Apech

again

calculate

backward to infirmity.

.. and will ever be.

mushy peas

Jesus Christ!

Ok. I could explain more about dependent origination but I might be accused of hijacking this into a Buddhist thread I don't know anything about KS so I can't comment on your assertion.

I don't completely agree with your words but essentially what I was saying that the formulations on the different paths vary while the essence of ultimate reality may not - which is what I think you are saying.

@ Steve - nice one thanks. Can I just add from my mahamudra studies that ultimately at least the resting mind - or perhaps result of shamatha - and the active mind (full of thoughts and perceptions and so on) are both 'sealed with emptiness. So the non-dual realisation is not confined in any way or reliant on a settled or still mind - it is just that resting the mind aids the process - but it is not in itself the goal. As Milarepa put it: "If you felt fine in meditating on the sky, so be it with the clouds."

Well .... thank you Chang! .... I think

pretty please

I think perhaps it is important to differentiate between formulations which come from the whole approach of the path and fundamentally real distinctions. The Buddha had his own teachings based on dependent origination and non-self (in contrast to for instance Jains and Ajivikas who stressed the fundamental reality of the Atman) - this developed into 'emptiness' - teachers of Buddhist non-duality will continue this tradition.

Tomato souper.

Don't apologise it's has no import.

@Limahong It wasn't an important point.

Then it is not real understanding.

my little ponia

Well if we take 'consciousness' to mean 'with knowing' then it is fundamental to being conscious. This means that becoming 'awakened' to true nature does not preclude but include this kind of discrimination such that it does not cease but is seen for what it is. (Not very well expressed perhaps but I hope you get what I mean).

My thought on this is that duality is a product of knowing - which is in turn brought about by discriminating awareness, categorisation, naming, distinguishing between things and so on. And the reason this is not just something we can dismiss (on the basis that it is somehow false) is that doing this is fundamental to our being and survival. We have to be able to distinguish between edible and poisonous fruit for instance - or between a tiger and a goat - we need to divide things into namable family groups other wise we can't function. The most basic division is between self and other - subject and object - and around this based on experience is our ego.

Very good thread - I've enjoyed reading it - especially from my limited a superficial understanding of Advaita Vedanta. I think by the way, for what it is worth, that the disputes with Buddhism are largely fruitless except to bring awareness to the fact that there are always several ways of both posing a view and elaborating it. They are different traditions and have their own views and indeed there own potential pitfalls - which is inevitable while they are views and not realisations of the ultimate truth. I did want to pose a question for the Vedantistas which is by way of comparison with non-dual Buddhist teachings - and that is - is there an equivalent to the basis, path and fruit which occurs in the Tibetan traditions. In these traditions non-duality is brought out by saying that the 'basis' or perhaps whatever it is that makes you a practitioner, the path itself to 'enlightenment' (for want of the better expression), and the fruit which is the realisation of the non-dual truth itself are all Buddha-nature. So rather than going from A to B in a dualist sense (eg. fleeing samsara to nirvana) you would say that your starting point is Buddha-nature (albeit unrecognised), your path is exploration of the same, and the result is just that - Buddha-nature (recognised?). Is there anything similar in Advaita techings?

saucy

modulation

mercy

It's all about inclusivity and symbiotic additionalities, I would have thought that was obvious. Once you escape the paradigm of your rigid world view where dollies and Hopi Indians occupy separate conceptual spaces you may begin to understand that truth is additive and does not comprise singular thought-fact placements. A placement being a space in which a certain defined operational actuality does or does not have performative effect. Ok?

Guys, This thread is specifically for discussing the meaning of GoT quotes - these are posted in green followed by a discussion. Please stay on topic! Thanks.