dwai

It was pointless discussing this with someone who has tied himself up with the convolutions of his mind/(il)logic.. I was laughing at the irony of it all... you won't get the joke I'm afraid. ;P

No...his critique was very specific. He was well acquainted with the following three schools of Buddhism: SarvAstivAdins, vijnAnavAdins and mAdhamikas. His critique was of the SarvAstivAdins and specifically of their claim of the momentariness of reality, and that being a flow of discrete momentary realities progressing forward via causality. He only criticizes the Sautantrika version of Nirvana. His other critique is of the NairAtmyavAda as posited by Buddhism. His position is that Buddhism is unable to explain how the "self" is brought together by to be the self-conscious entity it is by chance (of atoms leading to the physical body + the four skandas). In other words, How can a basically non-conscious entity (material atom) lead to a conscious entity without a conscious entity putting these together in the first place? To counter this, Buddhists introduce Alaya vijnAna, to postulate the concept of "Stream of Consciousness". This was posited to be the "glue" that threads the momentariness together. But Shankara's criticism of this is as follows: Alaya can neither be identified with nor distinguished from the particular cognition. Besides, if it is momentary, it cannot be considered a unifying center. If not, it is just the self under another name. His critique of Dependent Origination being posited as sufficient cause for existence (without the action of a conscious agent) is based on the fact that it presupposes "a stream of consciousness" being responsible for the operation of the various conditions (including avidya) that DO claims as being the explanation.

Shankara's critique of Buddhism was limited to certain "sects" and certain aspects of Madhyamika teachings. He never stated that Buddhism is diametrically opposite to Advaita Vedanta. One point of contention between Buddhists and Vedantins (or for that matter Non-Dual Tantra) is that of Self or No-Self. But in reality, this is not a difference at all because Vedanta and Tantra also states that all those things that Buddhism calls Non-self are indeed non-self. The "True" Self is the only non-dual reality which is beyond perceptions and conceptions, non-rational (not the same as irrational) and non-phenomenal. It is self illuminating because it is knowledge/knowing itself. It is self-existent because there can be no dependent origination for, neither epistemologically, nor ontologically. You get caught into misinterpreting what this entails because of your doctrinal conditioning, that's all. Those who see the truth, see through these illusory differences and see the unity. Those who want to feel good about being different or superior will want to deny the unity...it's as simple as that. When someone makes a statement "There is no self", the logic is self-contradictory. Because in order to say there is no self, you have to first accept that there IS a self.

Didn't you know? The Chicken and the Egg are dependently originated.

Thanks for sharing!

hi, imho only cultivation techniques will help there. In the style of tai chi I practice, we spend 10-15 minutes sinking chi into the lower dan tien after practicing the single forms (usually, long forms occasionally).

Because the gap is the "Real" you.

What sustains the consciousness forward? There are different levels of "I". One is the Antahakarana-related Ahamkara (or the Egoic self) and the other is the objectless consciousness self which exists on it's own nature (without being dependent on anything else). Which "I" are you referring to?

hehe...brother don't go into that one...that landmine has been shat on ad infinitum, ad nauseum!

If you find a "GOOD" teacher, you will not be treated like a "slave". Any way, no one can treat you like a slave unless you agree to be treated like one. I think you have a very wrong understanding of the Guru-Shishya parampara (this is a disease very common with Westerners imho). A Guru is a dispeller of darkness (root word "Gu" literally means filth or darkness -- in vernacular (indian) it also means shit). The problem with Neo-yogi wannabes is that they elevate just about anyone to Guru status (and then when these "gurus" can't live up to their disciple's imaginary Guru-like qualities, get vilified). Finding a Guru can be either an extremely easy task or one waits a lifetime to find a true Guru. Also it must be realized that Gurus are human also.

Go troll on e-sangha!

there is a very important difference between "respect" and "tolerance". What you describe above (and as is made evident with the descriptions of the posts on this thread), it seems like there isn't much respect, but tolerance of other faiths. Well..that is just not good enough! No one has monopoly over Truth. We have discussed this at length on various other threads...stating that "my way is the best way" is a sure-fire sign of either stupidity, or fundamentalism rooted in ignorance. It is very important to realize that Buddhism might be a good (even best) way for Buddhists, but it might not be the way for others. All religions that make exclusivist claims are guilty of intolerance (guised as tolerance, compassion, love, respect) of the highest order (ranging from subtle to crassly blatant). Said my piece...now I'll keep my silence...

