RongzomFan

Buddhism lost its meaning??

Wow someone agreed. Time to dance.

On Esangha, Namdrol used to repeatedly explain it the way I explained it.

Where did you get that I have been influenced by Christianity? You actually believe those myths? Do you also believe that Sankara was able to go into another's persons body and have sexual intercourse with that person's wife during a debate? Shankara did not understand Buddhism, or purposely misrepresented Buddhism as he did the other Indian philosophies. This is mentioned in many academic books on Shankara. This also indicates that Shankara never defeated Buddhists. Bardo, Pure Lands, Amitabha are all a part of Dzogchen, which you claim to follow. I only care about what the Indian Mahasiddhas taught.

Sounds like a pretty smart guy actually. The more you look into the history of western thinking, the more you realize that its a pile of crap. For example, Nazism was not an aberration. It was in line with European romanticism, which itself was built on faulty scholarship.

Columbia PhD in Ancient History, Richard Carrier, says that Jesus never existed.

His own website admits he has NO lineage: "YOGIRAJ DOES NOT BELONG TO OR ASSOCIATE HIMSELF WITH ANY NATH SUB-SECT ..........DO NOT GO TO ANY NATH BRANCH OF YOGIS AND EXPECT TO FIND HIS REFERENCE THERE. HE TEACHES ALONE...." http://www.siddhanath.org/yogiraj/the-nath-lineage

I agree with the spirit of this post, but it can not be dharmakaya. That would mean you would have to be a Buddha before you could be a terton.

Hinduism and Buddhism have always been interrelated. I wouldn't call mixing them syncretizing. I have no problem giving props to Vishnu, Shiva, Ganesha etc. Vajrayana acknowledges all the "Hindu" deities. I just don't take refuge in Shiva, Vishnu etc.

Zen is Mahayana, so its goal is omniscient Buddhahood through the 10 bhumis. You can recognize the nature of the mind, through direct introduction in Vajrayana without reading texts.

What do you consider enlightenment? Even in Zen, enlightenment is omniscient Buddhahood, but somehow that seems to have gotten forgotten by modern practitioners.

stefos, From the textbook of Dr. Upinder Singh (daughter of prime minister and noted historian): "The earliest formal exposition of Advaita or non-dualistic Vedanta was put forward by Gaudapada in the 7th or 8th century in his Mandukyakarika, a verse commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad. Gaudapada was influenced by Madhyamika and Vijnanavada Buddhism." Also the Mandukya Upanishad itself was influenced by Mahayana: Hajime Nakamura, Trevor Leggett. A History of Early Vedānta Philosophy, Part 2. Reprint by Motilal Banarsidass Publ., 2004 page 284-6 "As was pointed out in detail in the section titled Interpretation, many particular Buddhist terms or uniquely Buddhist modes of expression may be found in it." "From the fact that many Buddhist terms are found in its explanation, it is clear that this view was established under the influence of the Mahayana Buddhist concept of Void." "Although Buddhistic influence can be seen in the Maitri-Upanishad, the particular terms and modes of expression of Mahayana Buddhism do not yet appear, whereas the influence of the Mahayana concept of Void can clearly be recognized in the Mandukya-Upanisad." "Although Mahayana Buddhism strongly influenced this Upanisad, neither the mode of exposition of the Madhyamika school nor the characteristic terminology of the Vijnanavada school appears." If you want to see the verbatim verses Gaudapada took from Madhyamaka, you can click: http://books.google.com/books?id=sx12hxoFVqwC&pg=PA88&dq=The+Method+of+Early+Advaita+Ved%C4%81nta+It+is+not+a+matter+for+dispute+whether&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wr8ZUZ7iGceR0QGHuID4Cw&ved=0CDMQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Method%20of%20Early%20Advaita%20Ved%C4%81nta%20It%20is%20not%20a%20matter%20for%20dispute%20whether&f=false So why do you hate Madhyamaka and Mahayana as noted in the other thread? Also, isn't Samkhya the definitive Hindu philosophy as it forms the underlying basis of the tantras? My understanding is that tantrics like Abhinavagupta held the tantras higher than the Vedas and Upanishads.

No. No that's not correct. The criticisms are minor in nature. Maybe the biggest criticism is Gampopa's sutra Mahamudra. Vajrayana is Buddhadharma, but it is the teachings of the Indian Mahasiddhas, not Buddha. Yes everyone knows that Vajrayana is a separate vehicle and path.

The way I understand deities in Indo-Tibetan Vajrayana is that an accomplished siddha/terton's own wisdom manifests as deities in a lucid dream etc. The deities are primordial manifestations of a siddha's own wisdom. Then when a regular person practices that same deity, its like a shortcut.

He is a Theravadin. He even has a Theravadin alternate name.

I literally LOL'd at that one.

Yeah it doesn't work like that. Even in Pure Land Buddhism, which is not Tibetan Buddhism, devotion to Amitabha merely generates a bardo experience.

No no no.... YOU are the one dismissing a noted academic, who is cited favorably even on Theravadin forums, such as Dhamma Wheel.

Are you trying to use as many logical fallacies as possible?

Andrew Skilton is a Theravadin. LMAO at you. Keep putting your foot in your mouth.

I've read countless academic books on Buddhism and Hinduism, and this is the first I'm hearing about it. By the way I am Indian, raised Hindu. Edit: Maybe you are talking about Alexis Sanderson's claim that a small and very specific class of tantras were influenced by Saiva tantras? A claim that has been refuted by Ronald Davidson and David Gray.

What don't you understand about: "......it really involved the attempted addition of rules to the Vinaya by a minority group numbered at only a hundred or so, who were preoccupied....." pg. 49 Tibetan Buddhism is the direct continuation of Indian Buddhism. You should favor it. What are these "syncretic leanings"? That's a new one for me. Tibetan Buddhism is strictly based on the teachings of countless Indian professors and Indian Mahasiddhas. Maybe you are thinking of Zen.

Mahasamghika means "greater community". So it is not the breakaway group. Its the original group. A bunch of old dudes (Sthaviravāda) broke away from the Mahasamghika, because they wanted to change the vinaya. A Concise History of Buddhism by Andrew Skilton 2004. p. 49, 64 Maybe even later. So what? I know that. That's what I've been repeatedly been saying.

Everything is illusion. Concepts make things seem real.

In Madhyamaka, D.O. is merely a device that gets you to nonarising. In Dzogchen, there is a different device that gets you to nonarising, since there is no dependent origination there. Instead of worrying about all the philosophy, you can just learn the 8 examples of illusion: dream, mirage, reflection etc.