Sariras/relics & is other religions' enlightenment the same?

snowstar SG

Besides Buddhas, Bohisattvas, Arhats in Buddhism, do other enlightened saints of other religions yield relics when they pass on?

An Eternal Now SG

Besides Buddhas, Bohisattvas, Arhats in Buddhism, do other enlightened saints of other religions yield relics when they pass on?

No they do not. Only Buddhism produces Aryas (enlightened beings in the Buddhist definition) that realise the twofold emptiness. Other religions lead their practitioners to certain experience but fall short of this realisation, and therefore do not produce Aryas. This may sound very sectarian, but it is a fact that only Buddhism teaches no-self, emptiness and dependent origination. The realisation of this is what makes one attain the progressive Arya realisations (like the stages to Arhatship, and the different bhumi stages of a Bodhisattva to Buddhahood).

Anyway only Buddhist practitioners have Shariras.

..............

A translated article (by me, so pardon the poor translations) from Fa Yu Bing Fen (Book 1), Jen Chen Buddhist Book Publisher

Discussing about Shariras
By Venerable Shen-Kai

The Sharira is truly a very amazing and miraculous object. Though it is a material substance, it can also be said to be immaterial. However, only the Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, great Masters, saints and Bhikshus would have shariras. Some lay Buddhists who are great practitioners, both males and females, may also have shariras. Typically, after the practitioner passes away and is cremated, numerous colourful bead-like objects, known as shariras, would be retrieved from the ashes. It does not melt under high temperature, does not dissolve with high humidity, does not spoil under high pressure, and does not get destroyed over kalpas. Interestingly, not every Buddhist has shariras. Buddhists who do not practice, just as other people who do not believe in Buddhism, would not have shariras. There are plentiful religions in the world. Why is it that the religious leader, missionaries and believers do not have shariras? There are also practitioners from religions other than Buddhism, yet only people who practice the Dharma have shariras. Besides, one could also tell the level of practice through the number of shariras produced. Those with deeper level of practice would have more shariras, while those with a shallow level of practice would have fewer shariras. If one has practiced for countless lifetimes, the number of shariras one would have the beauty of its colour and luster and other miraculous occurrences would be even more incredible.

According to the records of the life story of Buddha, when Shakyamuni Buddha entered Nirvana, At this moment, the golden coffin ascended to the height of seven duo luo trees, moved around in space, dissolved into the fire of Samadhi, instantaneously producing ashes and shariras appeared, like multi-coloured beads, bright and firm. According to the explanations, there are as many as 84 dou3 shariras. At that time, the shariras were divided amongst the 8 great Kings and other Buddhas disciples. They built stupas to venerate the shariras. While the majority of the shariras were left in the human realm, some were kept in the Naga realm or Heaven realm. There was also Buddhas great disciple, Venerable Ananda. When he entered Nirvana, his physical body levitated to the space, dissolved into fire and self-cremated. His shariras rained down from the sky upon the banks of the Ganges river. All these did not only happen in the ancient times. Even as recent as the great Buddhist leader Master Tai-Hsu, when he passed away, there were more than 400 shariras. The Pure Land master Venerable Yin Kwang, also produced a few hundred shariras when he passed away. There are also other innumerable great Masters and Teachers who had shariras. There was especially a Zhang Jia Rinpoche who passed away in Tai Pei in 1957; he had as many as 7000 to 8000 shariras. He even had the most precious Vajra gem and six-syllable mantra. The shariras could be as large as beans and as tiny as seeds. They were very colourful, but the white ones were especially remarkable. Other than these, there are also uncountable accounts of Bhikshus, Bhikshunis, lay male and female Buddhists who passed away with shariras.

Actually, one need not to have shariras only upon ones Nirvana. For example, one of the greatest disciples of the Buddha Mahakashyapa, his indestructible body sharira is presently concealed in the ling2 jiu1 shan1. He would await for the descent of the Maitreya Buddha, when he would appear in the Dharma assembly, benefit sentient beings and then enter into Nirvana. Other examples include the Ksitigarbha Bodhisattva of the Jiu Hua Mountain in An Hui; Tang Dynasty 6th Zen Patriarch Hui Neng of Cao Xi; the Ming dynasty Great Master Han Shan; Chinas Wu Jin Zang Bhikshuni etc, their body sharira are being venerated at Guang Dong in the Nan Hua monastery. There is also a Venerable in Thailand who entered Nirvana in his middle age, but his body did not decay, it is situated at Cheng Niang and the Thais venerate his Body Relic; it is also known that his hair is grew 5 times longer than when he was alive. In Taiwan Si Zhi Maitreya Monastery, the Ci Hang Bodhisattva non-decayed Body Relic was a breaking news, people from local and abroad pay homage to it; in Nan Hai Pu Tuo Mountain Gu Fuo Dong, there are many body relics of old monks who passed away for plenty of years. Regarding body relics/shariras, there are plenty of cases in different places and mountains in China. Those who follow and practice (xiu1 chi2) according to the Buddhadharma, not only bone marrows, even nails, blood, flesh and teeth, the entire body can become relics, just like there are lights and colours on [??]s head. Venerable Jiu Mo Luos tongue did not burn in cremation, these are Sharira Gems.

