doctrine to general agnosticism and or atheism. Highlighting the problem in the book: “The Cult of Nothingness: The Philosophers and the Buddha”, the author Roger-Pol Droit reveals the broadly held view in the nineteenth-century European philosophical imagination that saw Buddhism as a religion of annihilation calling for the destruction of the Self, the Soul. The modern commentarial tradition of Buddhism goes back little more than a hundred years of flawed Western scholarship headed by the inept and late Mr. Rhys Davids of the Pali Text Society, investigating Buddhism thru the skewed and non-doctrinal perspective of both Theravada-nihilism and later Mahayana. All current writings and books upon Buddhism are based on earlier writings and translations that were accomplished by scholars who were assisted by those with a secular agenda, namely and foremostly the Theravada. Under this emphasis a veritable lineage of nihilism has promulgated itself into and as modern Buddhism. From the denial of the ontological, the Soul and the Absolute, modern Buddhism is forced to admit to empirical purity (a Buddhist heresy [SN 3.195], and elsewhere) and paint itself into a corner of humanism and merit making entirely opposite that of original Buddhism. Not surprisingly modern Buddhism following this line of episteme, is an inconsistent dogma utterly contrary to both the doctrine of Buddhism and the common sense blessed to even the forest dwelling ape. A confrontation with modern Buddhists is an exercise in futility when you confront them with their incoherent belief system as utterly opposite that of Suttas of original Buddhism; or as Gotama Buddhism himself has said: “When asked a question, they dodge and become evasive, these are Eel-wrigglers, they squirm to and fro to keep from answering." [DN 1.126]. Superficial piety is the mainstay of modern Buddhists and their creed; its of no wonder why Buddhism in modern India is a joke religion to the follower of either Advaita Vedanta or the Gita. It may also be the utter act of futility to attempt to revive ancient and original Buddhism, being on par with attempting CPR on a petrified mummy, long since deprived of life, but is it certainly important to illuminate the original ideals of Buddhism before any and all secular heresies under the guise of Buddhism found today were created and overshadowed the original doctrine of emancipation from all becoming upon the round of samsara. Evil is an indifference to emancipation, to illumination. Modern examples of evil in what is called “Buddhism” would be common views like these found amongst those calling themselves “Buddhists”: “What can Buddhism do for my daily life (false presumption that Buddhism’s ends are worldly or ephemeral)?” “Buddhism is just being compassionate to others (humanistic leveling of a trans-corporeal methodology).” “Yes, but that is old Buddhism, which evolved with time. Times have changed and Buddhism must change to fit with modern views and beliefs (historicism fallacy).” “My teacher is nice and kind to others, so I feel he is really a good Buddhist (irrelevant unconnected co-relationship).” “There are many paths and many forms of Buddhism, and all are just as good as another, so there really is no ‘one way’ (i.e. the path to hell also leads to the gates of bliss).” “The Dalai Lama is very nice to other peoples and is compassionate; he is what Buddhism represents (evil view based upon superficial humanistic externality).” “But I experienced Buddhism myself, so it must be true (heresy of making a consubstantial experience an absolute or presuming it was Buddhism in any way).” “I’m not interested in dusty scriptures, but rather experiencing things, for that is Buddhism (anti-intellectualism, heretical simplification).” “We don’t know what the original Buddha actually said, so the teachings are only a guideline and we ourselves are the final judge (a fool makes his council himself).” “Gotama just sat (Zen heresy, ritualization of a formless methodology for inverting avijja to vijja).” “My teacher is a lineage holder (Tibetan and Zen heresy of a non-existent lineage in Buddhism).” “We chant ‘namo-myoho-renghe-kyo’ [Pure-land cult] (very perverse oriental ritualism with no connection to Buddhism).” All these beliefs are evil and common in modernity. Buddhism [Buddhasasana] are the teachings of the historical Buddha, not the commentary, views, books, opinions, speculations, conjectures, beliefs of either the Dalai Lama, Zen master, monk, nun, guru, Rimpoche, Geshe, or any other individual claiming to speak for Buddhism while in fact reinventing and or diluting its teachings past recognition of what would consistently be deemed Buddhism in fact. There are very few neutral scholars and experts in both the doctrine of Buddhism and its history that are under any delusion that what is conventionally called “Buddhism” today is in fact far, far removed indeed from what Buddhism was two and a half millennia ago. A.K. Coomaraswamy said it best: “Buddhism is most famous today for everything it originally was not.”
“Silly-putty Buddhism” By:
Webmaster attan.com
|
The humor and stupidity of modern "Buddhism". Attacks of use in debate against Theravada and so-called “Buddhists." |
RELIGIONS IN PRAISE OF SAMSARA (CORPOREAL BODY/NAMO-RUPA/KHANDHAS/AGGREGATES/PSYCHO-PHYSICAL) -THERAVADA ADVOCATES PURIFICATION OF THE RANCID BODY BOUND FOR THE GRAVE “The Abhidhamma is opposed to
(the Nikayas mention of) an intermediate state (antarabhavo) [between death
and rebirth]” [Nettippakarana-Att. VRI
229 (ref. SN 4.59)...]
