(V: Perspectives of Vedantism)
(B: Perspectives of Buddhism)
V: "Negativity," Absence, is True Nature, wherein there are no "Vibrations."
B: no "Vibrations" in the noumenal world? Beautiful!
V: There are no objective qualities in Noumenon. The "state/condition" is purely non-objective, and is another definition for "Total Subjectivity" were that word not objective in describing that which is Subjective.
B: I understand that the Buddha nature or the Divine nature in Noumenon has no "Vibrations", because of the quality of Middle Way. Or I should say that there is no differentiation between Subject and Object. Because Subject becomes one with Object. Wholeness.
V: There is no "Subject". Object is Subject, there is no other Subject. By the way, "Other" is Self; there is no Self that is not "Other." Wholeness is the negation of both, the Suchness, when neither either is or is not.
B: Yes, wholeness means non-separation, non-discrimination, or non-duality. Therefore, there is no subject and no object. I am you and you are I.
V: There is neither I nor you. Our mutual absence as I is non-objective relation, where there is then only Universal Being. The Absence of Being/Non-Being promotes the Void of Prajna (of Han Shan); the Absence of This, (Total Phenomenal Absence), is Total Noumenal Presence or Complete Awareness: Awareness unaware of Its Awareness, but which requires the Presence of Consciousness (Presence), a contrast to what It is (Absence) as Awareness. It's a paradox which requires direct "experience."
B: I understand awareness can live in the phenomenal world and the noumenal world at the same time because awareness transcends space and time. What is the difference between your "Awareness" and "Consciousness"? That's because my definition of awareness is awakened consciousness. You explained the difference between the two is Presence (Consciousness) or Absence (Awareness). And Presence means Phenomenal Presence (space and time) and Absence means Phenomenal Absence (without space and time). And you also said that Awareness requires the Presence of Consciousness. I remember you said before that Total Noumenal Presence or Complete Awareness is called "Absolute". There is a contradiction here. "Absolute" should not require anything to be absolute? If Vedantism's teaching is that Awareness and Consciousness (ego) are interdependent co-arising, it is the same as Buddhist teaching.
V: I'm just using other terms. Awareness in my vocabulary means the Absolute. It also means "Whole Mind," ParaBrahman, etc. As for complete Awareness, I made mention of that term in the hopes that it might positively describe that which is essentially negative (as Noumenal Absence might be called Subjectivity, giving a positive flavor to the idea, whereas Non-Objectivity might be a better expression). Dhyana (Absoluute), Prajna (Functioning Consciousness) are the same. Although Prajna is the objective aspect to Dhyana as Being is the positive aspect to Non-Being (negative). Complex.
B: Very complicated. Even though Prajna (Functioning Consciousness) is Subjectivity or Non-Objectivity, why can it be the objective aspect to Dhyana (Absoluute or Awareness)? How can Being be the positive aspect to Non-Being (negative)? In Buddhism, there is no being and no non-being because nothing can be created and nothing can be destroyed. There is only continuation. And this law is proved scientifically as the law of conservation of energy and mass. I feel that you (Vedantism) are talking about Being (phenomenal) and Non-Being (noumenal). And Buddhism is talking about Being (existence) and Non-Being (non-existence) in the phenomenal world. Of course, Buddhism understands that nothing can exist in the noumenal world because there is no space and time.
Is the relation between Being (phenomenal) and Non-Being (noumenal) in Vedantism the same as the relation between light and darkness? If so, as light can't be recognized without darkness, Non-Being (Absolute or Awareness) can't be recognized without Being (Functioning Consciousness). Then Being and Non-Being are interdependent co-arising and two sides of the same coin. This is the same as emptiness in Buddhism. I wonder why Non-Being is called "Absolute" even though Non-Being is interdependent. Because the word, "Absolute", is so tricky, its meaning can be easily misunderstood as "independent or separate".