Sharira can also be obtained through Gan3 Ying4 (induction/invocation), in our country (Taiwan) during the era of Dong Wu Sun Quan, after hearing that Venerable Fan Zeng Kang Zeng Kai said the merits of paying homage to shariras, thought of wanting to pay homage to shariras, therefore requested that Venerable to sincerely pray. After 49 days, he suddenly heard sounds coming from the empty bottle, and discovered Gong-De-She-Li (merits sharira). After trying to hit it with a hammer on a metal zhuan, the sharira remains undamaged. During the Song dynasty, lay disciple Wang Ri Xi was carving a Pure Land scripture on the wooden plank and a sharira was carved out. Again in Song Dynasty, there was a lady who always recited Amitabha Sutra, in the sutra suddenly a lot of shariras appeared. During Xi Pu era, there was a monk called Hui Da, in [??], bowed and sincerely prayed for Buddhas relic, suddenly the relic rolled out from the ground, it is now venerated at Ning Bo Ah Yu Wang monastery, is known to be the relic that Venerable Hui Da prayed for. Recently there is a General, once he was at Xi-An Xi-Jiao Monastery [??] stupa, he sincerely prayed and a huge brick fell out from the top of the stupa, and realized that two shariras are on top of it, therefore he renovated the stupa. In Hong Kong, Venerable Lan Mo went to India for Buddhist pilgrimage, in Buddhas pre-enlightenment Bodhigaya; he met an old practitioner, called Guang Qing Shi. He was at Jia ? Great Stupa venerating Buddhas relics for 3 years already, once he witnessed sharira dropping by itself from the top of the stupa, and it even gave him and another lay disciple 2 shariras; it was very colourful and lovely. During Ming Guo, Zheng Jue Sheng old lay disciple once venerated two of Living Buddha Ban Chans shariras; it automatically multiplied to 7 of them. When Mr Qu Lao passed away, his wife took 2 shariras and put onto his mouth. When his funeral was over, it was found that that 7 shariras remain at home. Later it was given to Li Zi Kuan old lay disciple who is at Taipei Shan Dao monastery for offering, but realized the sharira has multiplied to 10. In Tibetan Vajrayana Yellow Hat sect leader Lama Tsongkapa dropped a tooth in his latter years, his disciples treated it as a sharira and venerated it, shariras grew out from the tooths root canal. It was distributed among masses for veneration, after distributing it grew again, after growing it was distributed again. It was known that there is a Living Buddha, in the early years at China Mainland before his passing away, often there are disciples praying/requesting his sharira, he could at any time drop 2 shariras from his nostrils and gave them for veneration. It was also heard that there is a merchant, Da Pu Tuo and Bo Li Jia brothers, they used a jade box and carried back eight of Buddhas hair strands (also Buddhas sharira).

They were robbed twice on their way by robbers, altogether they lost 4 strains. When they arrived back in Myanmar they asked the king to build a stupa for the veneration of the shariras, and when they opened the box, they found 8 strains like it originally was. There are many cases of multiplication of shariras among those who venerate the shariras; and because whenever there are hosting of Buddhism activity, often there are light-flower sharira.

Above: one of the relics of Lama Tsongkapa

The author has been to different places in Taiwan, visited and venerated Buddha, Bodhisattvas, Saints, high monks and old practitioners of their shariras, at Jia Yi Seng saw Zang Ji Hua old lay disciple, because of his sincere praying and chanting Buddha, obtained light-flower sharira, at that time liked it a lot, therefore wished him when he pass away surely have sharira, and it turned out that a few years ago Zhang Lao in Taipei, fore-knew his death time, died/liberated without sickness during meditation. After cremation there are plenty of big and small shariras, there are sharira-tree and sharira-flower. Once also, visited Gao-Xiong-Shou mountain monastery Lamp-Burning puja, saw a lot of lamp-flower sharira. Once more than 10 years ago at Xi Yi, visited various Venerables recently arrived back from India who brought back many Buddha Shariras for veneration. They are shaped like small peanut-grains, I witnessed the colour was white, it was heard that white was good, some people saw golden-yellow or pale-yellow, some people saw sky-blue or green colour, some saw red or purple colour, some saw pearl colour, some saw jade colour, or coral; ???? colour, or if karma is heavy, some saw it as grey or black, or because of sudden sincere ?, or because of prostrations and sincere repentance, vowing to be virtuous, the sharira colour turned good; witnesses found it very mysterious. For example locally in the present generation, there is a Fa Xue Jia, Mr. Luo Jia Jie, believed in Buddhism, once he was at Ningbo Ah Yu Wang monastery, prayed and venerated Buddhas shariras, at first it was black colour, and knew that he had heavy karmic obstructions, therefore he stayed at the monastery for 7 days 7 nights and kept praying and repenting. At the 7th day, he visited the sharira again; it turned totally into white colour, and was satisfied and left. Sharira in Buddhist disciples minds, it is a great power without pens or ink or words, yet is able to invoke people to avoid evil and lead them towards the virtuous path and seek the truth.

Above: sharira of the Buddha prior to Shakyamuni Buddha, Kassapa Buddha

Sharira is formed due to the practitioners life merits, due to love, compassion, joy and equanimity (the 4 immeasurable); wisdom; benefiting others and the worlds immense merits. It is difficult to obtain and rare, therefore it is said that shariras are immaterial, it is beyond-material. The Golden Light Sutra states Sharira is cultivated out of Precepts, Samadhi, Wisdom merits, it is difficult to obtain and is the highest blessing field." And also, Persons of shariras, is due to the results of immense cultivation of Six Paramitas Prajna sutra also says Buddhas body and She Li Luo (She-Li-Zhi/shariras) is obtained through practice of Prajna-paramita immense merits, it is venerated, revered, praised and respected by all Devas and Men. Therefore people of the world should inspire the heart of veneration towards Buddha and Bodhisattvas shariras; it will result in various blessings which are difficult to comprehend.

