RongzomFan

Madhyamaka is also the pinnacle of sutrayana

Madhyamaka is the basis of Vajrayana, and allowed Vajrayana to develop in India.

"Gampopa had perfected the view and the meditations of calm abiding and superior insight in the Madhyamaka context according to the Kadampa system when he came to Milarepa. When Gampopa offered his realization to him, Milarepa said, “As for the aspect of calm abiding in your practice, however good all of this may be, it does not go beyond being a cause for rebirth in the higher realms of samsara. As for the aspect practice of superior insight, all of this entails the danger of divergence into the four deviations from emptiness. It may well serve as a remedy for some portions of reification, such as clinging to real exis- tence. However, since it is not able to cut through the entirety of clinging to extremes, there is the danger that the whole complex of this excellent view and meditation itself could turn into cognitive obscurations. Hence, if one is fettered, there is no difference between being fettered by an iron chain and being fettered by a golden chain.” Later, Gampopa said about this, “If I had not met the great master Milarepa, I would have risked rebirth as a long-lived god.”" http://books.google.com/books?id=8zeh8VAFCvAC&pg=PA58&dq=Center+of+the+Sunlit+Sky+Gampopa+had+perfected+the+view+and+the+meditations&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TYEIUebJKMqt0AGRsIHABA&ved=0CDMQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=Center%20of%20the%20Sunlit%20Sky%20Gampopa%20had%20perfected%20the%20view%20and%20the%20meditations&f=true

http://theworsthorse.com/2013/01/dzongsar-khyentse-rinpoches-social-media-guidelines-for-so-called-vajrayana-students/

Half of you are discussing stuff like Kashmir Saivism etc. Shouldn't this be called the Hinduism Discussion?

All philosophical and religious positions revolve around only 2 views: Existence and Nonexistence. However its all illusion, like a dream. Phenomena don't arise in the first place. Nagarjuna in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' 21.12. states: "An existent does not arise from an existent; neither does an existent arise from a non-existent. A non-existent does not arise from a non-existent; neither does a non-existent arise from an existent." http://books.google.com/books?id=38WJRwP3nLgC&pg=PA297&dq=Mulamadhyamakakarika+of+Nagarjuna+An+existent+does+not+arise+from+an+existent;+neither+does+an+existent+arise+from+a+non-existent.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fnGiUtuWMPPMsQSzkIDwCA&ved=0CDgQuwUwAQ#v=onepage&q=Mulamadhyamakakarika%20of%20Nagarjuna%20An%20existent%20does%20not%20arise%20from%20an%20existent%3B%20neither%20does%20an%20existent%20arise%20from%20a%20non-existent.&f=false Here are some quotations from 2 top books, Nagarjuna's Reason Sixty and Center of the Sunlit Sky: "Nagarjuna taught , "bereft of beginning, middle, and end," meaning that the world is free from creation, duration, and destruction." -Candrakirti "Once one asserts things, one will succumb to the view of seeing such by imagining their beginning, middle and end; hence that grasping at things is the cause of all views." -Candrakirti "the perfectly enlightened buddhas-proclaimed, "What is dependently created is uncreated." -Candrakirti "Likewise, here as well, the Lord Buddha’s pronouncement that "What is dependently created is objectively uncreated," is to counteract insistence on the objectivity of things." -Candrakirti "Since relativity is not objectively created, those who, through this reasoning, accept dependent things as resembling the moon in water and reflections in a mirror, understand them as neither objectively true nor false. Therefore, those who think thus regarding dependent things realize that what is dependently arisen cannot be substantially existent, since what is like a reflection is not real. If it were real, that would entail the absurdity that its transformation would be impossible. Yet neither is it unreal, since it manifests as real within the world." -Candrakirti Nagarjuna said "If I had any position, I thereby would be at fault. Since I have no position, I am not at fault at all." Aryadeva said "Against someone who has no thesis of “existence, nonexistence, or [both] existence and nonexistence,” it is not possible to level a charge, even if [this is tried] for a long time." "I do not say that entities do not exist, because I say that they originate in dependence. “So are you a realist then?” I am not, because I am just a proponent of dependent origination. “What sort of nature is it then that you [propound]?” I propound dependent origination. “What is the meaning of dependent origination?” It has the meaning of the lack of a nature and the meaning of nonarising through a nature [of its own]. It has the meaning of the origination of results with a nature similar to that of illusions, mirages, reflections, cities of scent-eaters, magical creations, and dreams. It has the meaning of emptiness and identitylessness." -Candrakirti Nagarjuna in Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 1.1. states: "Not from themselves, not from something other, Not from both, and not without a cause- At any place and any time, All entities lack arising." Buddhapālita comments (using consequentalist arguments which ultimately snowballs into Tibetan prasangika vs. svatantrika): "Entities do not arise from their own intrinsic nature, because their arising would be pointless and because they would arise endlessly. For entities that [already] exist as their own intrinsic nature, there is no need to arise again. If they were to arise despite existing [already], there would be no time when they do not arise; [but] that is also not asserted [by the Enumerators]. Candrakīrti, in ''Madhyamakāvatāra'' VI.14., comments: "If something were to originate in dependence on something other than it, Well, then utter darkness could spring from flames And everything could arise from everything, Because everything that does not produce [a specific result] is the same in being other [than it]." Candrakīrti, in the ''Prasannapadā'', comments: "Entities also do not arise from something other, because there is nothing other." Nagarjuna in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' 1.3cd. states: "If an entity in itself does not exist, An entity other [than it] does not exist either." Candrakīrti, in the ''Prasannapadā'', comments: "Nor do entities arise from both [themselves and others], because this would entail [all] the flaws that were stated for both of these theses and because none of these [disproved possibilities] have the capacity to produce [entities]." Nagarjuna, in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' VII.17., states: "If some nonarisen entity Existed somewhere, It might arise. However, since such does not exist, what would arise?" Nagarjuna, in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' VII.19cd., states: "If something that lacks arising could arise, Just about anything could arise in this way." Candrakīrti, in ''Madhyamakāvatāra'' VI.151., comments: "It is not asserted that a chariot is something other than its parts. It is not something that is not other, nor does it possess them. It does not exist in the parts, nor do the parts exist in it. It is neither their mere collection nor the shape—thus is the analogy." Candrakirti, in "Madhyamakavatara" VI.23., defines ultimate and relative truth "The object of perfect seeing is true reality And false seeing is seeming reality."

