dwai

I get a pretty good idea where you are coming from dear friend. No worries...you are entitled to your views...I don't agree with them, I don't think you have seen a good example of traditional scholars. However you ARE in the seat of the Ramakrishna movement...surely you must have encountered some Swamis from the Ramakrishna Order...do they seem like empty-headed armchair philosophers to you? That description seems more apt for some participants on this forum...

Besh besh...ta e bolo bhai (tumi bolchi, boyeshe aamar theke choto-base kore), aato bittrishna kano hoye geche aamader deshe'r lokeder proti raam mondir'er bapar ta shune mon dukkhito holo...kintu shoytani kora and shetake proshroy deuar jonno shob partybaaj babura boshe achey...tara ki aar dhormo jaaney na bojhey? taara shudhu motlob bhojey...theek ki na?

I don't have to. You are welcome to your opinions, I am to mine. When you start doing sweeping generalizations, that's where the problem starts. Kon College'e podcho Kolkatay? Badi Kothay? Amar badi Baguiati-te...kintu thaktam Mysoray... Abbosho, Kolkata'r Bangali traditioney khub akta bhul montobbo koro ni...bangali-ra iktu beshi paka hoy onnoder theke

Buddha's refusal to comment on the existent vs non-existent doesn't count as denial. And Advaitan concept of Brahman is not reification either. There is a lot of misunderstanding about what Brahman entails...for instance Vajra thinks it means "Source of everything". In the non-dualist perspective, Brahman is not a source or a cause, it is everything and everything is it. Cause and Effect can only be if there is distinction...there is none...so Brahman can neither be cause nor effect. I would encourage you to read "Introduction to Indian Philosophy" by Dr Ramakrishna Puligandla. I haven't found a more lucid and brilliant introductory course yet. What's your real full name? PM me if you don't want to share it in public...from what I remember of our previous PM interactions, you didn't exactly come across as an Indian... As far as reductionism and conjecture goes, you very well know what I am referring to.

Darshana schools in India did not grow in isolation from each other. It is an established fact that there was cross-pollination, all working towards a greater goal...understanding the meaning of this existence. So, Jaina philosophy surely might have influenced Hindu tradition, and vice versa. Ditto wrt Bauddha Dharma as well. You also jump to the conclusion that Vedanta was non-dualist only after Shankara. If you read the Dasopanishads you will get a clear picture of what I am saying. Take the BrihadAranyaka, Chhandogya, Mundaka, Mandukya, Prashna, Kena upanishads for instance. When you read them it will be clear as day what the Rishis were teaching... They weren't simply philosophizing. They were narrating their experience as simply and as easily as they could. It does not help to be reductionist to such an extent that everything is transformed into ridiculous conjecture. It might pacify egos and sooth inadequate minds, but doesn't do diddlysquat about that which is most important -- The Truth. Buddhism too is a realist school, for the Buddha, Dukkha was a very real problem which he cleverly sought to circumvent by following the Middle-path. I am not letting patriotism cloud my judgment, I am speaking after deep and careful study and introspection. Don't let your lack of understanding about the "favorite Indian pasttime" cloud your judgment...I suspect that none of the members of this board have any extensive experience in the Indian context except for perhaps myself and Silicon Valley. A two-week vacation in India doesn't constitute "expert knowledge" of the Indian context, neither does a six-month intensive. To know the Indian context, one has to be either born in it or to adapt completely to it, with complete surrender (meaning leaving one's preconceptions and arrogance behind at home before they venture out). I can say the same is also true in the Chinese context. You obviously lack background and experience...so leave it at that.

this is only a misconception on your part. Those "shallow" indians you refer to were stalwarts of Indian Darshanas and their insights were driven by their meditative experiences. No one can accuse a Yajna Valkya or a Sandilya of vacuous intellectualization. The reason why The Vedas are used as symbols of Authority is based on the theory of Pramana (or Evidence), in which there are many gradations. It seems like you have a little background in Indian Philosophy...and I emphasize on "little" since your inference seems like a knee-jerk reaction more than a well thought out, introspective analysis. Don't take this the wrong way, but there are many (whom I interact with personally) who not only live and breath the Darshanas but are also extremely well versed with philosophy in general, who will not agree with your inference.