Due to the various ways of concrete proof, shariras are not necessarily made of hair, blood, or marrow, the colours are not of white, black or 3 types, if the Chinese translate it as body bones or or ling2 bones, ? bones, it is unable to cover the shariras true essence and meaning.

----

Free Image Hosting [xs.to]

snowstar SG

Anyway only Buddhist practitioners have Shariras.

..............

Only Buddhism produces Aryas? Does it mean that only Buddhist have a chance to be enlightened?

How about before Buddha's time or way before Buddha came to existance to teach the Dharma?

snowstar SG

Only Buddhism produces Aryas? Does it mean that only Buddhist have a chance to be enlightened?

How about before Buddha's time or way before Buddha came to existance to teach the Dharma?

An Eternal Now SG

Only Buddhism produces Aryas? Does it mean that only Buddhist have a chance to be enlightened?

How about before Buddha's time or way before Buddha came to existance to teach the Dharma?

Yes only Buddhism produces Aryas.

Before Buddha's time, there were previous ancient Buddhas, but their teachings were lost. At any time in history there can only be one Supreme Nirmanakaya Buddha (e.g. Shakyamuni Buddha) and one Buddha's dharma teachings, who disseminates the dharma to the masses, resulting in many practitioners attaining the Arya stages from sotapanna to Arhatship, and the Bodhisattva bhumis.

Then what about the in-between period between two Buddha's dissemination, when there is no dharma? In this period there is a group of aryas called Pratyekabuddhas (solitary enlightened beings), who attain enlightened by themselves to the truth of dependent origination but do not have the ability to preach what they have realised to others.

Pratyekabuddhas only appear at a time when there are no Buddhas, and they attained enlightenment through many lifetimes of practice, but it just so happens that in that particular lifetime there were no Buddhas and the conditions for his enlightenment is present.

Emanrohe SG

Yes only Buddhism produces Aryas.

Actually I would like to differ from AEN on this point. Technically, it is possible for a non-buddhist to be in an Arya. One become an Arya if he has fulfilled the required realisations to be one.

Just like what the Buddha said, if there can be found the Noble 8 Fold Path in another teaching/school/religion, in that teaching/school/religion can the Arya Ones be found.

Metta _(|)_

snowstar SG

Actually I would like to differ from AEN on this point. Technically, it is possible for a non-buddhist to be in an Arya. One become an Arya if he has fulfilled the required realisations to be one.

Just like what the Buddha said, if there can be found the Noble 8 Fold Path in another teaching/school/religion, in that teaching/school/religion can the Arya Ones be found.

Metta _(|)_

You fully expressed my sentiments in my earlier question.

An Eternal Now SG

Actually I would like to differ from AEN on this point. Technically, it is possible for a non-buddhist to be in an Arya. One become an Arya if he has fulfilled the required realisations to be one.

Just like what the Buddha said, if there can be found the Noble 8 Fold Path in another teaching/school/religion, in that teaching/school/religion can the Arya Ones be found.

Metta _(|)_

Many people share this sentiment, and it sounds nice but unfortunately it is wrong. Enlightenment is more subtle than one might think. And though the Buddha did say realisation can come anywhere the 8 fold path is taught, he also taught that his is the only teaching that leads to the end of samsara. Buddha's teaching is the only path that teaches the 8 fold path in other words, the only path that teaches the right view of dependent origination, no-self, the 3 seals, and the method to realise this. (see the next post for scriptural support) Nagarjuna also said "Only the path shown by Shakyamuni is complete while other paths only lead to the edge of Samsara."

A lot of non-Buddhist practitioners are supposedly enlightened, but their enlightenment and Buddhism's enlightenment is not the same. Buddhism's enlightenment requires one to realise the truth of dependent origination, and requires learning the right view through the Buddha's teachings.

Other religions' enlightenment has to do with realising their atman-Brahman (the Self that is God) true self, that experience of I AMness. (Thusness Stage 1) The first transcendental experience for many (whether non-Buddhist or Buddhists) is that experience of I AMness where that person has feels with certainty that he has touched the deepest core of his being, without any intermediary or thoughts -- just a naked presence and sense of existence that is infinite and not bounded by the mind or body. It feels utterly real and he knows he's not a machine, not a body, and not his mind. Awareness is seen as an Eternal Witness/Watcher at this phase, there is still duality between subject/object, perceiver/perceived. IT simply observes everything passively. It is totally outside the stream of time, movements, and is unborn and undying. Consciousness feels constant and different from transient phenomenon, which simply appears to arise and subside from and within a constant background of witnessing consciousness. At this phase the practitioner will not understand what Zen Master Dogen meant by "Impermanence is Buddha-Nature" (this will only be realised at Thusness Stage 5, or the Buddhist understanding of No-Self). Instead, Consciousness is seen as separate from transience, and is eternal. That is why most non-Buddhist practitioners are categorised as eternalists.