[SN 3.195] “What venerable is the dharma of Mara/Evil (maradhamma)? The five aggregates are the dharma of Mara.” Gotama Buddha- “The Aryan path culminates in immortality” [SN 5.8] |
Buddhist monasticism
is of a later invention than the era of the historical Buddha. In fact,
a bhikkhu does not mean “monk” but is a variant on the term bhakti or “give,
sacrifice”; meaning that a certain individual had devoted himself (or gives
‘bhakti’ of himself to his master) entirely to a teacher or discipline.
In fact, Buddhism in its oldest scriptures refers to rishis, not “monks”
or “nuns”; for “Buddhist” monasticism did not exist until long after the
passing of its founder in addition to the fact that Gotama himself declared
many thousands of adherents who were “laypersons” to have obtained the
ultimate truth of his path, and his instruction for obtainment of immortality.
Below are but a few of many passages which show that many laypersons are “equally free, equally supreme” as Gotama’s devotees and constant attendants, that being his aryasavakas (Aryan disciples). Far too much credit is given by fools to those with bald heads and saffron robes. In and of itself, being a “monk” means utterly nothing insofar as liberation and wisdom are concerned. The foolish many are duped far too often by the external and hollow trappings of false “Buddhist” monasticism. Genuine Buddhism is for emancipation, and for liberation from Samsara, not for pathetic piety, bald heads and superficial robes. [KN 2.260] “Know you! Even though he has gray hair that old bhikkhu, this in no way makes him a teacher of either the sweet law Dhamma, nor does it make him a senior bhikkhu! Quite decrepit in wasted years and greatly lacking in wisdom, 'foolish old bastard' are such as him called!”—Gotama Buddha. [SN 5.410] I proclaim there is absolutely no difference between a layperson with a mind (citta) which is liberated, and that mind of a bhikkhu which has been liberated for a century. [AN 3.451] Monks, having followed six things, the layperson Tapussa, because of hearing the Tathagata, has come to utmost supreme transcendence, has seen utmost immortal and has his being in the realization of the immortal itself. [AN 3.451] Monks, having followed six things, the laypersons Bhallika, Sudatta, Anathapindika, Citta, Macchikasandika, Hatthaka, Alavaka, Mahanama Sakka, Ugga Vesalika, Uggata, Suara Ambattha, Jivaka Komarabhacca, Nakulapita, Tavakannika, Purana, Isidatta, Sandhana, Vijaya, Vajjuyamahita, Mendaka, the laypersons Vasettha, Arittha and Saragga because of hearing the Tathagata, have come to utmost transcendence, have seen utmost immortal and have their being in the realization of the immortal itself. [Theragatha #144] The master finishing his discourse in order, and knowing the sublime state of her mind, expounded the supreme to her in an inspiring lesson. Thereupon, because of her great insight which was fully ripe, the layperson Sujata, even she sat, attained Arahantship, together with thorough grasp of the supreme in both form and meaning. Saluting the master, she went home. |
*TREE OF BRAHMAN PICTURE* The fixed (thita) immortality (amata) found at the “root” of the wisdom tree, which is antecedent to becoming embroiled in, and enamored with phenomena, i.e. the “all” (sabba) is meant by the Soul-fixed (thitatta), the unshakable One (tat, Brahman), which Gotama chose as the symbol to represent himself as that which he found through Jhanic samadhi and wisdom after his passing: “After the parinibbana of the Buddha, one should venerate the Mahabodhi-tree as the likeness shrine of the Lord [Jataka 4.228]”. Also: “To be at the root of the Mahabodhi-tree is meant Illumination [Maha’niddesa-Att. 2.288]”. It is the very mystical comprehension of the Bodhi-tree as a holy symbol of emancipation (vimutta) itself, which Gotama proclaims is that by which the wise shall comprehend (dassati) his revelation after he is past, which bore him the fruit of immortality [SN 5.8]: “After the Lords parinibbana, it is by the Mahabodhi-tree that one comprehends the Buddha [Apada’na-Att. #420]”. Having returned to the One, the Good, Brahman, is the “only refuge [DN 2.100]”, is verily the “unborn, the unmanifest, the unmade, and the unbecome [Ud. 81]”, is then that (tat) which begets but itself is unbegotten, that is: “the unbecome is the Soul [Pa’thikavaggatika 3.20]”. |
The
Inverted Bodhi tree. The Brahman tree and its meaning by A.K. Coomaraswamy
(www exclusive).
