RongzomFan

Well you are probably not ready to understand that its not. Go with the second line of reasoning. There is an ad infinitum regression of cause and effect. Logically the Big Bang has causes, which in itself has causes, which in itself has causes etc. There is no place for a Creator in an ad infinitum regression of cause and effect.

The only guys who are monks, are Gelugs like HH Dalai Lama.

Of course. Most lamas are householders who have children.

All the Indian royalty were originally Buddhist. http://books.google.com/books?id=RvuDlhpvvHwC&pg=PA12&dq=Buddhist+Vishnu+before+the+eighth+century,+the+Buddha+was+accorded&hl=en&sa=X&ei=41IpUeT_B7G80QHSkoEY&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Buddhist%20Vishnu%20before%20the%20eighth%20century%2C%20the%20Buddha%20was%20accorded&f=false The scholar Ronald Inden is someone even Rajiv Malhotra likes. So its fact. http://rajivmalhotra.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=29&catid=22:dialog-of-civilizations&Itemid=26

No no no. Buddhists are negating identity / self that even cavemen had. It has nothing to do with Hindu notions of atman. Buddha predates most of Hinduism.

Its good you acknowledge this flaw.

1. Schmidt, Erik. (2001). The Light of Wisdom Vol IV. Kathmandu: Rangjung Yeshe Publications. p.77 This instant freshness, unspoiled by the thoughts of the three times, You directly see in actuality by letting be in naturalness. 2. Distinguishing rigpa and sems http://books.google.com/books?id=M9VX065ALl4C&pg=PA154&dq=distinguishing+rigpa+and+sems&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iUudUu99xKqQB67ogdAJ&ved=0CFwQuwUwBw#v=onepage&q=distinguishing%20rigpa%20and%20sems&f=false

And what are Vedantins supposed to recognize? None of you NeoAdvaitins has ever said what you are supposed to recognize. We have precise descriptions of what you are supposed to recognize.

I corrected your statement.

The recognition is permanent. But then you have accustom yourself to relax in that knowledge. That's called tr*kc**.

Then they never recognized in the first place.

I'm surprised no one made the argument that Satsang is a form of Vedanta direct introduction.

The recognition is permanent. But then you have accustom yourself to relax in that knowledge. That's called tr*kc**.

I want you to point out where I said it would cease.

Atman is just Sanskrit for identity. There is no Hindu atman, or Buddhist views on Hindu atman.

I don't answer that kind of stuff. Suffice it to say I have received transmission from a legit Tibetan born and raised lama.

I don't even care about Madhyamaka. Madhyamaka is just sutra. I'm really comparing Neoadvaita with Mahamudra, which is tantra. Madhamudra has direct introduction.

There is no such thing as Prasangika. Come on now. When people say they studied Pransangika, that means they just studied Tsongkhapa.

Ramana's writings are the worst. I would put Eckhart Tolle above Ramana.....not that I'm endorsing Eckhart Tolle.

Ramana's??

Did you read Candrakirti's Madhyamakavatara?

Of course there is also the whole issue of Advaita Vedanta being derived from Madhyamaka historically.

There are no degrees. You either recognize unfabricated presence versus the conceptualizing mind......or you don't. There is nothing "direct" about NeoAdvaita. There is no direct introduction. And why is it inferior to Candrakirti's Madhyamakavatara? Madhyamakavatara walks the reader through the analysis of "I" step-by-step. Again, Dennis Waite is not a "a recognised [sic] academic source".....as you falsely claim. And none of this has to do with any of the main points of the thread. You just want to relabel your favorite NeoAdvaitins as "Direct Path".

Back to the thread subject... NeoAdvaita does not have direct introduction, and is an inferior version of Chandrakirti's Madhyamakavatara.

Back to the thread subject... NeoAdvaita does not have direct introduction, and is an inferior version of Chandrakirti's Madhyamakavatara.