dwai

First a clarification: Brahma is not Brahman. Brahma is a pauranic (from the Puranas) Saguna form...a deity. Has nothing to do with Vedantic Brahman. I'd tell the Christian that his God is Saguna Brahman. I'd tell the Jew and Moslem and Vaishnava and the Shaivite the same time. Let me turn that around and ask you this -- How do you know what I'm saying is wrong. Have you realized Buddha-nature? Has any one of those posting here? You cannot disprove what I am saying...because the only way to do so is through personal experience. When you do experience, you will not need to prove or disprove anything. Till then, it is a matter of mentality and disposition... I don't need to tell the serious Taoist anything...they already know. They are simply Wu Wei and trying to be in the flow... I am open to all perspectives. I only have issues with those that claim exclusivity (like our buddies VH and Mikaelz did wrt Buddhism). I have never not-acknowledged the superficial differences. But the fact of the matter is that the differences are only that...superficial. Some insights arise through spontaneous intuitions (called Prajna). Anyone who seriously meditates gets them. When you couple them with sound logic...they help dispel a lot of "he said she said" confusions and help ascertaining the veracity of claims.

It seems like there is more and more "subtlety" being invented, to retrofit into what seems like a shocking revelation...it is the same.

I understand it very clearly...it shows that phenomena are empty. That which is not a phenomenon - ie Atman, Brahman, Tathagatagarbha, Tao, buddha-dhatu has self-nature and is self-aware. I also understand that people will suffer from cognitive dissonance when they realize that everything that they believed in is in fact unfounded. Be it Hindu or Buddhist or anywhatever "ist". If I'm a Hindu with deep with my familial history then you are a Neo-Buddhist convert who tries to overcompensate by resorting to fundamentalism. Read again...this time slowly...

All I'm saying is that there are differences between various streams of Buddhism as well. Anyone who doesn't kowtow to pratityasamutpada will interpret the above exactly as I have. Your entire outlook is hinged upon the categorical framework of Dependent Origination. Which is incomplete and doesn't explain existence at all...infact it tries and explains it away, thus jumping through hoops when no such jumping is necessary!

tathAgata is actually tathA Agata (or Thus Arrived). Though I can understand the cause for such confusion... Well if it is reified in Vedanta it is reified in Buddhism. Because Buddha replaces the "I" with the "Thatagata" (One who has Thus Arrived). But there is this "One" always...the latent potentiality within every sentient being that is obscured by avidya. There is nothing "tricked out" in the words of the Sutra.

I could turn it around and tell you the same thing -- it looks like Emptiness and Non-self to you because that's what you want to see... Read carefully...The Buddha teaches his advanced students the Tathagatagarbha Sutras and refers to the Tathagata personified (It is always a He). Sounds like reification? Actually the same is true for Atman/Brahman as well. It is not reification, it is identification with the Eternal Self. It is acceptance of one's true nature.

See you have cut and pasted stuff but never really articulated in your own words what it means. I don't think you understand what it is you are cutting and pasting... How can this coagulated pseudo-self of causality have and retain memory? And why should this coagulated "self" seek Nirvana? On an aside, have you learned Sanskrit? Do you know the meanings of the words themselves? Do you understand the mechanism of Sanskrit grammar?

You are wrong. Also cleverly sidestepped the important question -- who wants liberation from suffering, clinging to existence? Why does the Buddhist seek Nirvana if there is no self?

And you have read the Vedantic texts in original english? Aren't you potentially "guilty" of a similar mistake vis-a-vis Advaita? Who suffers? Who clings to existence? The meaning is not different at all. Atman is exactly the same time. You are attached to your interpretation/biases/misconceptions about Atman/Brahman and keep insisting there is a difference where there is none.

Try and wish away the Self with the No-self...But the Nirvana sutras clearly state that Buddha simply taught non-self so people could move beyond the egoic self and finally realize the Absolute Self. I'm afraid the scholars who claim that there is No Absolute Self have incomplete knowledge...and it was not the purpose behind what was taught by Shakyamuni. Okay, so then what's the purpose of Nirvana? So after you realized that everything is emptiness...then what?

There is no dichotomy between the Buddha-state being empty yet being The Self. Brahman is exactly like that...empty but full of potentiality. Believe me, long before there were scholars in Tibet, there were in India and they spent a longer duration of time debating and finessing the philosophies. Buddhism is still within the domain of reason, because one has to use it to get to a certain point. I'm afraid that is being missed here. Let me ask a basic question -- If there is no self in Buddhism, who is seeking Nirvana?

Well said. But that doesn't change the Absolute Truth -- The Self... Agreed...that was typed out in a hurry. But that doesn't change the fact that the Mahayana MahaParinirvana Sutras do refer to the "Self in the interior of Nirvana". Oh so now we have to take The Mahayana Sutras in context but the Vedantic texts are to be taken out of context? That is exaclty what you and your chela been doing all this time. It is very convenient for polemic but does nothing to increase your level of knowledge or humility. I have read this Sutra exactly as it has been meant to be communicated -- There IS a Self, according to Mahayana. You might be suffering from Cognitive dissonance, but that is your problem. Yeah..right! I'm squirming around... Whatever...yawn!

