RongzomFan

Madhyamaka is the definitive sutra teaching. That's the opinion of all the Indian professors such as Atisa, Kamalsila, Śāntarakṣita etc. Its not something that can be brushed aside.

Whats so hard? In Madhyamaka, dependently originated phenomena never arise in the first place.

My signature explains emptiness.

The best book of Karl Brunnholzl is "Center of the Sunlit Sky".

We already went over this before. And you admitted your mistake before: http://thetaobums.com/topic/26805-buddha-kept-silent-about-god/page-13#entry406702 The Indian Mahasiddhas taught Vajrayana. Not Buddha.

Stick with the Indian Hindu/Buddhist element system which forms the basis of all the tantric systems, such as Vajrayana.

Recognize ma bcos shes pa skad cig ma (or whatever you want to call it) versus the conceptualizing mind. Zen people do this by reading texts. Advaita people have satsang. Vajrayana people have direct introduction.

It has to do with identity (atman).

I prefer Candrakirti's definition of the Two Realities, as delineated in Madhyamakavatara. He was right on the money. There is ultimate reality and seeming reality.

I don't think so

1. Theravada descends from a secessionist group who wanted to change the original vinaya. Please read a basic history book such as Andrew Skilton's A Concise History of Buddhism. Their secessionist origin is even preserved in the name. 2. Mahayana arose in reaction to crypto-realist Abhidharmas, of the sort Theravada follows. Thus Mahayana is the closest to what the Buddha taught. Mahayana was developed by the original sangha, the Mahasamghika. 3. As the Indian Mahasiddhas founded Vajrayana, of course Vajrayana came later. 4. I sense a slight hostility to the tantras. Lets take the Cakrasamvara Tantra specifically. There exists centuries of commentaries on the Cakrasamvara Tantra from the Indian university of Vikramshila. This is just one example. So are you more authoritative than the Indian professors?

If you are talking about Buddhist emptiness, realizing emptiness mean you did karmamudra or tummo and are on the first bhumi and have special powers.

Yes because Tibetan Buddhism is the direct continuation of Indian Buddhism. That's why all the scholars use the term "Indo-Tibetan Buddhism".

The Mahasiddhas are Indian, not Tibetan. Krishnamurti was a New Age writer. I don't care about Krishnamurti.

Stefos, Its true that Theravada was not the main Hinayana school. However Theravada is definitely Hinayana: A. They do not accept the Mahayana sutras B. They do not accept the bhumis C. Their goal is to achieve nirvana and become an arhat, through the typical Hinayana path D. etc.

Candrakirti was an Indian professor at the Indian university of Nalanda my friend. Not Tibetan. There you go.

And of course we already knew that caste is a British construction, for example refer to Columbia dean Nicholas Dirks’ Caste of Mind (Princeton University Press).

If there is no Aryan migration, India is the source of western civilization.

Nagarjuna was a nerdy monk. Don't believe all these stories http://www.amazon.com/Nagarjuna-Context-Mahayana-Buddhism-Culture/dp/023113164X

This might be the most epic post I have ever read.

Yahweh and Allah are merely hungry ghosts. So yes they would be jealous etc.

As long as you breathe, the mind will be active. They are linked according to tantric theory.

If you doubt the existence of a certain Flying Spaghetti Monster, then there exists a Flying Spaghetti Monster in whom's existence is doubted. The whole question doesn't make any sense...

Are you? Have you received Mahamudra teachings, or something like that?

So exercise is bad? Ok I will stop working out.