dwai

There are assumptions made by Buddhists vis-a-vis Advaita's stance on various matters. From Vedantic perspective, The five skhandas are considered phenomenological apparatii. So is the mind (or Antahkarana which is the complex of mind, objective consciousness, ego and discriminating intelligence). These are all apparatii... Vijnana is not considered objectless consciousness in Vedanta. It is also part of the "mind" complex. The Buddhist is spot on in that these are not the self (Anatta (anAtma)). Advaita never claims that these form the Atman. Infact, these are the limitations by which Atman becomes Jiva (the sufferer), the concept of Upadhi. The question is not whether the perceived, the heard, the tasted, the smelled are the observer. If you take these away, the observer still exists...you do it in meditation when you go into a state of objectless consciousness (the gap between thoughts, remember). You should read some contemporary threads on Nisargadatta Maharaj's Gita right here in TTB (he was an exponent of Advaita Vedanta). Silicon gave a very good explanation about why that is so.

But phenomena CAN be eliminated from consciousness. Consciousness with phenomena is objective consciousness. That without phenomena is Objectless Consciousness. That Objectless Consciousness is called Aatman/Brahman. Phenomena rise and fall...objectless consciousness does not.

Of what value is anything else if you aren't aware of them? To you ie, the Subject... I guess google-shastra is a very good tool to have, but might give the false impression of knowledge where none really exists. In future if you want to express your opinion, do so with the disclaimer that it is your opinion. In any case, your opinion on Hinduism is derived from ignorance (as I had pointed out in the past) Consciousness can never be negated. That is the point of Advaita. If you aren't conscious, you don't exist. Since you are conscious, you surely must exist. But you are not a phenomenon. So what are you? A non-phenomenon. Any attempts at description will fail because you are beyond categorical frameworks. I don't see that Nirvana != Kaivalyam. They are the same in my mind. Mind-stream is not consciousness. It is simply a mind-stream. It is like debris floating in the river called Consciousness. Taoists too talk about Mind-stream and their take on it is very similar to the Advaitin view. Anyway, gotta go...Yoga time.

It is your delusion that Brahman is personified, objectified, etc. To understand Brahman you have to first de-program the exclusivist ideology that ignorant teachers of Buddhism have loaded into your brain (in that they have claimed a certain stand on behalf of the Advaitins vis-a-vis Brahman in order to establish strawmen and then hack them down with impunity)... If Nirvana is non-conceptual view free from all extremes, then Nirvana = Kaivalyam. If Nirvana points to emptiness (Shunyata), then Shunyata = Nirguna Brahman Since DO points to emptiness of Phenomena, then DO is a result of Adhyasa. Why is yours or VH's experience/knowledge of Hinduism superior to mine? You still haven't answered that. I sure do my brother! But Nothing but the Best Mysore Filter Coffee...

happy birthday BKF...and thanks to Pietro for the update.

try and see what sensations accompany the emotions. More often than not, emotions are the side effect, the root is energetic modifications in the body/subtle body. To be able to observe, its imp to use tools of meditation -- that of the detached observer. Once that comes, the rest is easier.

that shows how little you were willing to open your mind to see what some of us were trying to show you here. Why can't Brahman be non-conceptual? Brahman can be realized. It cannot be described or talked about or rationalized or phenomenologically inquired into. Phenomenological inquiry will only take the seeker to the potentiality of realization, not the realization itself. There is no way to refer to something without objectifying it. You call yourself Mikaelz...you give yourself a name, an identity, etc. You are objectifying yourself. In reality, what you truly are is non-objective, non-conceptual. That is the crux of all spiritual inquiry. When Buddhists talk about Nirvana, they are objectifying it. When they talk about DO as the way to freedom in a descriptive manner they are objectifying it! Taoists tallk about Tao, they are objectifying it. That's why the Great Masters through history have warned against describing that which cannot be described - Lao Tzu, Vyasa, Sandilya, Shankara, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Swami Vivekanada, Aurobindo, Raman Maharshi and so on. We are sentient beings who unfortunately are bound in Samsara and have to use the tools available to us to break through the miasma of ignorance. Words happen to be essential part of our worldly existence, thus we type 100s of pages of comments back and forth on Tao bums. I will most certainly do a deeper dive into Buddhism. I have equal respect for all serious traditions of Spirituality. I also know enough to not consider my knowledge to be supreme. I also happen to realize when someone debating with me needs some compassionate guidance to show him/her the errors of his/her way. We each bring insights into the unknowable. There is an old Upanishadic story about 5 blind men encountering an elephant and then trying to ascertain what it was. Each of us are like those blind men, the elephant is Brahman or Tao or Emptiness. The question is, do the blind men want to close their minds and consider only their part of the view/felt sensation as the ultimate view or do they have the integrity and honesty to consider the fact that their's might not be the only view and might just be a perspective. It is a difficult tightrope to walk... That still doesn't answer how/why you or VH would be better authorities on Hinduism that myself? That you could pass judgement on such a diverse and ancient group of traditions that it is with your less than rudimentary exposure to it?

