dwai

Nirguna Brahman is emptiness, it is objectless (non-dual) consciousness. There is too much emphasis on this word and that word. What about looking behind the facade of these words at the essence that they are trying to convey? Again, my intention wasn't to claim "my way is better than yours" because only a dogmatic deluded person will say that. We have to understand that all that any tradition can do is give names to concepts and ideas. They are as empty as the ideas and concepts they convey in the truest sense (in light of Higher Truth). The true efficacy of the system is in it's ability to facilitate for the seeker, the ability to transcend the framework, leave it behind and realize Higher truth. Those who understand what categorical frameworks are and understand what dependent origination implies, also understand that dependent origination is as true for the frameworks that name phenomena and objects as it is for the phenomena and objects themselves.

Bhaja Govindam Moodhamate... Actually that is not entirely correct. Yata Pinde, tata Brahmande (as in the auric egg, thus in the Cosmic egg) is a timeless saying in the Vedic/Yogic tradition.

And that is your personal opinion. I hold steadfast that Brahman and Shunyata and Tao are the same. When one transcends categorical frameworks, the absolute consciousness, which is objectless and is the Ultimate Truth doesn't change based on what the categorical framework says. It is not a matter of what one or two or two million Buddhists think. The flaw is in their understanding in such a case. This inference arises from logic and not understanding this demonstrates a lack of logic. I will venture to categorically re-iterate what it is I am saying and why I am saying it...this is (my insight) is not a unique one. I just prefer to see the similarities which transcend the differences, that's all. All said and done, like my friend pointed out, I am not a realized master. I have a feeling none of the posters here are (for those who know don't talk and those who talk don't know). I am a seeker who's trying to see beyond traditions and understand and experience Tao/Brahman. I am not saying Buddhism doesn't have it's unique insights into Truth. But that doesn't mean Buddhists can make silly claims like "My tradition is better than yours" and not expect to be challenged by it. Till now, no one has been able to logically show me that my standpoint is wrong. All you guys do is quote other guys and try and validate things referentially. The Experience part will arise when the time is right. The intellectual part has to be correct, without which we will end up becoming deluded if the experience doesn't result in complete prajna. Again how do I know this, intuitively.

You feel that they have been ignored. I have responded, you just can't see it. I don't have to repeat myself ad nauseum. Everything I said is clearly seen through the 3-pillars of Jnana Yoga. 1) Principle of Dependent Origination 2) Principle of Superimposition 3) Theory of Two-truths You are too caught up in syntax. You are missing the meaning...

I think you lack in your understanding of Advaita and what Brahman means. Advaita never claims Maya doesn't exist. All Advaita posits is that Maya is simply phenomenal reality that objective consciousness perceives via the process of superimposition, it is satya, but of a vyavaharik nature. So vyavaharik reality (by virtue of being empty) is illusory (Maya). Relation between Brahman and Maya is not one of causality. Brahman doesn't create the phenomenal reality. It is the result of adhyaasa. You are right in your understanding that different ways manifest enlightenment in different ways. But that is because these ways are limited by being Categorical frameworks. Your understanding of Hindu thought needs a refresher. You are referring to Pauranic concepts, which are not to be mistaken with those posited by Vedanta. Puranas are not a good source to understand Philosophy from. Advaita Vedanta (as has been shown earlier in this post) predates Buddha by several thousand years.

Like I have said before...all Categorical frameworks are limited in their validity. And their validity is the framework. There is no absolute truth to be learned from frameworks. Frameworks however must provide a pathway to transcend themselves. That is how one can access Higher Truths. Vajrahridaya's pronouncements (somewhat contemptuous) about "Hinduism" rings of arrogance in one's categorical framework. What I was trying to show with this thread was that they are all the same. Sunyata, Emptiness, Void, Tao, Brahman, Aatman. We can go on and on about it and not get anywhere... I will hold onto, with the basis of my logic and my understanding of Dependent Origination, Two-truths and Superimposition the understanding that Buddhism, Vedanta and Taoism all refer to the same thing. There are no differences. Anyone who insinuates that their way is better are only doing so because they are trapped in their categorical framework. Experiential understanding occurs at various levels, to different degrees. Some work off spontaneous intuition (called Prajna), while others work painstakingly, trying to cultivate prajna. We all hold a spark of this in us, so that's why we instinctively know the truth about something. My Prajna tells me that what I understand is correct. Perhaps my Sadhana will corroborate that. Or may be not...Who can say?

