RongzomFan

Even if thats the case, don't you need the only SANSKRIT CRITICAL EDITION of the stuff we are talking about? Dude....I am speechless. Stunned really. If you are such a scholar, why do you quote "a friend who has studied Buddhist and Hindu tantras through and through"?

I apologize for having such a high IQ. It is a shame you can't raise yours.

obviously the guy you quoted read The Cakrasamvara Tantra The Discourse of Sri Heruka by David Gray, but since you did not read it personally you are just acting like an ass. Why not read the book for yourself and answer your own retarded questions? Of course you won't do that, because like dwai, you just prefer to spew nonsense and bitch even when told to read a specific academic book.

What do you even mean by Tibetan Buddhist deities? This does not even make sense. Don't you realize all these Vajrayana deities like Heruka etc. were practiced in India for hundreds of years, only later being transmitted to Tibet?

Facts don't change...except for the fact the Bhagavad Gita's age keeps getting revised up with better knowledge of history.

You really think shaivism predates buddhism don't you? Rudra in the vedas is not the same thing as the entire philosophy of shaivism, with its specific doctrines. And you really think Bon existed in India to influence Vajrayana? How is that possible?

LOL Even if this is true, you do realize that hinduism borrows from Mahayana/Vajrayana? That is even more "derived"

Who cares what Loy says? He is a neo-advaita/zen fool who thinks like you. Even basic Madhyamika 101 denies the claim of such a reality. Even basic observation proves that a "self" does not exists. If YOU want to say a self exists, that is fine. But do NOT say Buddhists believe in a "self". Buddha simply means awakened in sanskrit. Furthermore, buddha nature is the English translation of Sanskrit terms so your argument still does not make any sense.

Forget about reincarnation and karma for now. The whole point of buddhism is to view reality correctly. That is the only difference between a buddha and a human. So read "The Middle Way" by the Dalai Lama. My understanding of certain buddhist teaching is this. There is a self-affirming and discerning clarity beyond the conceptual mind. This clarity does not have a real existence however, therefore it cannot be constructed by stilling the mind or through meditation. It is is also different than being "present", if your presence is at the level of the conceptual mind.

The definition of buddha nature is the potential of a human to become a Buddha, just like milk has the potential to become curd.

There is a clarity beyond all thought. This clarity knows itself by itself. It is self-affirming. This clarity does not truly exist however.

How many times shall it be explained to you? Buddha nature is simply the potential to become a Buddha. Also it is funny how you cling to crappy english translations.

Right... And what I am saying is that this is not possible since Advaita did not exist yet.

yeah I don't understand it

It is the other way around. The Upanishads and Advaita came WAY after the Buddha (500 BC). In fact Advaita was developed WAY after Nagarjuna as well (200 CE). Here are some exerpts from the book The Essential Vedanta by Eliot Deutsch & Rohit Dalvi 2004. "....much of Sankara's metaphysics, especialy his analysis of the world as maya, was taken from Buddhist sources. In any event a close relationship between the Mahayana schools and Vedanta did exist with the latter borrowing some dialectical techniques, if not specific doctrines, of the former." pg. 126 "Gaupada rather clearly draws from Buddhist philosophical sources for many of his arguments and distinctions and even for the forms and imagery in which these arguments were cast." pg. 157 Gaupada was the guru of Sankara's guru, so this shows that ripping of Buddhism, is a long tradition.

There is nothing much to realize. There is a self-affirming clarity beyond all thoughts. However this clarity does not really exist. Thats it LOL.

This may surprise you, but I think like your grandfather. I am also quite well versed in jyotish. Buddhists can even go to a hindu temple and honor deities. I had a navagraha puja done for me recently. The difference is refuge in the Triple Gems, and maintaining that.

Here are some exerpts from the book The Essential Vedanta by Eliot Deutsch & Rohit Dalvi 2004. "....much of Sankara's metaphysics, especialy his analysis of the world as maya, was taken from Buddhist sources. In any event a close relationship between the Mahayana schools and Vedanta did exist with the latter borrowing some dialectical techniques, if not specific doctrines, of the former." pg. 126 "Gaupada rather clearly draws from Buddhist philosophical sources for many of his arguments and distinctions and even for the forms and imagery in which these arguments were cast." pg. 157 Gaupada was the guru of Sankara's guru, so this shows that ripping of Buddhism, is a long tradition.

I will take the 90 day considering I was overly rude in this thread.

I think you all should report me, until I get banned

wow, that didn't get me banned yet? Do I have to report myself?

I think you need a midol

Yes, I agree with this, but this is a very small portion of the population. You don't change an entire economic system for this. If you do, everyone becomes poor.

first thing, is that your link doesn't work Second thing, your exerpt does not support your position.

Maybe if you posted a study or SOMETHING, you would be taken seriously