Or further still they may have non-dual experiences (without subject/object, seer-seen, witness/witnessed divisions) or realisations, but it is still not the realisation of no-self and emptiness/dependent origination, and there is still a strong attachment to an unchaging ontological essence, Brahman, God, etc, even though they do not experience any separation with the world. Even though there is no subject/object division, it is still Brahman rather than Shunyata (emptiness) -- here the I AMness is experienced in everything. This is Thusness's Stage 4. Practitioners up till this point are not considered as having attained the Buddhist ranks of aryas (Sotapanna to Arhatship, or the 1st Bhumi Bodhisattva stage onwards) or the Buddhist enlightenment, even though they did have a series of spiritual realisations.

I am not being biased here because I myself like to study other religions and would fully agree with any teachings if they teach the right view and right path. The eight-fold path begins with Right View, that is the first of the eight fold path. And that means the understanding of dependent origination.

But unfortunately I can tell you from my experience of having read many books by Hindu Advaitist and some Christian mystics books that they do not have the understanding of Dependent Origination/Emptiness which is taught in Buddhism alone. This is a peculiar teaching of Buddhism.

Longchen, our forum moderator who also has experiential insights on the two emptinesses speak from experience (who had transcendental experiences of the I AM since about 23 years ago when he was 15 and having been taught by Christian mystics for many years before knowing Thusness a few years ago) says: Buddhism is the only religion that talks about "emptiness". It is a very profound realisation.... even more profound that the "non-dual".

Basically, 'emptiness' resolve a lot of mystery.

The word 'emptiness' and 'empty' is used in many other religions and spiritual practices too. This include Taoism, but the understanding is not the same. In many of these religion, 'emptiness' is referring to the Void. The Void in this case is the transcendental experience of All-pervading presence in a state of no thought.

As Longchen said here, emptiness in Buddhism is not refering to a formless all-pervading presence but rather is referring to the teaching on dependent origination and the non-substantiality of appearances.

Our moderator Thusness too speaks from experience with other religions, having transcendental insights since a young age like Longchen (beginning with the I AMness 25 years ago when he was 17), and having gone from Buddhism to Hinduism to Taoism and finally back to Buddhism again.

Other religions enlightenment goes as far as Stage 4 (non-dual), but not Stage 5 and 6 of Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Experience on Spiritual Enlightenment

There's truth in what one of my friends said: "Hindu's find it hard to accept that Buddhism is in fact different and has been different since the Buddha declared that it was different, and it seems that only Buddhists know this because only Buddhists understand intuitively what dependent origination actually means. Because if you actually did, you would become Buddhist. Buddhism has always been elitist. The Buddha was an elitist, arguing with all other forms of spirituality of the time and every Buddhist master from then on has been elitist."

And here is what Ch'an Master Sheng-yen (who passed away recently) taught and a very good description of 'Thusness's Stage 5' (the Buddhist No-Self):

http://ddmba.org/pages/practice/meditation/three-stages-of-chan-meditation.php

When one reaches the height of the second stage, he realizes that the concept of the "I" does not exist. But he has only abandoned the small "I" and has not negated the concept of basic substance or the existence of God; you may call it Truth, the one and only God, the Almighty, the Unchanging Principle, or even the Buddha of Buddhism. If you think that it is real, then you are still in the realm of the big "I" and have not left the sphere of philosophy and religion.

...When you are in the second stage, although you feel that the ‘I’ does not exist, the basic substance of the universe, or the Supreme Truth, still exists. Although you recognise that all the different phenomena are the extension of this basic substance or Supreme Truth, yet there still exists the opposition of basic substance versus external phenomena...

...One who has entered Ch’an does not see basic substance and phenomena as two things standing in opposition to each other. They cannot even be illustrated as being the back and palm of a hand. This is because phenomena themselves are basic substance, and apart from phenomena there is no basic substance to be found. The reality of basic substance exists right in the unreality of phenomena, which change ceaselessly and have no constant form. This is the Truth....

An Eternal Now SG

Cula-sihanada Sutta (MN 11) -- The Shorter Discourse on the Lion's Roar {M i 63} [Ñanamoli Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi, trans.]. The Buddha declares that only through practicing in accord with the Dhamma can Awakening be realized. His teaching is distinguished from those of other religions and philosophies through its unique rejection of all doctrines of self. [BB]

...............

The Buddha teaches:

1. Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living at Savatthi in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's Park. There he addressed the bhikkhus thus: "Bhikkhus." -- "Venerable sir," they replied. The Blessed One said this:

2. "Bhikkhus, only here is there a recluse, only here a second recluse, only here a third recluse, only here a fourth recluse. The doctrines of others are devoid[*p.64] of recluses: that is how you should rightly roar your lion's roar.[1]

3. "It is possible, bhikkhus, that wanderers of other sects might ask: 'But on the strength of what (argument) or with the support of what (authority) do the venerable ones say thus?' Wanderers of other sects who ask thus may be answered in this way: 'Friends, four things have been declared to us by the Blessed One who knows and sees, accomplished and fully enlightened; on seeing these in ourselves we say thus: "Only here is there a recluse, only here a second recluse, only here a third recluse, only here a fourth recluse. The doctrines of others are devoid of recluses." What are the four? We have confidence in the Teacher, we have confidence in the Dhamma, we have fulfilled the precepts, and our companions in the Dhamma are dear and agreeable to us whether they are layfolk or those gone forth. These are the four things declared to us by the Blessed One who knows and sees, accomplished and fully enlightened, on seeing which in ourselves we say as we do.'