That seems to be quite a departure from Nagarjuna. Because all Dependent Origination does is show that Phenomena are interdependent and that they are as a result empty. If Buddhism accepts Paramartha Satya, then all phenomena (in their emptiness) become Samvritti/vyavaharik satya. Advaita doesn't claim that Brahman is not emptiness. In fact, Brahman is Sunyata, by virtue of being empty of all phenomena (since Brahman is non-phenomenal). And when objectless consciousness remains, it IS Brahman and Sunyata. The Vedantic concepts of Atman and Brahman are the Same as Sunyata. Atman is objectless consciousness, which is nonphenomenal and therefore emptiness. So Atman and Brahman are one and the same. I don't understand why this concept is so difficult for Buddhists to accept? The syntax is different, the import is the same.

Read through the posts

Does Buddhism recognize the Two-truths or not?

Why would Advaita claim that Brahman is the "cause" of all phenomena. I guess you are holding on to the misunderstanding that Advaita Vedanta claims "such and such a thing" while in reality no such claim is made. To say in one breath that phenomena are empty and Brahman is non-phenomenal and then claim that Brahman is the "Cause" of all phenomena is self-contradictory and absurd (prasanga wasn't invented by nagarjuna you see). The Brahman transcends the entire realm of phenomena and causality. And causality is limited to the realm of phenomena. The relation between Brahman and phenomena is that of Superimposition. The inquirer will perceive things as is conditioned by his/her categorical framework. To understand this, one has to understand the Principle of Superimposition. The Sunyata/Brahman/Non-dual Reality is emptiness because it is empty of all phenomena. These phenomena are the products of the activity of Superimposition. Therefore, Brahman/Sunyata/Advaita is not a thing, nor is it nothing (or Blank). It is a no-thing, since in order to be a thing, is to have a temporal location. Brahman is non-spatial and non-temporal. It is Void and Empty as it is not comprised of things nor is it by itself a "thing". But this Void is also Fullness of all existence in it's inexhaustible variety and multiplicity. Brahman is not the cause of all phenomena but all phenomena arise as a result of superimposition on Brahman by the inquirer/experiencer.

the problem with language is that they only really express concepts. The import of the teaching needs a good teacher (in order to be elucidated) what makes you think Advaita recommends "destroying the ego"? the need is to remove avidya or ignorance. ignorance happens as a result of maya (identification with lower truth/reality or phenomena). as to how this ignorance is removed varies. one could employ everything from chanting mantras , standing on ones head to sitting with the eyes crossed. the point is to occupy the mind on a task such that the underlying consciousness shines forth. There is no dichotomy here...at least not in my mind. But until we get to that stage where we can experientially verify these things, it must remain an open-minded exercise of the intellectual faculties. Thanks for an engaging discussion.

When there is nothing but Brahman, What is static? What is single? What is pure? What is being? Void of any description, characteristics and properties, does it have any value in ascribing descriptions/properties to it? Advaita Vedanta's position is that Brahman is non-phenomenal. It is not subject to the rules and categorical frameworks that are applied on Phenomena. It is (realization that everything is Brahman) is reached by transcending the categorical framework of names and descriptions. This is very simple. What is the point in making things so complicated by laying on layer after layer of the proverbial onion? Or since you have been in India and Varanasi, you surely must have eaten the Jalebi. We are going round and round in circles like the convolutions of the jalebi. Vedanta says the same thing with Brahman. Glad you haved realized it. I on the other hand am like the billions of people who are part of this samsara and will have to strive to break out of the egoic "I" before the fact that "I am Brahman" is evident. One thing that is very pertinent in this discussion, now that I think about it is this -- Buddhists (at least those on this forum) don't understand what Brahman is. Take all your posts, search and replace Sunyata with Brahman. Then see what you have.