The only site on the www where one can read about the true meaning and origins of the Bodhi tree. |
Man himself is the inverted Tree of Brahman. Across the swift river of becoming sits the holy Tree of Brahman, and the ignorant man on this shore of samsara beholds the reflection of the Brahman Tree in the waters, upside down as it were, its image caste upon the waters of becoming. So is man the inverted Tree of Brahman, for his root of Bodhi (illumination) is his mind (citta) “originally pure” sitting upon high, his body the trunk, his limbs the branches of the holy Tree, his hands the leaves down below which grasp and turn towards the reflected light (avijja, vinnana) caste upon this ephemeral world, bearing him fruit which leads to renewed birth. This is man’s fate, the inverted Tree, in his grasping after the phenomena of this world which leads to the fruit of rebecoming. Man is the holy Tree with root (mind) above and foliage (body) below as he willingly grows down into this world, into suffering, into becoming, into samsara where he bears himself as destruction’s very fruit (“would that I were many!” Br. Ary.) and so miserably cries out “no more!”. The all-awake, the muni (sage) has righted the holy Tree, for he takes refuge in its root, the purified mind (supatitthitacitto), he bears no fruit of becoming, he has uprooted the Tree of samsara by vijja (illumination), by panna (wisdom) by passing to the other shore which is the real (Tat), the non-reflection (vijja), the attributeless (animitta) One (ekaggata), the Soul (Atman), verily Brahman. The sage has “gone beyond” (parangato), has crossed the flood (oghatinna), and has righted the reflection of ignorance (sammasambodhi) which is the inverted Tree of becoming (bhava), of samsara. He is free (vimutta). The Tree was never upside down to begin with in reality however; but due to avijja (nescience, ignorance) of the fool (puthujjana) in samsara, he sees only its reflection (not knowing it to be a mere mirage), he knows not how to cross the powerful river of becoming nor does he so desire, for he bemuses himself: “I am just like unto that Tree, we are both the same, both of us upright (but in reality inverted), both of us perfect, manifold and beautiful”. What the fool knows not however, is that both himself and the inverted Tree are a mirage, a hologram, an image of the real, an ephemeral and fleeting reflection of Self (Soul) upon the mirror of self (namo-rupa, psycho-physical), both bearers of the fruit of life and death and life again, namely endless transmigration throughout many lives. The inverted Tree is the light (vinnana) mistaken for Light (citta) caste upon the waters of illuminated form, so also is man the image of Self (attan) caste upon the self (anatta, aggregates). So pains the fool who thinks himself so: “This is me, this is who I am, this is my Self!”; for he perishes in so mistaking the illumined, the light (anatta) for Light (Soul, attan). Gotama, for forty five years, taught the way to Light by wisdom and that one ought not to confuse death (mara) with immortality (amata), illumined from illuminator, the not-Self (anatta) from the Self (Soul,attan). Just as the Tree is divided and split many ways with its leaves subject to the winds of change and death which blow so strongly, so is man, in his diverse graspings and manifold desires which bear his own destruction. At the root of ones mind (citta), there within fixed (thita), is ones very Soul (attan); unshakable, unbecome (akata), immortality (amata), without mark or sign (animitta), This is “become Brahman” [MN 1.341]. This is That (Tat, Brahman), he is That, he is Tathagata. [Kath. Up. 2.3.1] This is that (Brahman), eternal Asvattha Tree with its root above and its branches below. This root, indeed, is called the Bright; That is Brahman, that That alone is the Immortal. In That all worlds are contained, and none can pass beyond. This, verily, is That. [Br. Ary 3.9.28] As is a mighty tree, so indeed is a man: this is true. Has hairs are the leaves and his skin is the outer bark. From his skin blood flows and from the bark, sap. Therefore when a man is wounded blood flows, as sap from a tree that is injured. His flesh is its inner bark and his nerves are its innermost layer of bark, which is tough. His bones lie within, as does the wood of the tree. His marrow resembles the pith. A tree, when it is felled, springs again from its root in a new form; from what root, tell me, does a man spring forth after he is cut off by death? Do not say: From the semen, for that is produced from the living man. A tree springs from the seed as well; after it is dead it certainly springs again. If a tree is pulled up with its root, it will not spring again. From what root, tell me, does a mortal spring forth after he is cut off by death? [If you think] he is indeed born, [I say: No,] he is born again. Now who should again bring him forth? [Tait. Up. 1.10.1] I am (ultimately) that which makes the Tree [of the Universe] foliage (move). I am known in the peaks. My root is the Supremely Pure (Brahman). I am the unstained essence of the Soul, like the [nectar] of immortality that resides in the Sun. I am that brightest treasure (Soul). I am that shining wisdom, that very undecaying immortal! |