An Eternal Now SG

An article I wrote in my Awakening To Reality blog not too long ago:

Dr. David Loy is an enlightened and authorized Zen teacher from an authentic Zen lineage (Sanbo Kyodan lineage) having completed his koan training, so he is not without personal experience, he is not just an academic. Thusness did recommend his book 'Nonduality' to me before a few years back, and it is very well written on the aspect of non-duality. I have his book, bought it a few years ago, and would recommend others to get it. However not much is spoken about dependent origination and emptiness in that book.

But take note that 'Nonduality' was the first book (his Ph.D thesis) and was written in the early 1980s and published in 1988, paperback edition 1997. However he did write articles on dependent origination and emptiness in the latter years, like in 1993 he published Indra's Postmodern Net which I think is pretty good also.

Regarding the articles in 'Nonduality' which Dwai quoted one above, it is part of his Ph.D thesis on comparative religion and his emphasis was on the similarities between Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta and other systems including Taoism and more. That is why it is written with a bias towards seeing the similarities.

Actually there are similarities between Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism. And that is clearly described in David Loy's essay -- it is the non-divison of subject and object. However, in Buddhism it is not only this insight that is important.

That is David Loy clearly stated that Non-duality is either No Self or All Self, and permits no duality between a 'true self' and 'not self', observer and observed. Which is true. So he is right that both Buddhism and Advaita is non-dual teaching, but it is not the whole story.

What is overlooked/not mentioned here is that though non-duality may be experienced as an All-Self and hence subject and object are not divided, one can still extrapolate all phenomena as being extensions of a universal substratum (i.e. reifying Brahman as an Absolute/Universal Consciousness) -- and hence seeing reality as an inherent ontological essence, which is not in accord with the principles of Shunyata. Non-duality here is seen as the union/inseparability of objects with Subject, but the insight of No-Subject has not arisen.

In Stage 5, there is only vivid reflection and manifestation without mirror/Subject, there is no mirror (Ultimate Subject) reflecting or being in union with the manifestations. 'Everything' is a process, event, manifestation and phenomenon, nothing ontological or having an essence. Stage 5 is quite thorough in being no one and Thusness calls this anatta in all 3 aspects -- no subject/object division, no doer-ship and absence of agent. There is no agent, not just no subject/object division. This is Buddhism's No-Self.

So the difference between Advaita's non-dualism of brahman and world and Buddhism's No-Self is the difference between Thusness's Stage 4 and 5 which he explained in his comments: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/200...experience.html

And also as I said earlier, Dependent Origination and Emptiness (Stage 6) is overlooked -- since the thesis is focused on the similarities on the Non-Dual aspect (Stage 4).

In my opinion, we should read both David Loy's book on Nonduality, and then read the article by Acharya Mahayogi Shridhar Rana Rinpoche on Madhyamika Buddhism Vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta, to have a balanced view of the similarities and differences. To know only the difference is not enough, we must also be able to see the non-dual aspect which is also an important insight and experience. Likewise to see the similarities is not enough, we have to see Dependent Origination and Emptiness and the paradigm difference due to this.

An Eternal Now SG

Changed topic title to reflect the current discussion.

Emanrohe SG

Dear all,

Interesting summary of the differences in views. (Emptiness and its stages, beyond my level of experience and therefore, my level of comprehension)

However, it seems that you are only mentioning the religions that we typically know about and can compare with. As such I feel we should not make a sweeping statement to say that they can only be found here and not else where and exclude other unknown religions :)

Metta _(|)_

snowstar SG

Dear all,

Interesting summary of the differences in views. (Emptiness and its stages, beyond my level of experience and therefore, my level of comprehension)

Metta _(|)_

I agree with Emanrohe.

An Eternal Now SG

Dear all,

Interesting summary of the differences in views. (Emptiness and its stages, beyond my level of experience and therefore, my level of comprehension)

Actually not all of Thusness's 7 stages are about emptiness. Particularly, only 5 and 6 talks about emptiness.

As explained earlier the meaning of 'emptiness' in other religions are very different from Buddhism's meaning of emptiness. Other religions do not teach about the Buddhist emptiness even though they may use that term. Emptiness in Buddhism is not refering to 'The Void' or a formless, shapeless all-pervading presence, rather it is talking about the two emptinesses:

1) Emptiness of Self, i.e. Anatta, No-Self (Thusness Stage 5) -- this however must be clearly distinguished from teachings found in other religions that talk about 'letting go of the ego' yet teaching a true self distinct from phenomena, something behind and watching everything including thoughts and personality. Emptiness of self does not mean a state of no-ego. It does not mean let go of your attachment to your conceptual image of yourself -- even though this is important, this is not what the Buddhist teaching of No-Self means. Also, it is not talking about a state (whether a state of no-personality-attachment, or a state where duality falls away) but is talking about something that has to be realised -- as always being the case.

No-self means that a self/agent, a doer, a thinker, a watcher, etc, cannot be found apart from the moment to moment flow of manifestation or as its commonly expressed as ‘the observer is the observed’; there is no self apart from arising and passing. There is just a process, event, manifestation and phenomenon (the five skandhas), nothing ontological or having an essence, empty of any atman or soul, and the knowingness/awareness is simply this flow of phenomenality that 'knows' by itself without a separate observer.