Again...The Theory of Two-truths. Lower Truth/Reality and Higher Truth/Reality. Phenomena are not real and empty when contrasted with Brahman. They are real in the Vyavaharika realm. Guys this could go on and on. I think we are running around each other in circles... http://www.thaiexotictreasures.com/atman_o...he_sunyata.html

But phenomena are empty, not real. That is a problem with Buddhist understanding/interpretation of the "I" that is being referred to. It is not the Egoic "I". This "I" is after dissolving all ego-related things. For all it matters, the "I" can be "Blah". It is called I because of the subjective nature of the experience.

And when have I contradicted myself?

Not the sense that it is a material ground. If there is nothing but Brahman, then where is the ground, or the phenomenon and rising and falling?

This started with Mikaelz claiming that Brahman is considered ground of all phenomena (see Nondualism thread). It evidently is not. Question asked by evZENy is very pertinent -- "How can you compare two emptinesses"? Nirguna means without any properties. What is without any properties? Use logic and not blind adherence to what someone wrote about someone else's idea of someone else's idea

Advaita nevers claims to "Merge" with The Brahman. I was never separate from Brahman. I am Brahman. I am non-phenomenon. Everything else that is phenomenal is unreal and empty. Again, slowly this time... If phenomena are empty, and Buddhist Ultimate Reality is Emptiness, then Buddhist Ultimate Reality is also a phenomenon. Dzogchen's "oneness" is the identification with Brahman. Rinpoche Sogyal Trungpa's book "The Tibetan book of Living and Dying" clearly expresses this (see you wanted citations, etc). The Nirguna Brahman. That which doesn't have any properties. That which is bereft of any characteristics that would make it a phenomenon. When the realization that all phenomena are empty arises, and the awareness of that which is there always shines forth (as the dust settles literally), that is identification with the Nirguna Brahman. Since I was never really separate from the Brahman, where does the question of merging arise?

You should read the previous Non-duality thread first dear Rex. Also if you notice, the thread was posted as "Are Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism really that different"? That doesn't mean that there are no differences. The intention was to show that Buddhism is not exclusive in it's findings and concepts and claims that "Buddhist" Non-duality is superior to "Hindu Advaita" is a bunch of baloney by overzealous upstarts. For Pero: Remember, I didn't go down the path of Dependent Origination, etc initially. If by Applying Dependent Origination and Two-truths it can inferred that Buddhist emptiness is a lower truth, is that my fault? I am at work right now and cannot spend adequate time to respond. I will do so in detail and address Mikaelz in greater detail later this evening.

Along with meditation one has to apply viveka (appropriate discernment and intellect) to remove delusion from truth. The Buddhist in me might agree with you, but the rational being in me would say: "Wait a minute! The theory of Two-truths seems kinda right...as does the principle of dependent origination. May be there is something to this Brahman thing... ...because phenomenon (this arising that arises, this ceasing, that ceases) are empty and my teachings tell me that ultimately there is Only Emptiness. But if it empty, it surely must be a phenomenon. In which case it has to be a lower reality. Therefore there must be a higher reality, which is non-phenomenon." There seems to be some confusion about the chronology of Advaita...see my previous post. Glad to clarify... Dear friends, my intention here is not to sound/seem smug and/or trite. If you get that impression, my apologies. This is my idea of fun and I am glad I have two places I can have such fun in (Ananda for now, in search of the Sat Chit)...

my reasons for doing this (debate) has two motivations -- 1) Challenge my understanding vis-a-vis the two systems, and confirm my intellectual understanding that Buddhists too are talking about the same thing as the Vedantins and Taoists. 2) Challenge those commentators (here) who were misleading seekers of Non-duality about the "superiority" of Buddhist philosophy over Vedanta. Like it was proven (and will become clear to serious seekers with unconditioned minds), Buddhist emptiness is a subset/a milestone in the path to Brahman/Tao.