dwai

hehe...that is a logical incongruity. There can be No Infinite and Non-Dual. If it is Non-Dual it means Singularity. But I agree with you about reification. However, the statement that Vedantins reify something is completely wrong. Those who have realized simply state that there can be no descriptions, etc. They never reify the state...only suggest that this state is something that is the culmination of the seeker's spiritual quest. Also, since you are familiar with The Indic traditional ways of teaching, you might want to remember that there is a concept of Adhikara or Yogyata (Potential). That's why the same teachers have taught different things to seekers of different constitutions (hence the four paths of Yoga -- Bhakti, Karma, Raja and Jnana). Like I have repeated before, they are all fingers pointing to the same moon, Vedanta, Yoga, Taoism, Buddhism. Agreed...that's what I've been saying all along. But being a "True Buddhist" you believe in No-Self right? Then by your logic, if there is no self, there can be no realization, because who realizes but the Self? The Self is beyond reason. I meditate because I feel the need to. Why? I don't know...I just do.

The Self simply is. Why would the self need to identify itself? The identification is with everything that is not self. When those identifications have been dropped, the Self simply stands in the light of it's own consciousness... It is clearly stated that one cannot rationalize or intellectually fathom the Self. Anyhow, why do you meditate if you don't want to "realize" something?

There's plenty more where that came from...but let's ponder on this for now.

Well said!

This is a reference to the "God" that is created by man...equivalent term (Hinduism) is Saguna Brahman. This God has certain properties (like He is Kind, Loving, Benevolent, etc or He is Punisher of Evil, Sinners, etc). Tao is Nirguna Brahman or that which cannot be described, intellectually grasped or ever spoken of. Tao can only be realized and walked and experienced. This passage is most likely referring to the various "Gods" that were prevalent in Chinese traditions during the time of Lao Tzu.

I'd also recommend reading Eknath Easwaran's book "The Upanishads". It's really quite good. It's a good foundation.

Ego is not the "I am". Ego is simply a premise that is built upon the Self due to ignorance and identification with the senses and physical body. The "I" is Consciousness...it is also the innate Chi that animates every living being. Though I like the Quote and it makes perfect sense. But not in the conventional sense of "ego" (as is equated to the Self by mistake by most). The "I" is Te, and therefore Tao.

Try describing it then...

Books by Dr Rama Puligandla The above has a good blend of Academic/scholarly knowledge and experiential knowledge. This is from one of the most enigmatic figures of Vedanta in the past 200 odd years -- Swami Vivekananda Taoism: Master Waysun Liao Buddhism: Edward Conze Translations by Edward Conze and I B Horner

"I am" cannot be described...precisely because it is not a phenomenon. If it were a phenomenon, then it could be described. That is because there is no Objectivity possible when the Subject has to be the object. After you strip away everything that is "Not" "I am", what remains is "I am". So you start with the "I am" and latch on "I am this or that". Then you go from "I am to I am Not" and then finally back to "I am", when you realize that which you though "Is Not" is not what "It Is".

The problem is that different "systems" are different perspectives into the same Infinity. So each has a limited view into it, which gets further limited when they try to describe it. As a result, we (due the conditioning from our limited view) think that our view is the "Only" view or the "Best" view. Therefore, when two or more such parties enter a discussion, naturally disagreement follows. In the process, the means becomes the end and the end is completely lost.

what I've seen here are not exactly "Real Buddhists" in any shape, size or form.

Actually there is nothing wrong in my Buddhism and Vedanta quest either. It's just that some are too intellectually challenged to understand it.