A very important point here is that Anatta/No-Self is a Dharma Seal, it is the nature of Reality all the time -- and not merely as a state free from personality, ego or the ‘small self’ or a stage to attain. This means that it does not depend on the level of achievement of a practitioner to experience anatta but Reality has always been Anatta and what is important here is the intuitive insight into it as the nature, characteristic, of phenomenon (dharma seal).

To put further emphasis on the importance of this point, I would like to borrow from the Bahiya Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.irel.html) that ‘in the seeing, there is just the seen, no seer’, ‘in the hearing, there is just the heard, no hearer’ as an illustration. When a person says that I have gone beyond the experiences from ‘I hear sound’ to a stage of ‘becoming sound’, he is mistaken. When it is taken to be a stage, it is illusory. For in actual case, there is and always is only sound when hearing; never was there a hearer to begin with. Nothing attained for it is always so. This is the seal of no-self. Therefore to a non dualist, the practice is in understanding the illusionary views of the sense of self and the split.

Before the awakening of prajna wisdom, there will always be an unknowing attempt to maintain a purest state of 'presence'. This purest presence is the 'how' of a dualistic mind -- its dualistic attempt to provide a solution due to its lack of clarity of the spontaneous nature of the unconditioned. It is critical to note here that both the doubts/confusions/searches and the solutions that are created for these doubts/confusions/searches actually derive from the same cause -- our karmic propensities of ever seeing things dualistically.

2) Emptiness of Dharmas (Thusness Stage 6)

....

Based on a Buddhist glossary, and Thusness thinks the definition is very well written:

Two emptinesses (二空) include (1) emptiness of self, the ātman, the soul, in a person composed of the five aggregates, constantly changing with causes and conditions; and (2) emptiness of selves in all dharmas—each of the five aggregates, each of the twelve fields, and each of the eighteen spheres, as well as everything else with no independent existence. No-self in any dharma implies no-self in a person, but the latter is separated out in the first category. Realization of the emptiness of self in a person will lead to attainment of Arhatship or Pratyekabuddhahood. Bodhisattvas who have realized both emptinesses ascend to the First Ground on their Way to Buddhahood.

................

In Thusness's words:

"When the 'subject' is gone (Stage 4/5), experience becomes non-dual but we forgotten about the 'object'. When object is further emptied (Stage 6), we see Dharmakaya. Do See clearly that for the case of a ‘subject’ that is first penetrated, it is a mere label collating the 5 aggregates but for the next level that is to be negated, it is the Presence that we are emptying -- not a label but the very presence itself that is non-dual in nature."

This means that when the illusion of the 'subject' (self) is gone, this corresponds to the 'emptiness of self'. But the next realisation, the 'emptiness of selves in dharma' means seeing that all sensations, the 5 skhandas, the very presence (which is all sensations) is itself empty of any independent existence

For example, the sound that is heard, though vividly clear and there is no self observing the sound (which is talking about the Anatta part), furthermore, the sound itself is empty of any independent existence -- so does "each of the five aggregates, each of the twelve fields, and each of the eighteen spheres, as well as everything else with no independent existence." Why? Because it is the 'interconnectedness' that give rise to sound or experience. And one must bring this experience to 'the universe is doing the work'. This is then related to the Maha experience. And whatever seen, heard, experienced, all is seen as a vivid magical display, like a mirage, like painting on water, merely dependently originated apperances without anything inherent.

For a further explanation of Emptiness or dependent origination, read Thusness's explanation on Emptiness starting with the red flowers and other examples...

Metta _(|)_

There is no other religions that teach about dependent origination, emptiness, rather they teach about an unchanging God, the Absolute, a truly existing ontological essence, substratum and support of all existence, the ground of being wherein all creation manifests.

If there is a teaching that teaches D.O., Emptiness, then it might be a path to liberation, however such a religion cannot be found. If there were, the Buddha would not have so explicitly stated that:

The closest to Buddhism however in my understanding would be Lao Tzu, whom my Buddhist master, and many others including Thusness, and many other Chinese and Tibetan masters considers as enlightened or a pratyekabuddha. He was born in a time before Shakyamuni Buddha and his teachings, and his wisdom in the 81 lines of Tao Te Ching (the only teaching he left behind before retreating into wilderness) is deeply profound and does not deviate from the dharma. However after him, it doesn't seem his students grasped the essence. Even Chuang Tzu is not there... as Thusness said, Chuang Tzu only stress on "non-doing until luminosity becomes clear". Thusness have said, in Taoism only that 81 lines is truly profound. He also stated that Buddhism is much more precise in the path and teachings to lead the practitioner to enlightenment, it is almost like a science.

Lastly, I appreciate all contemplative spiritual traditions in the world and understands that they all lead their practitioners to true, authentic spiritual experience. However, I do not agree that Buddhism's enlightenment and understanding is the same as theirs, because of the crucial paradigm difference well elucidated by Acharya Mahayogi Shridhar Rana Rinpoche on Madhyamika Buddhism Vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta

And as this article's commentary rightly states:

Emanrohe SG

Dear AEN,

Hmm... in my humble opinion, what the Buddha is said to propound here cannot be confirmed as true by any means that I know as we do not have knowledge of all the religions in this world.

