dwai

I guess since "Alwayson" doesn't exist, no one was trolling and what (not)s/he/it posited is also nothing. On the other hand, thanks for sharing those articles.

Succinct and very well articulated. Thanks for sharing...

Dream on brother. I speak the perspective of traditional scholars of India, based on scriptural references, internal astronomical details and records within the literature, not Max Mueller's version (which too incidentally proves my point about the chronology of the Vedic literature, which includes the Samhitas, Aranyakas, Brahmanas and Upanishads (aka Vedanta)) as predating the Buddha. There are 108 known Upanishads today, of which 10 are the most important. These ten predate Buddha definitely...

No that is utter nonsense! And I'm suggesting that what you have presented here clearly shows your lack of knowledge. So, you'd be better off following your own prescription. And what percentage of Indian population was ever Tribal, since 7000 BCE? Not even 5 %! Even if you break your vocal cords or invoke the auspices of any of your "Historians", you cannot change the chronology of events. Kapila predated the Buddha by a good 3 millenia. I never claimed that Adi Shankara predated Buddha. I said Vedanta is significantly older than The Buddha. Adi Shankara was only a revivalist of Advaita Vedanta. Vedanta, if you must know, has 3 major schools of thought within it...Dvaita, Advaita and Vishistadvaita. When have I ever said that Buddhism didn't influence Vedanta or Yoga? Like I explained to "forestofemptiness", all these disciplines most definitely influenced each other. If they didn't, they wouldn't survive. Have you heard of the Carvakas? Have you heard of the Vaisheshikas? They didn't adapt and got lost in the annals of time. The problem with Western interpretation of Indic history is that most Western Historians still toe the line defined by Max Mueller and his contemporaries. They do not accept the internal chronology presented by the texts or the timelines proposed by traditional scholars (meaning Native Indian). I would recommend you read Dr Subhash Kak's "The Astronomical Code of the Rg Veda" (http://www.amazon.com/Astronomical-Code-Rgveda-Subhash-Kak/dp/8185689989/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271282924&sr=8-1) I would also recommend reading and following the work of Scholars such as Dr Ramakrishna Puligandla. Also would recommend reading Shrikant Talageri, David Frawley, Koenraad Elst, Prof BB Lal, Dr SR Rao, Dr S N Balagangadhara. They do a good job of dispelling myths being regurgitated by the Western Academia since the past 200 years (yeah I know, you'll only accuse them of being Hindutva Scholars)...

Your arguments are so feeble that I don't even have to comment on them. You might have some hidden agenda or not, that point notwithstanding, you definitely need to read up on your Indian history, if you want to practice Indic systems of philosophy and spirituality. I would have no problem accepting that my ancestors were Buddhist, provided they really were. My ancestors however were NOT Buddhist, they came from the lineage of Sage Sandilya, a Vedic Rishi, who lived long before the time of The First Buddha... You don't believe in the Yogachara view of The Historical Buddha being an incarnation of the Eternal Buddha, do you?

I agree...Carlos' reputation might be dubitable, but his stories and words have power.

Undoubtedly the roots of all religion and philosophy is in Shamanism. And you are very right that Proto-Vedic religion was definitely shamanistic. Even the Vedic texts have references to both the Non-Dualistic elements as well as Shamanic elements in them. As do the Greeks and almost all of the Ancient Civilizations. Tibetan Buddhism has elements of Bonn fused in it, and Bonn is a Shamanic tradition. But that doesn't mean that the refinements and adjustments that happened since have been detrimental to Spiritual pursuit. Instead of suggesting that each tradition/system indeed has a fragment of the puzzle, I would rather say that they have a path or two to the summit of the mountain (of Spiritual realization) and there are many such paths, each different in approach but towards the same goal.

Ignore that remark of mine..I was only "fighting fire with fire" with that remark of mine (directed to Alwayson).The Buddha added his own insights to Vedantic knowledge, making it richer in the process.