That begs the question -- How would the Buddhist know, without doing a honest study of the other systems he/she is dismissing as being inferior? The claims made (that triggered this monstrosity of three threads full of debates) were that other tradition (specifically one) was inferior to Buddhism, but this claim was rooted in misunderstanding of that tradition and confusion about the terminology used therein. Since the discussants involved (on behest of Buddhism) claimed that it was superior, it necessarily needs to be pointed out, that their knowledge of the other (Advaita Vedanta or Taoism) was sketchy at best and dishonestly projected at worst.

I see you quietly diverted attention from my question. What makes one class you took in India better than 26 years of my core being immersed in the culture, tradition and spiritual life in India? (26 years because I moved to the US when I was that age, a decade ago). Those who live in glass houses should throw stones at passers-by. It is obvious that your bookish knowledge of not only Hinduism, but also Buddhism is mired in ego-fodder and you try and show the superiority of "YOUR" tradition (although at this point it is clear that there is a lot you have to learn from/about your tradition). You and your friend VH should really stop making silly claims about the mythical superiority of Buddhism over other traditions and focus on your learning instead. It is clear that VH has minimal (if at all) any experiential knowledge. The same comes through from your writing as well. Instead of wasting your time and effort chastising SV1, you should turn your gaze inward. I am sure if you are honest in your quest you will realize where the flaws in your entire argumentation and line of thinking have been! Good luck... Dwai

Georg Fuerstein is a very good scholar of Yoga, Tantra (being a practitioner of Yoga AFAIK). I would definitely look into his book. It is hard to trace the history of Yoga, since it is very ancient. Yogic postures have been recorded on the Sarasvati-Indus seals which date back beyond 5000 BCE. It's roots probably are in the Sarasvati Valley (Sarasvati was a river in Ancient India, doesn't exist anymore due to tectonic movements around 1900 BCE), rooted in Vedic civilization (what people erroneously call the Indus Valley Civilization).

Beautiful! Thanks for sharing... In line with this, here is another Ancient text -- Ashtavakra Gita

You took "A" class in India. I am an Indian Hindu, born and raised in a traditional Hindu Brahmin family, had my upanayanam, grew up not only hearing the Puranic tales (as they are considered in India) but also learning the traditional ways of spiritual practice. Your one class trumps a lifetime of learning? How so? And Why? Your pal VH here keeps mispresenting and misrepresenting Hindu thought by bringing in some psychobabble BS extrapolated form Puranic stories. That stuff is for kids man! No Vedantin takes these things too seriously...they are symbolic pointers to various things.

your knowledge of indian history is even worse than your knowledge of buddhism. like I had observed earlier, you could almost pass off as funny...almost. You don't agree with what I'm saying because you are Buddhist. I am saying that Buddhism (not the parody that you claim to practice) and Vedanta point to the same Higher Truth. Oh why did I engage with this "rhymes with hazy" person again? karma! Cosmic comedy of consciousness!! Silicon, I don't see how anyone can respond to this jester with any seriousness. He has loaded himself up with so much new-agey BS that it's leaving me with a hollow, empty feeling (pun intended) for having actually tried to debate him with some seriousness. Name one Purana which talks about Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma fighting. Per Puranic tradition, the functions of the trinity is very well established and defined. Moreover, if you had even the slightest knowledge of Vedic scripture (beyond Wikipedia), you'd know that the Vedas are called Shruti (or Revelations) and Puranas are smriti (or memories). Veda came to the Rishis in deep meditation. Puranas are part mythology, part history. I think Silicon and GIH are not really siding with me on the Vedanta = Buddhism thing, but they want to show you that your insistence that Buddhism is the best is wrong, that's all. Puranas are not meant to be taken literally. There are metaphorical/allegorical inferences one can deduce from them, but that's the extent of it.