*BODHI TREE PICTURE IN ANCIENT INDIAN STONE ICONOGRAPHY* [Enneads 3.8.10] Think of the Life-force coursing throughout a mighty tree while yet the tree is the stationary Principle (Brahman) of the whole, in no sense is it scattered over all that extent but, as it were, itself vested in the root: it is the giver of the entirety of manifold life of the tree, but it itself remains unmoved, fixated, not manifold, but the Principle giver of that which is manifold life. It is in fact astonishing how all that varied vitality springs from the unvarying One, and how that very manifoldness could not be unless before its multiplicity there were the unbecome One (Brahman); for, the Principle is not broken into parts to make the all; on the contrary, such partition would destroy both; nothing would come into being if its cause, thus broken up, were to change character. [Enneads 6.8.15] The Supreme (Brahman) is the Word (vaca) of all (sabba); it is like the principle and ground of some vast tree of rational life; itself unchanging, it gives reasoned being to the growth into which it enters. |
A.K. Coomaraswamy’s article on the history, iconography and genuine meaning of the Dhamma-wheel, the wheel of Brahman, the “Lotus throne”, and the “Wheel-turner”. *TRIPLE WHEEL PICTURE* The triple-wheel and the Buddha as represented by the steadfast (thita) pillar of Brahman. [Ancient Gandhara; 1st century B.C.E. or C.E.] |
The only site on the www where one can read about the true meaning and origins of the very misunderstood Dhamma-wheel, and the “Wheel-turner”. The mystical philosophy behind the Dhamma-wheel copyright 2003 by Webmaster attan.com Herein the record should be set straight, in that there is nothing within Buddhism which technically reads as per the modern notion that Buddha “turns the wheel of Dhamma, or the wheel of Brahma”, reminiscent of Bob Barker spinning the wheel on “The Price is Right”, but in actuality he (Buddha) is That (Brahman) which turns the wheel itself, that being the Self-same mind coherent of itself which has “become Brahman” [MN 1.341]. This is also the “Eye of the eye” or also [Rg. V. X,55,1] “the hidden light within the heart" (mind, or citta) of sentient beings which is unrevealed, which is called the “hidden third light” [Rg. V. X,56,1] which “goes unseen by gods and men”; the other two lights being that of the deva (god) world and that of the manussa (human) world. “The Lord, the Buddha, is That (Brahman) which makes the Brahman-wheel (Brahmacakka) move (unmoved mover, Atman)” [It. #123], as explained by: [Nidanavagga-Att. 2.46] “Brahman-wheel meaning the Ultimate, the transcendental purified wheel of Dhamma.” One of meager understanding might attempt to argue that there is little distinction to be made between “turns the wheel” or “is That which turns the wheel”, but this is not so. He, the Universal monarch, who is wholly awake (anutara-sambodhi) is not subject to the coming, processions (pavattana) or going, recessions (nirodha, pravartana) like those beings lost in samsara who dwell along the rim the of the world-wheel who are perpetually undergoing birth and death. From the aspect of the twin-wheels of the chariot, the Soul, or charioteer [Jataka-2-1341], or animus, is the unseen “third-wheel” (tricakra) [Rg. V. X, 85]. The annihilationist (ucchedavadin) upon dissecting the body of man claims there is nothing, death is final, whereas the perpetualist (sassatavadin) claims assuredly that one is eternal by means of rebecoming alone, that Samsara is without escape and the best one can hope for is the heaping of merit for favorable rebirth. Buddhism, as well as Vedic and Upanishadic philosophy negate both these extreme views of heresy for favor of the center terminus, or mid-most (con-centric, nabhi or navel) of ones nature (svabhava), that being Brahman, the very Soul which is the mind (citta) coherent with and upon itself inflexured (Samma’). Hinder to the winding and unwinding of life upon the wheel of samsara, is the “unseen” axle of pure actuosity, of sheer productivity upon which the Tathagata and all sages make themselves “like unto That”, (Thou art That). Between becoming (bhava) and annihilation (vibhava) is ones mid-most (majjha), namely the Soul, Brahman, the “unbecome, unmade, unmanifest” [Ud. 1.81]. To say that Gotama taught “by the middle”, which is commonly misunderstood in ignorant vernacular as “the middle-way”, is the quest for coherency of mind which is the path culminating in immortality [SN 5.8], through the cutting off of the chain which binds (bhandhu), through un-binding (nis-bandhu, nibbana, nirvana) by becoming co-inherent (coherency), which is ones “inherent nature” that is prior and hindermost to either the heresy and pain of becoming or unbecoming, which is “true-being” or Tat, That (Tathatta’, Brahman). Antecedent to first cause is the causeless condition [AN 5.113] whence begat becoming, that being Avijja (nescience) which the worthy, the Aryan (aryasavaka) or “buddhist” wishes to cut through by “the sword of wisdom”, therein effecting Self-upon-Self con-centric stasis (thitatta), which “neither god, nor mara can discern” [MN 1.140]. For: [DN 3.60] “Make thy Soul the Aryan mover of that which causes the wheel to revolve (unmoved animus)!” is enunciated by Gotama to his adepts. The wheel itself represents the “not-I” (anatta, dukkha) or O, the spokes representing mentation (manovinnana) of Self as the reflexive, or not-Self (anatta), whereas the axle (aksa), the true “I” (1, eka or one, synonymous with the Soul and Brahman; “ekagata” or gone to the One, namely Brahman), the “unseen Seer”, the “unmoved mover”, is seen from those upon the wheel of Samsara as a hollow (akasa), but which is One, Brahman, the Atman. Unfortunately in modern corrupt “Buddhism”, devoid (sunna) or nothing, is confused with a “space-like-body” (akasa-sarira) or