Sat

[egodust]

Kartik wrote:
> Chuck Hillig wrote:
>
> >  Reality is  "what persists."
> >
> >  If it changes, alters, modifies, evolves, transforms, mutates, unfolds or
> > unravels, it's NOT real.
> >
>
> *What* changes then? It cannot be the entity which exists at the beginning,
> for it undergoes change only at the beginning of the process, not throughout
> the process. For precisely the same reason, it cannot be the entity that
> exists
> in the middle or the end; nor can it be the changeless Brahman (by
> definition!).
>
> Change is very important to Buddhist philosophy and the simple observation of
> the phenomenon itself is sufficient for enlightenment. As the Zen koan goes:
> "Sitting quietly doing nothing, spring comes and the grass grows by itself."
>
> I've noticed this difference between advaita and Buddhism, please correct me
> if I'm wrong:
>
> Advaita  : concentrates on the absolute noumenon.
> Buddhism : concentrates on the changing phenomenon.
>
> The advaitin attempts to realize the self by locating the source of the "I"
> thought, but the Buddhist simply observes the phenomenon around him.
>
> >                                            With Blessings,
> >                                                   Chuck Hillig
> >
>
> Regards,
> Kartik

There's apparently many more variations to the Buddhist approach than
the Vedantic.  What they are essentially trying to achieve is the same:
the pure state of [conscious] Being.  Whether observing the breath (which
is tantamount to watching mind-flow: the changing phenomena)--a practice
common to yogins as well--or tracing the source of the 'I'-thought
(contemplating the causal noumenon), the "goal" is the same: the mu-shin
(no-mind) of the Buddhists, or the manonasa (extinction of mind) of the
Vedantists: representing a lifting of the Veil of Distortion/Diversion
from the natural Substratum of Self.

(It's worth mentioning that although Buddha philosophically discounted
the idea of Self [in the form of atman or brahman], He was applying
the strategy of diffusing the intellect. This insight may be had through
understanding the intuitive impact of His teachings, coupled with the
implications of what nihilism otherwise signifies.  Had He been a true
nihilist, for example, His statements to His father on his deathbed
wouldn't have intimated the fact that he (i.e. His father) was to become
part of Everyone and Everything after death.)

namaste.