For example, let us say a bodhisattva is in training. This bodhisattva is training to be a Samyak Sam Buddha, a fully enlightened one. He trains by himself and at times, does not join the congregation of the Buddha although a Buddha might be present (this does happens at times). Slowly, his wisdom and conduct attracts a group of friends or followers. He calls his group XXX religion. From his paramis (previous cultivation), he easily attains the jnanas (knowledges) through his own meditation. As such, his teachings will be based on these knowledges. These knowledges will not be in opposition with the Buddha's teachings. As so, can we say that XXX religion does not contain an Arya? I do not think so..

Anyhow, I feel such speculations are ultimately not useful to the our goal of enlightenment. I believe, to judge whether another religion is on the path or not, firstly, we should have attained the knowledges and insightsfor ourselves . Next, we should not use a religion's writings to judge a religion. As said by many masters, words are insufficient to describe the knowledges or insights or the Truth. Even within our own religion of Buddhism, there has been a long drawn battle between the Madyamika views of 2 schools of Madyamika Thought in Tibetan Buddhism. How are we to say that one is right and one is wrong? It is only the idea that I get from his words are different from my idea of my experience. It might be a huge misunderstanding in the end.

In conclusion, that's why I feel, we cannot as a sweeping statement comment on other religions or their spiritual expereince as spiritual experiences are really beyond words. If one really wants to know what is the other person's insight/experience, one really has to sit down and discuss face to face. If one has the ability to meditate to the level such that he is able to perceive another's mind or the other's heart base, then it can also be achieved.

On a lighter note, it might also be due to my scholarlastic training that I am always very critical of anyone making sweeping statements! Even the Buddha! Haha!

:) Metta_(|)_

An Eternal Now SG

Dear AEN,

Hmm... in my humble opinion, what the Buddha is said to propound here cannot be confirmed as true by any means that I know as we do not have knowledge of all the religions in this world.

If the Bodhisattva realised the exact same things as Buddhism, then it would make no sense to start a religion, especially given the availability of modern technologies where Buddhist teachings are basically available everywhere. In fact throughout history, there is no other teaching like that of Buddhism, that teaches about dependent origination. If that Bodhisattva realised the same things, he/she will not claim to realise a new truth that is not already realised by countless others with well-documented teachings. To do so would be sheer arrogance/ignorance.

The only reasonable reason to start a new religion is when there is a crucial paradigm difference, that is why in Buddhism there are different traditions, but to be considered a true Buddhist school you cannot deviate from some of the main core teachings, like dependent origination, the three seals, emptiness, etc. You do not talk about eternalism, ontological essence, atman-brahman, etc. We teach that non-dual consciousness is the transience and individual mindstream itself, we do not teach about consciousness as a cosmic entity or unchanging background reality. Similarly if there were not crucial paradigm differences, it would not account for the need for Buddha to start a new religion which he clearly distinguished from other vedic traditions. He would not have taught if it was merely just something that could already be found in the vedic religion or the upanishads.

This is a good article I would recommend: Madhyamika Buddhism Vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta

Having read this, you will then abe able to see why Buddhism's difference with other religions is certainly not just mere semantics, but the difference is in terms of very coarse, crude, views that make up a paradigm difference, and if lets say a Hindu is unable to understand the Buddhist paradigm they will only be able to use their own paradigm to perceive Buddhist teachings on a very superficial level and not grasp its essence.

And this, Catholic Contemplative Bernadette Roberts wrote very well:

"That everyone has different experiences and perspectives is not a problem; rather, the problem is that when we interpret an experience outside its own paradigm, context, and stated definitions, that experience becomes lost altogether. It becomes lost because we have redefined the terms according to a totally different paradigm or perspective and thereby made it over into an experience it never was in the first place. When we force an experience into an alien paradigm, that experience becomes subsumed, interpreted away, unrecognizable, confused, or made totally indistinguishable. Thus when we impose alien definitions on the original terms of an experience, that experience becomes lost to the journey, and eventually it becomes lost to the literature as well. To keep this from happening it is necessary to draw clear lines and to make sharp, exacting distinctions. The purpose of doing so is not to criticize other paradigms, but to allow a different paradigm or perspective to stand in its own right, to have its own space in order to contribute what it can to our knowledge of man and his journey to the divine.

Distinguishing what is true or false, essential or superficial in our experience is not a matter to be taken lightly. We cannot simply define our terms and then sit back and expect perfect agreement across the board. Our spiritual-psychological journey does not work this way. We are not uniform robots with the same experiences, same definitions, same perspectives, or same anything."

We should have clear discernment of our own teachings, and having clear discernment of our teachings we will also have clear discernment of the differences between our teachings and the teachings of other religions.

If you do not have Right View strongly established, you will not even be able to tell the difference between Buddhism and Hinduism and other religions. And Right View is the start, the first, of the Noble Eight-fold Path. This is very important.

So there is merit in comparative studies, first of all to understand and appreciate other traditions but also know what is different. That is why some teachers like Mahayogi Shridhar S.J.B. Rana Rinpoche emphasise comparative study of religions, and he has written some truly great essays.

As said by many masters, words are insufficient to describe the knowledges or insights or the Truth. Even within our own religion of Buddhism, there has been a long drawn battle between the Madyamika views of 2 schools of Madyamika Thought in Tibetan Buddhism. How are we to say that one is right and one is wrong? It is only the idea that I get from his words are different from my idea of my experience. It might be a huge misunderstanding in the end.

If you have any extra ideas, or views, about reality (eternalism, nihilism, etc etc) then you have not truly realised the viewless view of emptiness.