Not from the Buddhist POV. Quiet, or calm mind is shamatha, which only leads to higher rebirths as gods.

By the way, the real kundalini method as described in the 100 verses of Gorakhnath etc., is more or less the same as described above. The only difference is that they throw in kechari mudra.

I think if you get transmission from ChNN, you also get transmission for tummo, considering you get transmission for trul khor. Although I'm not 100% on that.

Trekcho is a form of knowledge. Not a state or practice. It is 1 of the 3 wisdoms of rigpa.

In the end, tummo is just an inferior facsimilie of karmamudra. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karmamudr%C4%81 Also requires transmission.

Thats bullshit. The real prep for tummo is trul khor. Also requires transmission.

You need transmission for tummo. The "center channel" (dbu ma or avadhuti) is the whole arterial system, or more specifically the aorta. The two "side channels" are the venous system (roma or rasanā) and the spinal column and nervous system (rkyang ma or lalanā). A chakra is any place in the body where there are clusters of arteries, veins and nerves. In the practice of tummo, the visualization of lower ends to the three channels is primarily used to focus body awareness in the subnavel area. Holding the breath, mulabandha and uddiyana bandhas force vāyu and ojas into the arterial system. The heart rate slows and the karmic winds suspend. Ojas has two stores within the body: the heart and brain. Thus there is the visualization of blazing and dripping.

Madhyamaka: Nonarising/illusion because dependently originated phenomenon do not arise in the first place. Advaita Vedanta : Nonarising/illusion since Brahman never displays as anything other than Brahman.

There is nothing you cited, that I'm not already familiar with. Not only do I know Indian history, I know the history of Indian history.

You don't see to get it. The Hinduism you follow is based on European orientalism. The whole idea of "Hinduism" or "Sanātana Dharma" as an ancient monolithic entity based on the Bible of the Vedas and Upanishads is orientalist. The Orientalists backdated the Vedas, Upanishads, Gita more than anyone, which now the reformists have taken up.

Actually the Aryan Invansion Theory, although first academically cited by Ramaprasad Chanda, traces back to Dayananda Saraswati, one of your heroes.

Again trying to put White and Doniger is the same boat? At first I thought you meant white people when you said "whites".

Thats hilarious. Read Upinder Singh's book. The date of the Gita is 200 BCE.

I never said "invasion". I agree that the Aryan invasion theory has been replaced by the Aryan migration theory. Both of the history books by Indians I cited will explain that. The ironic thing is that the Aryan invasion theory was first invented by an Indian, Ramaprasad Chanda, and only later taken up by Mortimer Wheeler.

I like Hinduism. I don't like Hindu fundamentalism/reformism. That you conflate the two, is your problem.

atman translates to "identity", no matter the philosophy. Its merely the sanskrit word for identity. In Advaita, the identity is really Brahman.

I'm sure in your version of Indian History, Rama and Krishna are historical characters, and the Bhagavad Gita dates to before the Harappan Civilization. Your version of Hinduism, quite ironically, is derived from the old Western orientalism you claim to detest.

The Buddhists masters of India were masters of all Indian philosophies. Even today, if you want to learn about Hinduism go to a lama.

First off, I know more about Hinduism and Indian History than you. And I have the complete works of Vivekananda in paperback. Citing the typical heroes of Hindu fundamentalists doesn't impress me.