namely Brahma which is a “no-thing-ness” (i.e. non-phenomenal), the imminent Soul. 1 seen edge-on from the aspect of those in Samsara or anyone that looks upon a wheel appears to be a “hollow” or an unmanifest singularity, which is one among many reasons, and the basis of the metaphor for the wheels use as a representation of the universe, death, and perfection both in Vedic and Buddhist texts. Just as from the hollow of ones navel (nabhi) one comes to be (bhava), so from the “hollow”, or nave of the wheel of Brahman (Brahmacakka) one comes to be manifest upon the wheel of samsara as the unmanifest perceives and conceives of itself as being the reflection upon the waters of form, as mind is phenomenalized (as Vinnana) by means of endowment with avijja (nescience). “Egoity” is superimposed by modern incorrect and highly corrupt “Buddhism” which claims for itself the position that the Soul is merely “egoity” alone and that Buddhism denies such views (ditthi); however in fact the “egoity” of the Buddha is only said of that fool who presumes of this (namo-rupa): “this is me, this is who I am, this is my Soul!”; but of the Aryan, his true Self (attan), or “That”, the “anasava or taintless” mind which has become extirpated from identification (Vi-nana, agnosis) through gnosis (nana) and reversal of avijja by means of vijja or panna (illumination, wisdom, Bodhi) is his genuine “I”, is his “light, the refuge, his very Soul” [DN 2.100]. For just as the fool who does not know things as they are or have come to be (yathabhutam), one who has “come to be” by a sequence of conditions (paticcasamuppada) which have lead to suffering, there is a means for the subjugation (nirodha) of that condition which gave rise to that very same suffering, namely the disease (tanha,avijja), which is a path (magga) for the reversal (nis-bandhu, i.e. Nibbana) of what “is”, which “culminates in immortality”, that being the middle (majjha), or the con-centric mind which is “undefiled” (anasava), which is “free” (vimutta), which is said to be “steadfast in the Soul” [AN 2.6]. [Therigatha #127] “Gnosis of the nave (of the Brahman-wheel) is the Mind (citta)”, and: [Sagathavaggatika 1.101] “Conduces the mind (citta) to become [like unto] the nave (of the wheel)” The very nature of sati (recollection, smrti) is for the purposes of con-centration or co-inherent-cy (coherency) of mind (citta) as inflexured upon itself as its own support (nathi), which is a designation for the Soul (attan) [Tikanipa’ta-Att. 3.4], ones True-Nature (svabhava) [Mahavagga-Att. 3.270], and Self upon itself [KN 2.380]. The very nature of minds incoherency (citta endowed with avijja) leads inevitably to Vinnana (reflexive-mind, or consciousness) as superimposed upon psycho-physicality (namo-rupa). The incoherency of mind as the conditional apparatus of becoming through identification (Vi-nana, A-vijja) is the very deep and ancient metaphor and meaning behind the “Dhamma-wheel” or more historically the “Brahman-wheel” [It. #123]. When there is a question as per the three wheels (tricakra), of which the third is “known only by the Aryans and not the puthujjana (profane man)”, it will be evident that this “hidden wheel”, of which there is no extension must be conceived of as coincident with the one “point”, or unseen intersection of all axis or spokes which is the axle of “true-nature” by which one is manifest in either this world or the next. This inter-section, is the mid-most, or con-centric, wherein life and death, and pleasure and pain (adukkhamasukham) hold no meaning but only That-ness (Brahman) which those “endowed with the holy eye of wisdom” have seen and gained. To know that “unseen” force which drives the wheel whereupon others are born and die is the rare vision given only to a rare few who wish to make become themselves like unto That, the unmoved mover, the Eye of the eye, that black no-thing-ness of ones mental eye which takes within itself that which is not itself and conceives by ignorance “This is surely my Self!” The wish of the sage is to have ones vision turned round (avrtta caksus), which is the first step in knowing Self as Self, that “Thou art That”, and therein knowing the mind before it casts its light upon the waters of form and becomes enraptured with its own reflection, with consubstantial consciousness and petty co-relational experiences which are the trap of those numberless many who are in samsara and so deeply sunk there within. The wheel is indeed the eye of ones mind (citta), as all activity is within the nave which appears hollow, the spokes are the eye taking in its reflection caste upon the rim of form which is ever turning, ever changing, (it is not by coincidence that both “eye” and “wheel” have nearly identical spelling and pronunciation). Enrapturement with this change, with that which is composite, is suffering born of agnosis, of avijja which the truly free (suvimutta) have cut, and gained “the other shore beyond death’s reach”. |
A.K.
Coomaraswamy, C.A.F.
Rhys Davids, andGeorge
Grimm; these are but a few of histories experts on orthodox
Buddhism. Consummate scholars all, and contrary to the anti-intellectualism
of modernity who commonly suffer under the false presumption that scholars
are not 'practitioners', all three of these individuals speak of the great
light, wisdom, and refulgent glory of revelation that their jhanic endeavors
gave them as practitioners of the methodology of Buddhism, that being sati
and samadhi. All three spoke often of being regular practitioners of the
jhanic methodology.