We are more or less all renters of knowledge. But imho, that is not such a bad thing. What is important is to realize that one could go from renter to owner by following certain practices such as meditation and by transcending their categorical framework (that which names and describes things). When such a thing happens, it is called Intuition or Prajna and one simply rests in knowing experientially without a need to give names or descriptions to that which cannot be described.

You might want to contact the folks at this site to inquire about Kriya Yoga: http://www.kriyayogalahiri.com/index.html You will be guaranteed reliable and correct lineage only through these folks, given that the teacher is the great-great grandson of Lahiri Mahasaya, the grandmaster of Yogananda Paramahamsa.

That just goes to show that you haven't understood Buddhism. The difference between your approach and mine is that I rely on my intellect and intuition to tell me what is right or wrong...viveka and prajna ie. You seem to rely more on what you've read and the testimony of others. It shows... I wasn't trying to convince you about anything. I guess you have a long way to go...as do I. Maybe one day you'll see what I was trying to articulate. Good luck with your quest. Dwai

more like you can't agree with me. Nothing to do with Buddhism or Advaita...

Is there some pre-condition that if something is not a phenomenon, it automatically becomes not empty? Xabir just posted how Shining Luminosity (or whatever you guys call it) is self-existent (because it was not created by anything) but is empty. But the Allness is also One-ness. It is also No-thing-ness! Again, Advaita is not negating the "self-existence" of phenomena, which by admission of your own Nagarjuna are inherently lacking in self-existence or self-nature. That's why they have to be dependently originated. You forget that your theravada is not the only school of Buddhist thought around. There are others and they do acknowledge that there is an eternal non-phenomenal consciousness that they reach at the pinnacle of their meditation. Emptiness and phenomena don't have an exclusive relationship. Why is it a must that non-phenomenal cannot be empty? Okay, in order to refute my argumentation, you have to first accept that there IS a non-phenomenal. Otherwise, what is the point of your debating with me?

Thusness might not seek to explain anything...but the entire framework of DO has been put together to do just that --- explain the inexplicable. I see you are getting what I meant when I said Buddhism, Taoism and Advaita Vedanta are pointing to the same thing. Hence the statement, everything is Brahman. There is no denying the reality of phenomena -- they ARE real! It is just that they are empty of self-nature and self-existence. Since the topic at hand is/was phenomenological inquiry, it is natural to want to investigate into this aspect. I have never asked anyone to convert to anything. This discussion needs to be taken in context of the hubris demonstrated by certain "Buddhists" in our midst. I hope their misconceptions have been answered. I will look into this. What is putting these randomized RNA molecules in the specific configuration that I can remember each life successfully each time I am born? Simple probability cannot satisfy this condition. Think about it in terms of Mathematics...given the mind-boggling number of permutations and combinations possible in nature, what gives rise to the memory/consciousness over and over again?

You can ascribe anything you want to as being Advaitin thought. That doesn't change the facts. Brahman is self-existing and self-natured where as phenomena are not. That's why they are considered empty. Brahman being self-existent and self-natured does not contain phenomena, is not a phenomenon. That's why Brahman is considered empty. But is also full with potentiality since all vyavaharika reality is simply a result of superimposition. The subtle difference is there only if you want it to be there. The Jiva will superimpose and create whatever reality he wants... There is a problem with Interconnected Thusness as it seems to be portrayed. It CANNOT explain consciousness! One-ness or Many-ness is only possible because of Consciousness. If we are interconnected discrete entities rising and falling, how are you you? Your body changes but your consciousness and memory remains. It is even possible to remember hundreds of past lives. The underlying constant is the observing consciousness.

That's what Brahman is

We have covered this before. Advaita says Brahman is emptiness because it is bereft of any phenomena. It is non-phenomenal and thus can never contain any phenomena. Emptiness IS form. Advaita never claims Brahman is BEHIND form or that it "contains" phenomena. Au contraire, it is empty of all phenomena. What is form? Form is a result of superimposition of a categorical framework on the Brahman. But who is superimposing? Jiva. What is Jiva? a limit-bound Atman What is Atman? Atman is none other than Brahman. What is purpose of this superimposition? The better question would be, "what is the purpose of Upadhi (limitation)?" So what is the purpose of Upadhi? Without limitation, there IS NO inquirer and there IS NO realization!