Hi, My take on it is as follows: Taiji Chuan (or Bagua, Hsing-I) take a long time to develop proficiency in (especially the true Internal power aspect) as compared to Hard MA such as Karate or the Shaolin styles. Though Taiji is an excellent MA, it's power comes from the Cultivation techniques it teaches. My teacher says Taiji Chuan can be learnt to acheive the following objectives (from the Lowest level of refinement to the highest level, as presented below): 1) Martial Applications 2) Healing Applications 3) Nourishment 4) Merging with Tao (spiritual aspect) As far as the MA angle goes -- The Internal Arts are more powerful but take a longer time to develop. So till say, the Taiji Chuan practitioner can use Fa Jing effectively and has learnt to cultivate and use the 8 energies with the 5 directions he/she will not be effective in demonstrating the power of his art. As far as I know, the Hard MA might teach Internal Aspects at the highest level (higher Black belt level)...but none know of or practice the Internals like Internal MA do...and certainly don't have the mechanics developed enough to take the practitioner beyond level 1 (as shown above).

Ascribing a Date to old texts is hard. It is especially harder when there have been colonial/Eurocentric "scholars" whose life-goal has been to prove that Eastern literature is inferior to Western Literature (during the Colonial periods) have been responsible for ascribing the dates. One such falsehood survives in mainstream academia till date, viz dating of the Rig Veda. It had been ascribed a date of 1500 BCE by German Philologist Max Muller. All intrinsic data in it (including accurate Astronomical data) show it's first mandalas being composed around 6500 BCE and the 10th Mandala around 3100 BCE (just around the start of Kali Yuga). But Academics still adhere to this old and incorrect date as if it were some gospel truth. I suspect the same is the case with dating of Chinese scriptures as well. The only reason Max Muller dated Rig Veda at 1500 BCE was because of the Biblication creation date being around 4000 BCE. So, in order to not invalidate the Biblical dates and to forward the European colonialist agenda, he picked the date 1500 BCE. Not to go off on a tangent...but that's the case. Again, we will see similarities between Tao, Buddhism and Vedanta simply because they are fingers pointing to the same moon. There are mind-boggling parallels between Taoist scriptures and the Upanishadic literature. I intend to publish some of my humble research in this field shortly. There might be differences of opinion about certain aspects, but that is because they (each tradition) approaches from a different direction (5 blind men and elephant analogy). You will not find much audience for your Buddhism is best dogma here among the Bums. Taoists by nature like to go with the flow (Wu wei) and therefore might not respond to putdowns that easily. My teacher says "A Taoist (Tai chi person) can be beaten up 999 times and not respond. But the 1000th time...beware!"

Er...Taoist documents date back to as far back as 2500 BCE viz, The Yellow Emperor's Classic, which is a classic Taoist medical text. It covers topics of Chi manipulation and concepts of Taiji. Also, while it is true that Bodhidharma carried Indian Martial traditions to Shaolin, Taoist MA have existed long before Shaolin. In fact, traditional taoist MA have almost nothing in common with Shaolin influenced MA. Taoist MA are internal and are based on the principles of Taiji and Bagua (I Ching). Shaolin MA are external (with their internal influences coming from Taoist systems, but nowhere as advanced or refined as the Taoist systems are themselves). It might be true that Taoism was influenced by Buddhism. But Buddhism was influenced by Taoism too...especially Zen traditions. Incidentally there is lore that seems to indicate that Lao Tzu himself was a teacher of Shakyamuni.

Time simply is a phenomenon...impermanent and unpredictable.

I have had glimpses of the Self...in the Turiya state. But have you been able to prove to yourself beyond reasonable doubt that there is No Absolute Self? All you might have possibly done (as it is what anyone can do) is use Neti-neti to tell you what is NOT the Self. If you meditate you will get to a stage where there are no objects in it (no thoughts, mental constructs, etc) but consciousness is self-aware. This state is very vibrant, dynamic. That is the first glimpse of the True Self. I don't buy VH's experiences even for one minute. Someone who is so egotistical cannot possibly have insights of any intrinsic value to offer to others. I don't know thusness, never interacted with him. But it seems to me like you are relying on the testimony of others to support YOUR arguments about something that you haven't experienced yourself. It boils down to the understanding of "I am". The Pure Subject. You don't even have to meditate. You will intuitively know this as soon as your realize that all your Awareness is dependent on This "I am". Without "I am" nothing can exist, subjectively for you. Since you are a sentient being, your reality truly is your subjective experience. The whole rigamarole about the "non-self" is simply an exercise to show you that you are not what you identify yourself with. You simply are "You"...the "I am". Don't mistake this for Ego...it is different..."I am" is pure awareness of the Self...the Subject with no predicates associated. Ego is Subject Predicate (I am this, or that...). I will post a summary of my locus standii very soon (not that too many folks will be interested in reading what I have to say...but I'll do it nonetheless).