What was the one thing these three held in common, even though none had ever met each other? They didn’t fall for the lies and dogma of modernity and its schismatic schools of what is commonly called “Buddhism”, namely and most especially the highly dogmatic and nihilistic group known as the Theravada who are materialists. They saw the texts for themselves, and they all read the Pali texts as they stood with the critical mind of a true philosopher, of a seeker of wisdom. They cared less than a jot for modern Theravada, for modern Mahayana, and for Zen. They came to Buddhism to examine the teachings as they were, the oldest record of Buddhism existing, and most importantly they easily discriminated the Nikayas from infinitely later and secular materials such as Vinaya, and Abhidhamma which have nothing to do with Buddhism but with monastic catechism, with the corruption, perversion, and inversion of the teachings. These three, even though worlds apart and never having met each other, came to the very same conclusion after many hundreds of thousands of hours of examination of the scriptures of presectarian Buddhism in Pali. That conclusion? Modern “Buddhism” in almost no way represents the Buddhism of old as mentioned in Sutta, nor does scriptural Buddhism in any way, contrary to popular heretical dogma, negate the Soul. In addition to this, Buddhism never denied the Vedas, or the true adherents of its tenants, but only with the stagnant state of affairs that Vedanta had degenerated into during that era, being ripe with petty ritualism, with rites, privileges, and externality which the Vedas themselves never endorsed. These three didn’t buy into the lies fortified and constructed over the past 2300 years after Gotama’s passing which came as a result of many schisms, divisions and disputes of doctrine and philosophy by the corrupt monastic community which formed long after the historical Buddha’s passing. These are but three, but there were and are many others; and, as long as there are discriminating minds out there which can see past what IS but originally WAS NOT, there will inevitably be many more who shall see into original Buddhism, far removed from monasticism, far from rites, dogmas, nihilism, lineages, and guruism. They will see That (Brahman), they will see: “the ancient path lost long ago traveled by Brahmins who were awake, the lost path to immortality.” Below is a list of some of their books which can still be obtained, giving a glimpse into original Buddhism, that Buddhism which was called “the doctrine of Gotama”, many centuries before Theravada, Mahayana, and Zen were uttered upon anyone's lips. |
Some
works of A.K. Coomaraswamy:
1. Perception of the Vedas 2. Origin of the Buddha Image 3. Hinduism and Buddhism 4. A New Approach to the Vedas 5. The Living Thoughts of Gotama the Buddha 6. Traditional Art and Symbolism 7. Metaphysics 8. The Dance of Siva 9. Elements of Buddhist Iconography 10. Time and Eternity 11. What is Civilization? 12. Am I My Brother's Keeper? Some works of C.A.F. Rhys Davids: 1. The Wayfarers Words in 3 Volumes 2. A Study of the Buddhist Norm 3. What was the Original Gospel in Buddhism? 4. The Milinda Questions 5. Outlines of Buddhism 6. Sakya or Buddhist Origins 7. Birth of Indian Psychology and its development in Buddhism 8. A Manual of Buddhism for Advanced Students George Grimm: 1. The Doctrine of the Buddha |
Dictionary of Philosophy; edited by D.D. Runes. Philosophical Library of N.Y. copyright: 1942; Philosophical Library Inc. DICTIONARY OF PHILOSOPHY by D.D.Runes (2.6 MB PDF) |
Is
Buddhism technically “mystical”?
Oxford English Dictionary [page 817; v. 1971]: Mystical 1. Having a certain spiritual character or import by virtue of connection or union with…(that)…transcending human comprehension (i.e. psycho-physicality). 2. Having an unseen, unknown, or mysterious origin, character, effect; of dark import. Mysticism 1.…belief in union with the Divine nature by means of ecstatic contemplation (i.e. sati); reliance on spiritual intuition or exalted feeling as the means of acquiring knowledge of mysteries inaccessible to the intellectual (i.e. discursive, corporeal) apprehension. |
To
answer if Buddhism is technically mystical, the answer is yes.
The entirety of Suttic Buddhism revolves around nothing else but the incorporeal Citta (mind) which is indeed “transcending human comprehension(i.e. psycho-physicality).” Such as: His mind (citta) after death goes to the supernal realm [SN 5.371], Followers, this Brahmin life is lived forthe sole preeminent purpose of emancipation of the mind (citta) alone [MN 1.197], He gathers the mind (citta) inside the immortal realm [AN 1.282]. The citta (mind) is not part of psycho-physicality (namo-rupa) [MN 1.436]. |
"The
Soul is the dearest beloved" [AN 4.97]
"The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto" [KN Jatakapali 1441] "To be fixed in the Soul is to be flood crossed" [Mahavagga-Att. 2.692] "The Soul is Svabhava(Self-Nature)." [Maha’vagga-Att. 3.270] "The Soul is the refuge to be sought" [Suttanipata-Att. 1.129] "Nirvana means the subjugation of becoming" [AN 5.9] "Having become the very Soul, this is deemed non-emptiness (asuñña)" [Uparipanna’sa-Att. 4.151] "Steadfast-in-the-Soul (thitattoti) means steadfast in ones True-nature (thitasabha'vo)" [Tikanipa’ta-Att. 3.4] “What is emptiness-liberation? Gnosis and contemplation into what is not the Soul liberates one from misconceptions about the Soul, this is emptiness-liberation.” [Pati 2.67] “What do you think, is form lasting or impermanent? Impermanent Gotama. Is that which is impermanent suffering or blissful? Indeed its suffering Gotama. Is that which is impermanent and suffering and subject to perpetual change; is it fit to declare of such things ‘this is mine, this is what I am, this is my Soul? Indeed not Gotama!” [MN 1.232] "Having insight he knows, having vision he does so see, the Lord is the holy-eye become, he is gnosis become, the Dhamma become, verily Brahman become, is turned to the Soul, elucidator of the goal, giver of Immortality, he is the Tathagata, the Lord of Dhamma." [MN 1.111] “When this exists, that comes to be, with the arising of this, that also arises; when that is not present, that does not come to be; with the subjugation of this, that too is subjugated. This