thats where you are wrong...consciousness simply is...a non-phenomenon. The endless and beginning-less chain that you mention is Brahman/Consciousness/Atman. All that arises and falls are phenomena, objects of this consciousness. We are back to square one. the 31 planes of existence you mention are all super-impositions on nirguna brahman and all pilfred from "hindu" pauranic stories. tsk tsk!

indeed....mind is a field of thoughts. But it rises from and sinks into consciousness.

blah blah blah blah For someone very steeped in nihilist theory, hearing the true words of Eternal freedom (advaita vedanta) won't work, since they will only understand the philosophy through the nihilistic lenses. They dont even realize that they don't understand the very philosophy they are touting around as being the best. If they did, they'd shut up and practice instead... you are full of something...the word for it escapes me....oh...it rhymes with sit. I edited out the real word for effect...

Saguna Brahman != Nirguna Brahman. you have experienced nothing. I guess that is very apt given your Buddhistic proclivity to nihilism. I don't claim to have had any insights or experiences as as those you have claimed, and my skepticism about your accomplishments are indeed my intuition (prajna)... My spiritual quest is very much that of a beginner. I started only 15 years ago...I try and get through my taiji practice without letting my inner demons eat me up. I try and get through meditation without letting the noise distract the moments of silence that intersperse the shit that flows through all the time. Sometimes in moments of silence some insights arise. Maybe they are right, may be they are wrong. Those insights lead me to want to know more about Infinity. I can tell you who on this forum have semblance of adeptness in their respective fields (doesn't take a lot to figure that out). You don't make the cut. At the end of the day, each one of us have to watch out for ourselves. If we delude ourselves into thinking we are bodhisattvas (or even half-baked ones), we risk recycling in samsara like the egoic ghosts we are. If we are realistic about who/what we are and our limitations, we have the chance to try improve ourselves.

There is no cosmic consciousness in Buddhism, but you sure are demonstrating how comical the consciousness can be, when an inherently unconscious human being begins to think that he is enlightened!

who said it isn't recommended?

The Artist and the Muse Here are some thoughts (url above) that I'd put together back in 2001 or 2002 (don't remember exact date). They fit very well with Taoist teachings imho. Inspiration is called "Prajna" in Sanskrit, or direct intuitive realization/glimses. When this state of prajna is continuous and person is well established in it, he is called enlightened. When it comes in short, intermittent (often erratic bursts), it is called inspiration.

Just meditate. Buddhism, Advaita, Taoism, they all lead to the same place. Pick one, stick with it. If you don't feel comfortable with the nihilistic sense, pick something that you are comfortable with. No matter what any "bodhisattva" says, there IS no ULTIMATE way. They are all good and they all work. You need to right teacher, right attitude and right circumstances, that's all.

shavasana after asana practice. doesn't have to be complicated asanas, but at least 20-25 mins of static asana with ujjayi breath. after that, sink into yourself in shavasana. don't think...simply melt like a slab of butter on a hot plate. gaps will become evident and then expand my 2 cents wrth

superimposition

Dear SV, I am trying to avoid interacting with VH since I realize the circularity of his logic. He ate his words on the Tao thread because there were more people who took the effort to correct him. I want a few parties here to realize this -- it is stupid to try and put a qualitative value to systems that work, have worked for millenia and will continue to work. To make bombastic claims that Buddhism is better than Vedanta or Taoism demonstrates pure and simple ignorance on part of the claimant. Why? Because they fail to realize that while it might have worked better for them, given their psychological profile, it might not be the best for someone else. So it's not the system, but also the seeker who affects the efficacy of the system (dependent origination, no?) I have tried to steer clear of TTB for some time now, but I guess it's my ego that keeps bringing me back to these debates. I think I will lay this to rest once and for all, now. Best, Dwai

You are wrong. Brahman in non-phenomenal. It has no beginning, no end, it cannot be an object of consciousness as it IS consciousness itself. Trust me, I have a good idea of what DO means to you buddhists...but that doesn't mean that it supplants the inexplicable, realized truth. DO demonstrates that phenomena are empty. DO is not empty of phenomena since it simply is a theory that posits that every phenomenon is dependently originated. Shunyata is not DO. Shunyata is the implication of DO...you get to realize shunyata with DO. DO is a vehicle, Shunyata is the destination. Similarly, you get to Shunyata (or Brahman) by ceasing the modifications of the mind (Chitta Vritti Nirodhah). Now, you claim that DO happens independent of frameworks and concepts. I don't agree. I give you this Zen Koan in response -- "If a tree falls in forest and there is no one to see it, did it really fall?"