So am I...both an Indian National and an Orthodox Brahman. here you go: The first use perhaps comes from Kathopanishad. For example, the Kathopanishad declares: "Eso's' vatthah sanatanah."[3] The Manu Smriti (4-138) goes on to declare: Satyam bruyatpriyam bruyanna bruyatsatyamapriyam.Priyam cha nanrtam bruyadesa dharmah sanatanah. Translation: "Speak the truth, speak the truth that is pleasant. Do not speak the truth to manipulate. Do not speak falsely to please or flatter someone. This is the quality of the Sanatan Dharma". The Bhagavata Purana reads: "At the end of each cycle of four yugas, the rishis, through their asceticism, saw the collections of srutis swallowed up by time, after which the eternal (Sanatanah) dharma (was re-established)."[4] You do realize that a lot of "Buddhists" were actually Brahmins, right? Including Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti, etc? It is very convenient to paint something as the "Other" and "Bad", it gives one the saction to close the mind and heart. It is however, counterintuitive to what the Buddha intended to teach. Your claims here are so ridiculous that I don't even want to bother refuting them. Anyone with half a brain will go and figure out the chronology of the Mahabharata, The Bhagavad Gita, etc. And please don't (mis)quote the Gita...the previous condition applies to this as well. I would recommend you go get a copy of the Bhagavad Gita by Eknath Easwaran and read it cover to cover (and the pages in between as well). It will do you good... hehe...please post what you wrote here: http://www.medhajournal.com I can guarantee you that you will earn kudos and brownie points for your imagination. If you read the Vedas, you will know that there are very clear astronomical markers in them, that fix their dates quite succinctly. Same holds true for the Upanishads. Social practices are not the same as Spiritual practice. There is no defending the bad aspects of Indian society...but I can assure Buddhists had Caste too: The nastik Buddhists too have a caste system. In Sri Lanka, the Rodis have always been despised and they might have been out-casted by the Lankan Buddhists due to the absence of "ahimsa" (non-violence), which Buddhism heavily depends on. The writer Raghavan notes: "That a form of worship in which human offerings formed the essential ritual would have been anathema to the Buddhist way of life goes without saying; and it needs no stretch of imagination that any class of people in whom the cult prevailed or survived even in an attenuated form would have been pronounced by the sangha (i.e. the Buddhist clergy) as exiles from the social order." Savarkar too believed that the status of the backward castes (e.g. Chamar) that performed non-violence only worsened.[64] When Ywan Chwang traveled to South India after the period of the Chalukyan Empire, he noticed that the caste system had existed among the Buddhists and Jains.[65] There is no denying that Shakyamuni was a great Vedantin and a great reformer. Here's some of what Swami Vivekananda had to say about Shakyamuni:

It is quite possible that Patanjali's Yoga Sutras drew upon various sources, including Buddhism. Sankhya, the parent of Yoga is actually significantly older and is attributed to Vedic Rishi (Sage) Kapila, who was mentioned in texts such as Mahabharata and The Bhagavad Gita. Since the Bharata War occured in 3102 BC, it is therefore practical to think Kapila was at least a contemporary if not older than those who participated in the Bharata War.

That is an incorrect question. The Question you should be asking is "Do I read what I wrote?" I am. I have a reasonably sincere daily practice of Yoga, Meditation. I am born and raised Indian, grew up in a reasonably traditional family and interacted at a deep level with sincere and serious practitioners of Dharma. I never wrote anything about the Janapadas. You don't get it. Yoga is based on Sankhya which predates The Buddha by at least a couple of millenia. I don't see how Patanjali's teachings are in any way incongruous with what the main body of Sankhya teaches.