is meant that which nescience (ignorance) as (original) cause there are then experiences; and with experiences as cause, there then is found consciousness.” [SN 2.65] "What do you suppose, followers, if people were carrying off into the Jeta grove bunches of sticks, grasses, branches, and leaves and did with them as they wished or burned them up, would it occur to you: These people are carrying us off, are doing as they please with us, and are burning us? No, indeed not Lord. And how so? Because Lord, none of that is our Soul, nor what our Soul subsists upon! Just so followers, what is not who you are, do away with it, when you have made done with that, it will lead to your bliss and welfare for as long as time lasts. What is that you are not? Form, followers, is not who you are, neither are sensations, perceptions, experiences, consciousness." [MN 1.141] "Wide open is the portal to Immortality. Let them hear the Dhamma of the stainless one, the Buddha." [MN 1.168] "What of this short-lived body which is clung to by means of craving? There is nothing in it to say ‘I’ or ‘mine’ or ‘me’." [MN 1.185] "Whether he walks, stands, sits, or lays on his side; so long as his mind (citta) is sovereign upon his very Soul, he is thoroughly quelled." [Itivuttaka 82] "Parinirvana is to be steadfast-in-the-Soul (thitattoti)" [Theragatha-Att. 1.51] “Suffering comes to (one) with mind/will (citta) which is inchoate (incoherrent).”[SN 4.78] (www exclusive) "The Original Buddhist Meditation Manual" The method of emancipation as taught in original Buddhism. This is the book the internet has been asking for, the original method of practice for illumination. PAGE 2 OF ATTAN.COM |
Buddhism
espousing Advaita (nondualism): [SN
2.17] Gotama
Buddha: “This world is carried on by a duality (dvayanissito); which are:
#1. ‘Being (sat, atthiti [views of either sabbamatthi ‘the all is entirety’, and sabbamekattan ‘the all is one’s Soul’ [SN 2.77] both are heresies of perpetualism])’ and: #2. ‘Nonbeing (asat, natthiti [views of either sabbamnatthi ‘the all is ultimately not’ (atomism), and sabbam puthuttan ‘the all is merely composite (atoms)’ [SN 2.77] both are heresies of annihilationism])’”. The Tathagata, the Sammasambuddha teaches by Tat (Brahman, Soul) which is achieved by means of wisdom which destroys nescience (avijja). Before “thou art being (sat)” and “thou art unbecoming (asat)”, there is That, “thou art That (Brahman)”. Between (majjha, middle) sat and asat is That (Tat, Brahman, the “unseen Seer”, the hidden axle of the wheel of life and death), which the fool (puthujjana) caught in the Ferris-wheel of samsara cannot see with his mind so occluded by lusts and desire. |
Plotinus: An examination and introduction The entire works of Plotinus ZIP (640KB) Highest
recommended reading:
The
entire works of Plato (2.54 MB) The
entire works of Plotinus HTML(1.67 MB)
|
(1575-1624) Boehme's first treatise, entitled Aurora, or Die Morgenroete im Aufgang (1612), expressed his insights in an abstruse, oracular style. This work aroused profound interest among a small circle of followers, but it also provoked the heated opposition of the authorities. After being prosecuted by the local pastor of Goerlitz, Boehme had to promise on pain of imprisonment to cease writing. This judgment he obeyed for five years, until, unable to restrain himself any longer, he began writing again in secret for private circulation among friends. The publication of his Weg zu Christo in 1623 by one of these friends led to renewed persecutions. Banished from Goerlitz, Boehme lived for a time in Dresden and on the country estates of wealthy supporters. Finally, stricken by illness in 1624, he returned home and died in the same year. Jacob Boehme's Neoplatonic writings on the Absolute influenced histories preeminent Western ontological philosophers, his writings are entirely a Monism, an emanationism and entirely illuminative. Boehme’s influence on the greats of histories philosophers is little known. In his own country, the major impact of Boehme was on German Romanticism, notably on the ideas of G.W.F. Hegel, F. von Baader, and F.W.J. von Schelling. Reverberations of his thought continue today, especially among theosophists, Christian mystics, and dialectical theologians. Indirectly, his influence can be traced to the work of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Hartmann, Bergson, and Heidegger. Paul Tillich and Martin Buber drew heavily from his work -- as did the psychologist, Carl Jung, who made numerous references to Boehme in his writings. F.W.J. von Schelling told an associate to get the 4-Volume collection of Boehme's works "at any and all costs", and referred to Boehme as "the most brilliant writing I've ever come across". Its rather amazing that Boehme's name goes without mention in modern references to histories great philosophers, this man who himself essentially inspired half the entire pantheon of modern philosophers. Hegel himself drew much of his inspiration for his own philosophy from the writings of Boehme! A more lengthy introduction to the principles of Boehme's philosophy An E-book program containing a broad cross section of most all of Boehme's writings (786KB) Hegel on Jacob Boehme "If I should describe to you the Godhead in the greatest depth, it is thus: as if a wheel stood before you that as it were seven wheels, one made into another. Seven principles of the Godhead. They are forever giving birth to one another, and it as if when one wheel turned, it in like turned another; it is as if there were seven wheels, one inside another, and one always turned differently from the others, and the seven wheels were rimmed one within another like a round spheros. And the seven hubs of the seven wheels in their center were like one hub which moved around all over the place as it turned, and the wheels, forever giving birth to the same hubs, and the one hub forever giving birth to the seven spokes of all seven wheels".-Jacob Boehme
On regeneration, or the new birth
|
“With
sovereign mind/will (citta) one is established in the very Soul.” [AN
2.29]
“ekaggacittassa
ajjhattam susamahito”
'Nihil
ex nihilo' "From nothing comes nothing". Hegel-
"Nothing nothings". Webmaster attan.com-"Nihilism
is the refuge of fools and evil whores who fear either death or hell".