I have not studied the difference between the 2 schools of Madhyamika, but if both of them teaches dependent origination and emptiness correctly, then the differences are less severe than say Buddhism and Hinduism, or other religions.

In conclusion, that's why I feel, we cannot as a sweeping statement comment on other religions or their spiritual expereince as spiritual experiences are really beyond words.

All spiritual experiences is a wordless knowing (means the experience/knowing itself is not dependent on words and concepts), and as I so clearly stated earlier even the first transcendental experience for many, the pure I AMness, the transcendental moment and 'touch' of that pure presence and that "that person has feels with certainty he has touched the deepest core of his being, without any intermediary or thoughts"

Nevertheless they can be described, and people with different realisations will describe them differently. The I AMness is by no means the final realisation and experience. And there are different levels, kinds, and types of experiences. One must never confuse one experience with another. An experience/realisation of I AMness is not the same as the experience/realisation of non-duality, the experience/realisation of non-duality is not the experience/realisation of No-Self, the experience/realisation of No-Self is not the same as the experience/realisation of Emptiness. This is what we should understand.

From the pure I AMness (stage 1) to the pure I AMness in the TONGSSSS of the bell (stage 4 - nondual experience), these experiences concerns the vivid luminosity/awareness aspect of our true nature. If we only stop at this, we will fail to see the emptiness factor and the inseparability of luminosity and emptiness which the great masters and scriptures teach, is what Buddha-nature is. Unable to see its emptiness, and because Awareness feels so real and we're unable to perceive the relation between interdependent origination and awareness, we will grasp onto Awareness as an unchanging, independent, ontological essence and thus misunderstand the true nature of mind... rather than seeing impermanence, interdependency, and emptiness. There would have been no need for Buddha to teach if he were merely to talk about Self and Luminosity, this has been covered indepth in the Upanishads and all other contemplative texts in different religions.

With this understanding in mind, one will be able to understand why Dr. Greg Goode, who had deep experience of the Non Dual Absolute before humbling himself and further penetrates the profundity of 'Emptiness', said:

For those who encounter emptiness teachings after they've become familiar with awareness teachings, it's very tempting to misread the emptiness teachings by substituting terms. That is, it's very easy to misread the emptiness teachings by seeing "emptiness" on the page and thinking to yourself, "awareness, consciousness, I know what they're talking about."

Early in my own study I began with this substitution in mind. With this misreading, I found a lot in the emptiness teachings to be quite INcomprehensible! So I started again, laying aside the notion that "emptiness" and "awareness" were equivalent. I tried to let the emptiness teachings speak for themselves. I came to find that they have a subtle beauty and power, a flavor quite different from the awareness teachings. Emptiness teachings do not speak of emptiness as a true nature that underlies or supports things. Rather, it speaks of selves and things as essenceless and free.

We must also establish the right views (no-self, emptiness), otherwise no matter how hard our practice, our transcendental experience will be distorted and we will get stuck in the Advaita Vedanta/Hindu sort of experience "forever" (unless one is able to look into Buddhism sincerely without filters of his ego).

On a lighter note, it might also be due to my scholarlastic training that I am always very critical of anyone making sweeping statements! Even the Buddha! Haha!

Sadly over the years I have gone through debates with practitioners of the other religions (e.g. Advaita Vedanta, Kashmir Shaivism, etc), and it is so clear that there is a clear paradigm difference and not understanding this paradigm difference, they will never understand why Buddhism is not like their religions. They will only be able to interprete the teachings of the Buddha through (and be limited by) their own lens, experience, paradigm, and fail to see the essence.

If we are a Buddhist, we must have some level of faith in the Buddha, otherwise when certain experience comes there will be a limit.

marcteng SG

AEN, useless debating with other religions lar. They are already attached to their religious teachings. even buddhists are attached to the dhamma so much that they are unable to let go. they are still trapped and attached too much on the dhamma.

Buddha illustrated it very well in this stanza. when you have crossed the river to the other side, would you still carry the boat with you on the land?

An Eternal Now SG

Buddha illustrated it very well in this stanza. when you have crossed the river to the other side, would you still carry the boat with you on the land?

Those debate are helpful in improving my understanding and others understandings. But up till a certain point, I just leave the conversation, usually when the arguments go out of point and they just end up flaming each other. I only discuss when they are discussing something constructively.

You are right that there is no point debating with other religions. The only reason I discussed with them is when they start claiming that their religion is the same as Buddhism, and that is where I felt a need to clarify what Buddhist teachings is. For example, Brahman as an ontological essence is totally different from the Buddhist teachings of Emptiness, and is directly opposed -- yet some ignorantly thought of them to be the same. Whether they can accept what is explained is or cling tightly to their preconceived notions another matter, but at least the facts are made known for them and other readers.

marcteng SG

they will not be receptive to what you are saying, as they will believe what they want to believe. they will use their teachings to explain the world around us, death, god, heaven and hell.

you, me, other buddhists and the community knows that salvation can be obtained by oneself, there are no self or soullessness. all other religions all believed salvation via god and there is a soul, which is different from the tenets of buddhism. thats the difference between buddhism and all other religions in the past, present and in future.

Isis SG

How about the Pratyekabuddha? They penetrate the dependent origination in the era where Buddha's teachings are lost.

Technically speaking, i also believe there is a possibilities that a non-buddhist can be an arya but the chances would be really slim...