I am afraid you don't know much about this topic. What is the nationality of these "Orthodox" Brahmins that you know? Read my post about the relationship between Shakyamuni and Vedanta. I prefer not to use the term Hinduism but use Sanatana Dharma instead, which has two sides to it -- a socio-cultural side (tradition) and a spiritual side. As such, Dharma should not be translated into religion because religion is much narrower in definition and focus than Dharma. Bhakti is an aspect of spiritual pursuit that is discussed in great detail in the Bhagavad Gita (one of the 4 ways to seek Union or Yoga -- Raja, Jnana, Karma and Bhakti). Unlike what people think, Bhakti is the hardest Yoga, because it calls for complete surrender to the Divine (Tao/Brahman, whatever you want to call it). At it's pinnacle, Bhakti IS The Watercourse Way, because the individual is like a leaf being swept away in the currents of... A lot of people in the West tend to insist (I have spoken in great detail with some scholars/practitioners of Hinduism in the US) that Native majority in India don't have the sophistry or the intellectual capabilities to know of or understand Vedanta or Vedic Dharma. They tend to take a reductionist approach like you demonstrated, and try to break down things into packets of information that are (arguably) best comprehensible by them. It has no bearing on the ground reality of practice in India. The two most popular Yogas in India are Raja Yoga and Bhakti Yoga and it is most accessible to the masses. That doesn't mean many also practice Karma or Jnana Yoga (vedanta specifically is Jnana Yoga). All three of the other yogas have their root in Jnana...so while i can see Buddhist egos being satisfied by changing the chronology and details of Indian History, it really doesn't have any bearing on the truth of things. The chronology of the Upanishads is something one must rely on internal data for. When I have time, I will post the specific dates of the major Upanishads. Of all the Upanishads, only one or two post-date the Buddha. Like I have mentioned before, everything was skewed after Max Mueller messed up the date of Rg Veda based on his Biblical errors. Buddhism was literally eliminated from India because the Buddhist scholars deviated from the Path of the Buddha and started indulging in debates like "There is No Self and I have proof", which did absolutely nothing to alleviate the suffering of the masses, which is what the Buddha had originally intended for.

Traditional Indian history narratives differ from the Western/Euro-centric narrative of History as told by Westerners for Westerners (with the "O By the Way, you Natives, learn something about your own history from us" kind of condescension). I give you one example -- a shining beacon of Western Academia was a German Philologist named Max Mueller. Max's take on dating things in India was "Well...the Bible said the World was created in 4000 BC. These indian scriptures (Rg Veda) looks very old. The internal records within the text indicate that the earliest Mandalas in it were composed around 7000 BC. But since God created the Universe in 4000 BC, it can't be possible that the Rg Veda was composed in 7000 BC. So I wil pull a year 1500 BC from my you-know-what and ascribe it as the date the Rg Veda was composed". This historical (pun intended) blunder affected (and continues to affect the state of Indology and World History to this day). And you have revealed that your google searches on Indian history have not been very fruitful. If they had, you would know that the Upanishads (aka Vedanta) are corrolaries of the Vedas. So that what you call "Fire Rituals or Magick" are actually only one aspect of Hindu practices. The Fire Rituals that are performed (to this day) have both an esoteric and an exoteric aspect to them. The objective of the external + internal meditation was Harmony. You see, the Vedic Indians tried to maintain balance and harmony in the Universe (internal as well as external). It is called Rta (or Rita). The rituals were of different kinds and were geared towards taking the practitioner towards a very specific meditative state that helped him/her and the collective community live such that Rta was upheld. This was Purva Mimamsa and a bonafide school of Indian Philosophy. The Sama Veda deals with Sound and the chanting/incantations of the hymns induce meditative states in the practitioner. At the esoteric level, this is meditation on sound (I think Drew Hempel here would have some understanding of this topic here among the TTBs), and ritual sacrifice of Sound to reach emptiness. At the exoteric level, it gave birth to Classical Indian Music theory. This Rta became Dharma during the Uttara Mimamsa period (Vedantic period). These "Magick" rituals are performed to this day in what are called Yajnas, and temple ceremonies are a mix of these ancient techniques along with practices influenced by the Agamas (the Tantric texts) which developed at a later stage. Also, if you had spent time learning about Vedanta, you would know that the orthodox schools of Hindu Darshana (or Philosophy) uphold the Upanishads (which are corrolaries of the 3 main Vedas and the Fourth Upaveda -- Atharva Veda), The Vedanta Sutras (also called the Brahma Sutras) and the Bhagavad Gita as the guides to and repositories of Absolute Knowledge (Shruti), as revealed intuitively to seekers when they are in the state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi (or Objectless Consciousness). This combination is called Prasthanatryayi). So I guess either you were a very bad student or your teacher a very bad teacher, or both and you still have quite a ways of learning to do before you can speak with any semblance of authority on this subject.

