How do I achieve awareness in advaita

Hesitation between Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta

I have admired and subscribed to the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta, which speaks of a universal consciousness.

Chuang Tzu once dreamed that he was a butterfly flying through a garden. When he woke up, he wondered if Chuang Tzu had dreamed of being a butterfly or if the butterfly dreams of being Chuang Tzu. The only thing they have in common is "I" (consciousness), so this "I" has to be the "permanent" thing?

There are many beings, but only one "I" (consciousness) according to Advaita. The "I" (consciousness) is identical between beings that Advaita says is the same Supreme Consciousness that is the silent witness behind and beyond all beings. And this is also the Atman, the Self, which manifests itself through all beings as the Supreme Consciousness.

As beautiful as that sounds, when I read the Buddha's description of consciousness, it was closer to my observation of my own consciousness than that of Advaita.

From MN 38:

"Just as fire is classified according to the required conditions depending on the combustion - a fire that burns depending on wood is just classified as a wood fire, a fire that burns depending on wood chips becomes simply a wood chip fire, a fire A fire that burns depending on grass is classified simply as a grass fire, a fire that burns depending on cow dung is classified simply as a cow dung fire, a fire that burns depending on chaff is simply classified as a chaff fire, a fire that burns in Dependency on garbage burns is simply classified as a garbage fire - in the same way, consciousness is classified simply by the required state in dependence on which it arises in dependence on the eye & shapes is simply classified as eye awareness. Consciousness in dependence on the ear & Noises are simply classified as ear awareness t. Awareness that arises depending on nose & aromas is simply classified as nasal awareness. Awareness that arises depending on the tongue and the flavors is simply classified as tongue awareness. Awareness that arises depending on the body and tactile sensations is simply classified as body awareness. Consciousness that arises depending on the intellect and ideas is simply classified as intellect consciousness.

Think about it. How can the silent witness experience something other than through one of these media: eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch or mind? There was never a time when the consciousness sensed anything except through the eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch, or mind. So there is no independent consciousness.

Consciousness depends on and depends on these six media. It was an "aha" moment for me when I read this and realized that the Buddha's mind analysis is more accurate than that of Advaita.

Regarding himself, the Buddha never said that there is no self. There is a self. But this self is not permanent, not independent. It arises from the interaction of the five aggregates (form, sensation, perception, mental formations and consciousness). It's not independent. Obviously under normal everyday circumstances there is a self, but if you look closely, the five aggregates (and everything else) themselves are ultimately void of self.

From AN 6.38 (shows that there is a self for all practical purposes):

“So, Brahmin, when there is the element of effort, efforting beings are clearly recognized; of such beings this is the self-agent, this is the other. I have not, Brahmin, seen or heard such a teaching or view as yours. How could one in fact say - go forward alone, go back alone - say: "There is no self-perpetrator, there is no other doer"? "

From Dhammapada 160 (showing that you are using yourself to attain the fruit of liberation - Arahatta Phala):

One is indeed one's own refuge; How can others be a haven for one? When one has tamed oneself thoroughly, one can attain a refuge (i.e., Arahatta Phala) that is so difficult to attain.

From SN 44.10:

"Ananda, if I - asked by Vacchagotta the Wanderer - if there is a self - answered that there is a self, this would agree with the brahmins and contemplatives who are proponents of eternityism [the view that there is an eternal Immutable soul] If I were to answer, asked by Vacchagotta the Wanderer whether there is no self, that there is no self, this would agree with the brahmins and contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death annihilation is of consciousness]. If I - asked by Vacchagotta the Wanderer whether there is a self - answered that there is a self, would that be consistent with the emergence of knowledge that all phenomena are not self? "

"No, sir."

"And if I - asked by Vacchagotta, the wanderer, if there is no self - answered that there is no self, the confused Vacchagotta would become even more confused: 'Does the self I used to have doesn't exist now?' ""

From MN 2:

"If he is inappropriately present in this way, he will have one of six types of views: The view that I myself have arises in him as true and established, or the view that I do not have myself ... or the view by which it is precisely the means of the self that I perceive myself ... or the view It is precisely through the self that I perceive the not-self ... or the view It is precisely through the not-self that I perceive the self that arises & establishes in him as true, or he has a view like this: This self of me - the knower who is sensitive here and there to the maturation of good and bad actions - is the self of mine that is constant, eternal, eternal and not subject to change, and will remain as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a distortion of views, a twisting of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views that have not been instructed. An ordinary person is not exempt from birth, aging and death, from grief, lamentation, pain, distress and despair. He is not exempt from suffering and stress, I tell you.

Mishu 米 殊

I like the metaphor of Chuang Tzu, who dreams of the butterfly since childhood. your "However, there was never a time when consciousness perceived anything except through the eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch, or mind," is but not this either. The higher level Dhyana / Jhana practice is to turn them off. Instead, these are the limitations. But shape, sound, smell, taste, sensation and concepts are "materials" for building the "world", true. - Chinese canon has sutras explain it but not sure if the Pali suttas as I haven't read the agamas yet.