See you have understand what Advaita says...Brahman/Atman is not the source. But it is also Not not the source. There is no other than Atman/Brahman. So what source and what creation? All the material universe is adhyasa or superimposition of categorical frameworks by jiva (which is limiting adjunct of Atman). You guys can scream till you're hoarse in the throat about "How non-Buddhists don't understand the meaning of the Tathagatagarbha sutras". But the fact is that it is simply back-pedaling and trying to retro-fit an incompatibility (wrt your beliefsystem). The text is clear and simple, as was most of the Buddha's teachings. There is a self. The Buddha simply taught Non-self so stupid and egotistical people manage to drop the "lesser I" and finally see the "Absolute I". Hmm...wonder why Buddhists across the world seem to agree upon the fact that the Mahaparinibbana sutta is actually the closest they can come to getting historical records of Shakyamuni and his life (and mahasamadhi).

They are all the same. I've been practicing Taiji Chuan and Taoist meditation since the past 8 years. I also have been practicing Raja Yoga/Jnana Yoga for a long time. As I dig deeper into each tradition (especially Taoist and Vedic) I find more similarities than differences. There are sections of the Tao Te Ching that nearly the same as those in the Upanishads, almost verbatim. Same goes for Buddhism (no matter what any dogmatic wannabe-buddhist says). You know why they are identical? Because the Seers and Sages went beyond the state of reason to directly access the Absolute/Ultimate Reality (that which is beyond the rational mind). Their insights were identical because it is the same thing they are all talking about. There are differences of course, but those differences are more because of the different backgrounds the seers had (a Prince would interpret Ultimate reality in a different way than a farmer would, and so on). In other words, the seers' categorical frameworks influenced their expression of this indescribable ultimate reality. That's why you have Lao Tzu say that "The Tao that can be named is not the real Tao". Or Shankara say that "Brahman is Silence" or Buddha refuse to discuss "Ultimate Reality" altogether. Because you cannot label/describe it without limiting it.

I would recommend reading "Jnana Yoga -- The way of knowledge" by Dr Ramakrishna Puligandla (he's a physicist and a philosopher trained in classical indian style -- gurukulam). You can find his title on Amazon.com. This is a wonderful work on MAdhyamika and Advaita and presented in simple, lucid form and would act as a great starting place before venturing into more traditional titles. But when I say starter book, I don't mean it's a "Jnana Yoga for Dummies". Au contraire, the book is a classic to have in your library and active reading list. Re-reading it gives more insights...the more you read the deeper it makes you think...

Er...Actually the Dalai Lama and the Tibetans are considered honorable guests of India. And they have done an exemplary job of being fantastic guests and friends. My home in India is about 70-80 miles from the Tibetan settlement at Bylakuppe (which I have visited in the past, much to my pleasure).

There is no way to provide personal experience as objective data, so the veracity of it (the personal experience provided as evidence) is naturally doubtful. Since the acceptance of experiential information is largely dependent on the source, the source that acts and behaves in a way that elicits a sense of reliability will have a better chance of having what he/she presents being accepted as bona fide. That is the reason why Hari, your personal testimony is considered tainted and rejected...and that's why the rejection is not ad hominem. If a more reliable seeming source came to me with his testimony of personal experience, say like Lucky7Strikes or Xabir2005, I would not reject it. You must of heard of this sage buddhist saying -- "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it MUST be a duck!" Meditate on that with your pal Mikaelz! I missed the part about you likening yourself with the Buddha! Wow!! What humility...why am I not surprised? Oh and BTW, you give yourself far too much importance to think people "hate" you. I personally find your braggadocio egotistical and annoying...

Unforunately for you, nothing I said was ad hominem. They were the truth and that's how you come across to not just me, but several others I have interacted with. They just don't want to waste their breath telling you that. I guess that makes me more compassionate than them... You be well too...

Buddha Nature is the same as Brahman. Cut it any way you like...Brahman encompasses everything. Potentiality, existence, non-existence, substantial, insubstantial, all dualities rise from Brahman...all duality recedes into Brahman. Dependent Origination is a lower truth that is superimposed on Brahman. I don't have much to say about your personal experiences since I don't have any way of either validating or invalidating them. Going by your tone and tenor I am inclined to conclude that they are mostly empty claims. I can only go by your posts here...and I don't see too much stuff beyond all the fluff you quote and re-hash over and over. Not a single thing you've posted seems to have come from your personal understanding or reasoning. It is always "He said so, she said so or did not say so"... I have no problems with Buddhism or with anyone practicing it. I just don't like seeing uneducated verdicts being passed about Advaita or "Hindu thought".

What can I say? You don't understand the difference between subject and predicate and mistake the predicate as the subject. That which is not a phenomenon does not have a beginning or an end. I am is not a phenomenon and it has no beginning and end...in both the ontological sense as well as epistemic sense. You have to spend some "extra" time in thinking about it, that's all...even you will get it.