You still dont' get it do you? There is nothing that will change my mind except my mind. And so far all the "logical" arguments posited are empty and therefore unworthy of being valid knowledge claims. On contrary, the fact that a large number of buddha-boys have swarmed in for "a kill" indicates that it's there pre-(mis?)conceptions about Buddhism that is being challenged and might be broken. Believe you me...it will happen...one day. You will realize that you are Atman...

I only posted the top 10. I guess that proves that Hinduism and Mahayana Buddhism are almost the same... DISCLAIMER: (not meaning to start another brawl here)

God is a mental construct of the limiting adjunct of the limited self (Jiva). Fuck whomever you want...that's your prerogative. Who's mind is your mind? And how can a concept in the mind be unreal? It can be non-physical, but if it's in your mind it has to be real... Let's see you get around that...

Oh my mind is open alright...I just see the commonalities more than the differences. Did I say that Advaita was 100% same as Buddhism? Superficial differences exist. The commonalities run much deeper, that's all. I read your posts...I just don't agree with your inferences. The Buddha or Nagarjuna didn't lie. But you haven't taken what they say in the correct context, that's all. I quoted that one "scripture" because it clearly refuted what you claimed to be absolute. Since you have the tendency to throw "tons" of quotes around, I thought I'd join you in your game. I am not sitting here trying to learn from you or Mikaelz. I'll go to much more reliable sources for that... My aim is to question your claims of exclusivity and your hubris.

But Consciousness is not the same as a computer's Operating System. Neither is the capability to carry forward memory across lifetimes the same as the computer's memory/storage system. Believe me, I know...I run hundreds of computers for a living. If a computer's hardware malfunctions and it's storage system is affected, unless you have backups, one cannot restore the system back to it's original state. Now you aren't suggestion that Alaya VijnAna is a cosmic backup system are you? Your focus is on the complexity whereas mine is in simplicity. The simpler the system, the more efficient it is. Unitary is simpler than infinite. So A Non-dual self is simpler than infinite mind-streams...therefore it is more plausible and infact more efficient as even a theory.

Yet somehow this coagulate of infinite particles and regress manages to maintain memory in a coherent, consistent manner. The fallacy of Alaya Vijnana is in the fact that it is logically inconsistent. Remember Shankara's objections with it? No...let me refresh your memory -- And Alaya Vijnana get's even more interesting when there are "infinite" mindstreams introduced. Now there is not just one inexplicably consistent series of discrete entities, but rather an infinite series. I had ear-marked a response for Lucky7Strikes and will post it right here: I don't have objections with different traditions taking different angles to tackle Spirituality. The fact of the matter is if there is "One truth" that is to be realized, then all of them have to be pointing to the same thing. The Unity of all serious spiritual traditions is in the fact that they all more or less point to the same thing. It is especially true of Vedanta, Taoism and Buddhism. No matter how blue in the face you turn in vehement denial of this fact, but the fact remains nonetheless.

The Absolute Self, Buddha-dhatu or Atman or Brahman is already enlightened, perfect, self-luminous and self-aware. The problem is when the limiting adjunct differentiates into many and this and that. Think of it this way -- The Absolute Self is like the ocean and the limiting adjuncts it's waves. The Atman is pure consciousness and the waves are too. But the waves are somehow differentiated from the Ocean superficially. Are they separate from the Ocean? If so how are they separate from the ocean? Also, Why are they separate from the Ocean? If the waves realize that they are part of the ocean, they will be enlightened too. Dropping the false differentiation is what all traditions teach. Now the question of one or many...is the Ocean one or "infinite" streams of water? One could argue either way and would perhaps be partially right. Perhaps it is just that the "Ocean" is. The Waves are. That is the Way...