Sankaracharya-
"You say 'nothing is', but who is this Witness who claims of everything,
even himself, that nothing is?"
[Ascl.III.33C]
Hermes Trismegistos- "You must
not call anything 'void' without saying what the thing in question is void
of"
Webmaster attan.com-"It
cannot happen that anyone may negate the negator who claims of the all
‘this is not me, this is not who I am, this is not my Soul’ (nesohamasmi
na meso atta')."
Webmaster
attan.com-"Here said: 'I am not that, this is not me, that is
not my Soul (na me so atta)'. No thing (phenomena, namo-rupa, corporeality,
khandhas) is my Soul. My True-nature is my Soul (svabhava), which is no
thing, gone unseen until now due to the fog of nescience. No thing can
be said to be my Soul; this is the deep trap in which the weak minds of
fools become ensnared to conclude 'nothing is' and deny, ultimately, true
liberation (vimutta) [SN 3.46] from
bondage and That which is liberated, That which obtains immortality (amata),
That which no longer tastes of death. That of which nothing can be said
of him who has obtained the immortal state, for what is like unto That
which one can say: 'It is like this, or it is like that'. Nothing is like
unto It, for It is like unto itself alone, not like unto another, neither
concept nor metaphor touch It or impart it to the seeker save wisdom alone.
The snake cannot eat itself so as to ever make claim 'nothing is'; such
is the dogma of fools unable to see the foundation of phenomena, the unseen
Seer, the unmoved Mover in which both movement and change are superimposed
on the mind by the fog of nescience which creates the unreal duality of
actor and acted, deed and doer, feeler and felt; causing simple minds to
make merit, do deeds, heap virtue for a better life or afterlife, and praise
compassion, never seeing that the stainless Soul obtained by wisdom is
unsoiled and without want, either of deed or merit, for both are brother
and sister to samsara itself. Merit making is the karmic shit heap of samsara
upon which the cock crows and bemuses himself king; the Soul partakes of
itself alone [KN 2.380]
, and by wisdom
alone is won; him alone do the wise call 'victor of the battle against
death's touch', not the former who is bound to samsara
as
sure as his merits make him so, be they good or bad. Between being (sat,
atthiti, abbamatthi, sabbamekattan) and nonbeing (asat, natthiti, sabbamnatthi,
sabbam puthuttan) is That which declares, in ignorance, both views,
is That from which both heretical views come. That is That, Brahman-become,
the means, the middlemost Soul [majjhatta],
the
body of Brahman
[DN 3.84] free, pure,
unbecome[Ud. 81], Tathagata. Nothing
true can be said of the Absolute for all speech, affirmation and negation
are mutually exclusive binary antinomy concepts which are circum-experiential
to the phenomenal man so-and-so. The true said of the True are directive
negations to immediacy with the One without another."
The cornerstone principle of Buddhism:
Thitam cittam ajjhattam susanthitam suvimuttam
“With the will (citta) steadfast (upon itself) [this is] the
very Soul, this is to be supremely steadfast, is to be thoroughly liberated.”[SN
5.74]
Gotama Buddha- "Woe
unto the fool, for he shall travel through many lives not comprehending
the Law which is deep, full of meaning, not easily understood [by weak
minds]...Mine [teachings] are for those with but little dust in their eyes."
-[Majjhima
Nikaya]
That
which can be like unto itself is the Soul alone; for what is other than
Soul is a composite of unlikes. The mind becomes Samma, the immanent Soul
Modern Buddhism cannot speak of both the denial of Self ultimately and of mind as the highest end of the holy-life since its existence is presumed extinguished at death and liberation is defacto a non-entity therein making Buddhism a self-defeating and illogical dogma both in affirming a holy life without an ultimate fruit as its works end, namely emancipation. -Sankhara
If, as Buddhism’s doctrines indicate, the utter
insubstantiality of the five aggregates are in perpetuity “anicca, dukkha,
mara, anatta” [SN 3.193-196], then
the very foundation for emancipation (vimutta), immortality (amata), and
illumination (buddhi, vijja) as lauded in scripture, are groundless and
Buddhism itself is inherently a self-contradictory and senseless dogma.
If ones own nature is that
of the khandhas (aggregates), there is no hope of emancipation (vimutta),
for one cannot avoid nor escape one’s own nature. However if ones own nature
is other than the khandhas liberation is not only possible, but one immediately
concedes to That which effects itself, as Subject, from its own beginningless
ignorance (avijja) in objectifying itself as khandhic and denies the foundation
for secular Theravada, much of “no-Soul” modern Mahayana, and the entirety
of anti-foundational modern Buddhism which utterly guffaws mention of incorporeal
ontological existence as the basis for freedom.
-Webmaster attan.com
"That which goes against the stream of the
world is subtle, unfathomably hard to discern. Those dyed in lustfulness
and the darkness of the aggregates (corporeal) will never discern it. "[MN
1.168]
Nosce te ipsum
CLICK
HERE FOR MORE ARTICLES AND TEXTS ON PAGE 2 OF ATTAN.COM