advaita vedanta is an interpretation of the Vedantic literature compiled over several thousand years. Shankara was indeed an orthodox Vedantin who upheld the primacy and validity of Prasthana Tryayi. Buddhism drew influences from Jaina as well as Vedantic traditions, no matter how much Buddhist-wannabes want to obfuscate that fact. No one has denied that there are differences between Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism. Moreover Buddhism itself diverged into two radically different systems, the Theravadin and the Mahayana schools. There are overlaps between Mahayana and Advaita (and Vedanta in general) and being Non-dualist traditions, they have a common objective from an ontological perspective. Soteriology that developed as a result of the empirical investigation into the Ontology piece has differences based on interpretation. The ontological basis of these systems were the same...the soteriology varies on the surface.

Many people have done commentaries on the Brahma Sutras and Bhagvad Gita...I don't have to necessarily accept or reject all or any of their works. Shiva-Shakti paradigm is a dualistic Sankhya-esque construct (Purusha-Prakriti), which falls apart when confronted with sound intellectual analysis. Advaitins should focus on the experience and how to get it (realization) and not worry so much about explanations. I think this is what Shankara did and all great Advaitins have done the same. The great 19th Century Advaitin Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa talks about a "Ladder" theory where in all traditions (even the Dualistic ones) are simply rungs of a ladder to be climbed to reach the summit of Non-dual realization.

we are talking about the advaitin's Brahman...not The Dvaita version of it. As far as I'm concerned, Dvaita traditions don't get the point at all...since they tend to maintain a permanent separation between Ishvara and Jiva (kind of like Christianity or other Dualistic religions). If you look at the Vedantic texts, they have been interpreted in 3 different ways...Advaita, Vishistadvaita and Dvaita. The Rishis who tried to express their experiences (Non-Dualistic) in the Upanishads themselves are quite clear that there is no distinction and that Brahman is not the Source but the true nature of everything. What you wrote demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of Advaita Vedanta and are trying to superscribe a Dualistic connotation when none exists. Also, Trika is not Vedanta and they are very clear in venturing out on "their own"...I agree with many of their perspectives but not all...

And I have told you that your understanding of Advaita Vedanta is incorrect. Brahman is not a source of all creation...there is only Brahman and nothing but Brahman. Everything is simply a superimposition of Brahman via limiting adjuncts upon Brahman itself (Adhyasa).

So Buddhists don't consider Shunyata as containing potentiality for everything arising? I have had the advantage of growing within an organic tradition that has evolved over thousands of years...why should I give it up? It has worked for countless others before me, and it works for me as well. My personal experiences have only proven that this is a fact. I can be perfectly Hindu and be a Taoist and a Buddhist at the same time and won't feel dichotomous in any way...I make them all work towards my end-goal

And I can quote Mahayana Sutras according to which he has clearly stated that there is such a "thing". Depending on the school of Buddhism one reads, the account changes. So, there is ambiguity about his stand vis-a-vis this topic. The Theravadin perspective (per my humble opinion) is a bit contrived and primitive, so I prefer the Mahayana perspective better...which does align very well with Advaita Vedanta.

more intellectual masturbation. You are basically trying hard to show a difference in experience where none exists. Remember we had a discussion about Zeros being Zeros and you claimed that your zero is "zero-er" than my zero. It seems like it is history repeating itself...

The Buddha never said that...he refused to comment on the existent vs non-existent debate. It seems like mindless (no pun intended), cyclically originating intellectual masturbation...

Take for instance your statement that Buddhism is a total rejection of an Absolute. The Buddha doesn't really reject it, he simply refuses to comment on it...

Is it really? Are you sure?

Take two 500mg capsules of Turmeric daily in the morning with Warm Water. Also take 2 500 mg capsules of Triphala along with it. Turmeric reduces the allergy-response and Triphala balances the elements in your body. Also you might want to watch what you eat...certain types of food tend to make your immune system extremely "trigger-happy" and it can misfire when there is no need to (such as response to dust, pollen, weather, etc). Go do an allergy-response test and try to figure out what foods you are allergic to.