Well start learning Vedanta. Since you already have a Buddhist background, the truth of the matter will become self-evident once you do. And since I know you from a different lifetime, I owe you a little more of an explanation ( I do recognize that the previous line might have come across a tad patronizingly) ... There is no "hating" here. I am stating a fact based on my understanding of the subject. Think about it this way. Simply take the syntax. Atma, Anatma, Prajna, Satya, Asatya, Paramarthika, Vyavaharika, etc are all Vedantic terms. And that is simply at the Nama-rupa level. As understanding deepens, one can see the similarities (and there are more similarities than differences). Just because I said Buddhism "ripped" off Vedanta, doesn't necessarily mean it is bad or dishonest in any shape, size or form. No system of thought in India existed in a cocoon, isolated from the others. They all grew because of their interaction. The Jina philosophy, the Vedantic philosophy all heavily influenced Buddha. Even though it is "claimed" that none of these worked for him, it isn't really an accurate depiction. The basis of his self-inquiry and the edifice of his knowledge was Vedantic. The fact aside that he wasn't satisfied with what he thought he had realized...his realization (enlightenment) later on was a fruit (at least in part) of the work he had done apriori. He didn't suddenly, mysteriously forget everything he had learnt to become Buddha. He used what he had learnt, refined them, built on them with his personal insights. It might be surprising to some, but that is how all Spiritual practices are. Doesn't matter whether you are a Buddhist or a Taoist or A Vedantin, to reach the pinnacle (which is the experience of Non-Duality), it is personal effort that is needed. Shakyamuni is a highly revered figure in Indian tradition. He is considered an avatara of Vishnu, which basically puts him on the same level as Krishna or Rama. So even for people who do not deal with Divinity in the Non-Dual level, he is out there at the pinnacle of the Divinity Scale. Swami Vivekananda considered Shakyamuni one of the Greatest Vedantins of all times...

You obviously have learnt history different than I (and billions of other people in the world) did...and I have those silly theories before. Here's what I think of them: BLFFFFFT! Buddhism is also considered a Darshana in the Hindu tradition, albeit a non-orthodox one, in that it doesn't consider the Vedas infalliable. I will only suggest that the Vedic darshanas are rooted in the Rig, Sama and Yajur Vedas, where the Rg is as old as 7000 BCE (per the astronomical code in the texts). And the Vedas are definitely older than 3102BCE (the time of the Bharata War, per Indian tradition). That certainly predates Purva Mimamsa before anything the Buddha did or said by a few thousand years. Sankhya is almost as old as Purva Mimamsa, while Uttara Mimamsa (aka Vedanta) is relatively newer, but not younger than Shakyamuni. Advaita Vedanta's Sankara is definitely younger than The Buddha, so if one were to consider Advaita Vedanta as taught by Sankara as Hinduism, they might be mistaken into believing that Hinduism is younger than Buddhism. Listen friend, I have discussed this in great detail right here on TTB about a year to 8 months ago with threads running into hundreds of comments...there is nothing much else to discuss on the chronology of things. As far as Shankara "ripping" off Nagarjuna is concerned...in the circle of Indian philosophers, it was very normal first learn the "other" before refuting it and then providing an alternative. In technical terms they are called Purva Paksha, Uttara Paksha and Siddhanta/conclusion respectively. So yes...since Shankara debated and defeated several Buddhist scholars, he was obviously very well versed with Madhyamika and Nagarjuna. And just because there are certain differences in position between Advaita and Buddhism, it is not entirely illogical to accept that they are both referring to the same experience (Nirvana or Advaita). The descriptives, etc that follow the experience differ from person to person based on personal history, motive, biases, etc. I have said so before and I say it again -- Shankara or the Trika Tantrics present Buddhism far better than most Buddhists do, because the Buddhists are so attached to a concept (anatta) that the Buddha introduced to help the seekers identify that which they are. It is this misunderstanding on part of the Buddhists that makes their philosophy incorrect/incomplete.

