RongzomFan

But I still don't get how any of this refutes what I wrote? I admitted the Vedas are older. I also mentioned the Upanishads. Maybe you don't even read what I wrote? dwai, are you Indian? I am....I went to a hindu temple yesterday. you wrote "The Janapadas are the major realms or kingdoms of Vedic (Iron Age) India" Yes Gautama lived during the Vedic age. So what? That does not mean anything dude. Next thing you are going to tell me is that Patanjali, founder of yoga, did not rip off buddhism!

Actually every academic book agrees with me. And I am talking about regular mainstream academia. Email any well known historian who specializes in this stuff. I challenge you:) You can even contact my college professor LOL You are correct the Vedas are older. Vedism is essentially simply fire ritual i.e. magick to get results. A very small portion of the population practiced it....the so called brahmins. Then you had aestheticism that evolved into Jainism, and which the Buddha tried out. You could have argued that Advaita was directly from the Upanishads....I would have bought that. edit April 16: Check this out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shramana

whoever is Indian, raise your hand cough....raises hand....cough I don't know what valuable information you gave me that refutes anything I wrote. You say Gautama was a kshatriya. That is sort of obvious since he was a prince. That does not imply anything about their belief system, even though you think it does. If you cited something from the Pali canon or such, that would have held some weight.

Or you can effortlessly focus on the clarity and vividness of the present moment using your five senses. Through this "mindfulness" the rest happens automatically.

I am saying in the PRESENT TIME or close to it, there are tribals that still adhere to the first major religion of India, buddhism, as they were in isolation. They never converted to hinduism. BTW, hinduism is a hybrid of buddhism and a bunch of other elements.

I just wanted to add to my previous comment. You CAN still the mind, if you are already aware of the CLARITY and VIVIDNESS aspect.

A bunch of misinformation not present in actual academic works. Many Hindu temples are actually ancient buddhist sites Some isolated tribals in India maintained an ancient religion, being separate from mainstream india. That religion is buddhism.

From an experiential viewpoint, the whole point of this thread is to focus on the tension-free CLARITY and VIVIDNESS of the present moment and distinguish it from the monkey mind. It is not simply stilling the mind.

There was mysticism and aestheticism, sure. Where did it ever say what Buddha's parents religion was?

I agree with this. Although, it is not just Nagarjuna influencing Advaita. Adi Shankara QUOTES Nagarjuna and many other authors!

Definitly. I am talking about the historic Buddha, Gautama or Shakyamuni Buddha as the founder. Even taking that.....Buddhism is far older than Hinduism. Even Christianity is older than Hinduism.

That is true about Madhyamika. Madhyamika simply is a nonimplicative negation of a claim. P.S. Are you one of those who mistakenly think Hindusim is older than Buddhism?

Once you understand time is an illusion, the self becomes an illusion. They are tied together. This is not just poetic. This is experiential. How can one accomplish anything except as a thoughtform of the "past" held in the present? This is the ego...."I climbed Mount Everest in 1998"

Ok we agree!

So if I cut off your leg, I cut your I? Really??

TzuJanLi Even though you called me an idiot, I will take the time to dumb it down for you. Things are ALWAYS MOVING in the NOW, even time pieces. Get it yet?

I am the idiot for living in reality and being realistic?

not really. You will just refer to a device with a bunch of numbers on it or has a motor that turns 2-3 metal pieces.

You existed before you were born? How can something changeless and permanent be combined with a reality that is not? It is not possible. You could benefit from reading Nagarjuna who the guy in your signature ripped off.

I have considered the very same thing for many "years". None of these things occur in a way that proves that time exists.

How many times do I have to explain, that you are using the ENGLISH LANGUAGE for all of that? "I" is literally a thoughtform.

So in these various biographies, what is the main practice that leads one to immortality?

Time does NOT exist. The past exists only as a memory in the NOW. The future is only a fictitious thoughtform in the NOW. This is just fact. A clock is just a mechanical device with a motor. The motor spins 2-3 pieces of metal. Another fact. Time LITERALLY does not exist. And to answer your specific question, I would call that interval between my birth and "now" a collection of THOUGHTFORM/MEMORIES accessed in the NOW.

I do NOT deny your reality One more time... The self exists in the arenas of labels, language, thoughtforms and worldly convention. You ARE using the english LANGUAGE aren't you?

The self exists in the arenas of labels, language, thoughtforms and worldly convention.