No...but the same ailment might have different treatment modalities. And by reducing Spirituality to a phenomenal "thing" like Illness you are simply trying to apply reductio ad absurdum. But this particular situation you picked certainly doesn't apply. One can opt for Western Medicine, Chinese Medicine, Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani, etc. The options and their efficacy are related to the invidivual's psycho-physiological make-up. As far as my being caught up in the absolute level is concerned, I think you assume that I am caught up in the absolute level. If one doesn't develop the ability to discern between the relative and the absolute, even the relative will seem absolute to him/her. It seems like YOU are caught up in absolute scales, even though you should have realized via DO that the scale is actually relative and "it depends". So by passing an absolute value judgment on two methodologies of practice, you are forcing them into an absolute scale. In reality (relatively speaking), they should be valued relative to the practitioner's psycho-somatic make-up. Now Mikaelz might be overwhelmed by too much Sanskrit jargon and Ralis might hate men in skirts telling him things...that just means in relation to their individual proclivities (call it Karma-phala induced Samskaras), the teaching/method has a lower value as compared to another teaching/method. You are being facetious when you bring up this analogy and being reductionistic ad absurdum. Again, read my explanation about how values are actually dependently originated (no pun intended).

How is a infinite endless streams of interconnected consciousness different from one infinite endless pool of consciousness. Surely if the streams are infinite then they are nothing but an infinite pool. And if the Pool is infinite then it is nothing but a collect of infinite streams...

It has nothing to do with the "aptitude" and everything to do with "action". Non-Duality cannot be realized through words...only via Action (or as it may be, Doing, Not-Doing, Both Doing and Not-Doing and neither Doing, nor Not-doing). Words cannot take one to that Realization...no matter what one's aptitude might be. It is true though that a seeker must have to dissolve layers of clinging (be it for the existent, the non-existent, both the existent and the non-existent and neither the existent nor the non-existent) before he/she is ready for the experience. You see what I'm getting at...it is futile to try and make an absolute truth claim (even if it says that there is No Absolute Truth)...when the only thing that matter is the Experience. After the experience, a Buddhist might call it and describe it as Alaya vijnana and Shunyata and an Advaitin might call it Brahman and the Taoist Tao (one thing though does strike a chord...Advaitins don't try to describe Brahman, accepting that Brahman is beyond language and intellect; and neither does one find that with Lao Tzu or the Earlier Upanishadic Texts...to all three, Tao, Brahman, Atman is a "Mystery" that can only be realized through experience)

Ooh! I just reached Non-dual realization after reading that! You gotta do better than regurgitating some jargon. Express the "Non-Dual" experience....come on now, really! You have already reached Nirvana, surely you can do better for us mere mortals?

why don't you try and see if it doesn't. Can you describe "Emptiness" or "Nothingless" or "Shunyata"? When you employ language which is dualistic to express the Non-Dual, you will get contradiction and absurdity.

you all sound alike...know what you have to say without really knowing what you are saying... Dependent Origination doesn't work at the level of Pure Consciousness because Pure Consciousness is Objectless...so it is Self-aware and "EXISTENT" (and not-dependent on anything else)

Those who seriously pursue the Non-dual or spiritual experience don't have a necessity to pass value-judgments on the qualitative properties of one method vs another. It is only those who are deeply and inextricably imprisoned by the concept of "Their Method" who tend to pass value judgments. I might say that Advaita Vedanta works best for me, given my socio-cultural framework, as a methodology, but that efficacy is relative to me as an Individual. I have absolutely no authority to pass a value judgment on the general efficacy of lack of it thereof as pertains to another system (such as Buddhism or Taoism). Similarly, you have all authority to say that Buddhism works best for YOU, but none to say that IT is the BEST for everyone. Not necessarily. One might be inclined to say that since Eastern methods tend to focus on individualized concept of spirituality and emphasize on meditation and other ways transmute one's consciousness, they are better suited for direct experiential realization. There are traditions of pure devotion (Bhakti) in both the eastern as well as the Western context that can and do lead to similar realization. It boils down to the psychological temperament of the individual who is following any specific tradition. Well said. But there is no way to communicate or present Non-dual realization with Language. Any effort leads to confusion and contradiction.

Tell me something I haven't heard before...and something that you "really understand"... What does it even mean...this "Clarity that is self-discerning but doesn't have an intrinsic existence"? It a bunch of mumbo-jumbo if you ask me. If something does-not-exist (for is that not what the part about lacking intrinsic existence means?) as a self-discerning awareness the very statement that "There IS a clarity that is self-discerning" is a paradox. I know what you are trying to convey, but I think you haven't grasped the implication of what you are saying...