You'll be surprised at what I have read. You see, Madhyamika never claims that one perspective or another is correct. It is dialectic in it's core and says that either position, or neither position in itself will provide a seeker spiritual growth, so what is the point of such discussions? I would, on the other hand, recommend you read the guy in my signature, because he clears up the mess that Buddhists made after they ripped off Vedanta. :-P

Okay...you are a thought form. I on the otherhand always exist

I get that you found your salvation in The Water Method of Taoist Meditation. Commendable! Also commendable is that you managed to break free of your real/perceived prison of sorts and did not have to resort to TK in order to do that. Well, welcome to the real world. That is how life unfolds, fortunately or unfortunately. Of the billions of hapless people in this world, maybe even 1% get to do what you did. And your interest in these "Super-hero-esque" powers was more than likely your inability to grow up and take responsibility for your life and actions (and thereby the consequences thereof). When you did, you realized that it was all crap and you figured out the what was valuable to you. That doesn't however absolve you of being narrow-minded and biased. There are a lot of organizations and entities who have taken upon themselves the responsibility of denigrating and "debunking" Teachers who dare teach traditions that go against the mainstream. A lot of these Guru sexcapades are more than likely confabulated by these entities. Another note is about the Sex angle itself. Indian dharma never claims that one has to be a celibate, sanctimonious holier-than-thou saint to be a qualified teacher. In fact we consider the four Purusharthas or Worldly pursuits of equal important. Artha (Wealth), Kama (sensual pleasures), Dharma (To uphold The Way) and Moksha (liberation from the cycle of birth and death) are all worthy of pursuit. In fact, a human experience is incomplete or stunted if it misses one or the other. Why? The primacy is of Dharma or to uphold the Way. To be able to do that, one has to have reasonable financial well being (so Artha). Human nature is to run behind sensory pleasures, so to deprive oneself off these would only be repression . Moderate experience and expression of Sensual aspects is perfectly valid (Not to much, not too little..the key is moderation). When one enables oneself to perform practices that help one in Upholding the Way (by not repressing oneself and being self-reliant for sustenance and material wellbeing), one is in a better position for Liberation from the Samsaric Cycle (or Moksha). So, the bottom line is this -- it is not sinful or unfair of a Guru to have sex with anyone, unless he/she has forcibly done so. Consensual relationship between two adults is a perfectly normal thing. I only question the integrity of the "white women" that these Indian Gurus seem to "lust after", since groupie culture is very natural and common in the West. It is not unlikely that a lot of these Guru Groupies did hop into bed with a Guru or two and then when they felt marginalized or were manipulated by certain elements in the media or Government or other Religious organizations (such as Churches, etc), turned against the target of their groupie-ism.

No self-respecting Guru or tradition would use Siddhis as a carrot. They invariably attract the wrong kind of seeker (eg: those who want to develop TK ability). Of what use is a Siddhi like TK ability? Does it take the seeker closer to knowing the Self? I don't think so. I think you are being unfairly unkind towards "Gurus from India"...but I suppose you have your personal experiences/biases associated with that kind of thinking. I can make similar unjustified generalizations and ask "What is it with these White women who strive for TK ability and waste perfectly good time (thousands of hours purportedly) on trying to attain such Siddhis?" Can't they simply focus on Spiritual practice instead of trying to become Mutant Ninja Turtles?

Love that Tea (Chop Wood, Carry Water)...BTW I was watching the Nisargadattaji Maharaj on google videos and this quote (by Maharaj-ji) struck me with it's simplicity and power: "Realizing I am Nothing is Wisdom and Realizing I am Everything is Love. My Life moves between these two poles"

Check out this article: The Battle between Science and Yoga I had done serious research on this topic when I wrote this article. There is enough statistical evidence from research performed/led/funded by various American medical and government organizations to at least make a rational reader think twice about disregarding these "phenomena" as hoaxes (as you will find in the article).

I think a lot of this crap we are discussing is due to our egos not letting the subject go. I know I am guilty of ego-gratification (perhaps less so in the recent period) via debating. I am certain that it doesn't matter one bit whether one believes in the self or no-self at the stage most folks on this forum are (myself included)...we are are engaging in is from the desire to "prove" ourselves "right" and others "wrong"...plain and simple.

Yet it doesn't diminish the role of the "One". Irrespective of the "Cyclical nature", One still gives rise to Two, Two to Three and Three to everything else in the material universe. Interestingly enough, the Rg Veda, which is the basis of Vedanta has a verse called the "Nasadiya Sukta" which is considered to contain the "Creation myth" of Hindu Cosmology. It is exactly identical to the Taoist position.

And yet Taoism says that First there was Only One, the One Chi, Wu out of which rose Yin, Yang and Chi. First there was only One, then two and then three and from there rose the 10,000 things...