Vajrahridaya

I've changed my position since then since the focus is not on compassion in Taoism it cannot equal to a full comprehension of dependent origination.

But, that's a Hindu framework, saying that a non-conceptual ground of being actually exists beyond frameworks. It has nothing to do with being caught in the framework because Buddhists say that your idea of there being a ground of being that is beyond the framework is part of a deep and subtle framework conducive to a subtle attachment and identity which is the subtle seed for future samsaric cycling. The Buddha is very clear about this in the Pali Suttas, very clear. You have yet to understand dependent origination because the experience of Brahman is dependently originated, dependent upon the framework that you call Advaita Vedanta. Since Brahman is considered real, self luminous and the source and end of all experience, it is considered a Samsaric interpretation of experience in Buddhism.

Xabir's smarter than me... I'll let him finish the debates... Maybe. This is positive if one becomes Buddhist because of all the practices that give value to spiritual experience. Bad if one becomes a materialist Nihilist and just follows the sensationalized impulses reflective of modern popular culture.

Buddhism contends that Advaita Vedanta does not lead to total victory over Samsara. Buddhism's first of the 8 fold nobel path is "Right View" and that does indeed include the PRACTICE of philosophy. So... you see, philosophy is practice according to Buddhism.

Only Vedanta thinks that way due to the idea that beings are going one way. Mahayana teaches that one should detachedly preach the dharma because beings can cycle in Samsara forever and ever.

This critic is disagreeable on many subtle points of interpretation. I've already quoted these passages above in our debate. This writer doesn't have experiential understanding of what Buddhism teaches and lacks real guidance. His argument would not at all hold to real masterful criticism by real Buddhist scholars and Masters. These passages are taken out of context and mis-construed. Plus the Buddha does talk about an impersonal essence. Which is why he say's, "If there was an essence to take refuge in, I would have taught this, but since there is not, I do not teach this." So that interpretation was debunked by the Buddha. This experience as quoted above from your paper originates dependent upon seeing dependent origination when all phenomena including the experience of one's consciousness is seen directly uncompounded through the realization. It is not an innate infinite consciousness that subsumes everything. The Buddha already discusses what happens when one identifies with this as a final state in meditation and says one goes to a formless abode for as long as the merits persist but it's not total liberation, just like Theravadins posit through the 31 planes model. Also the Theravadins that criticize Mahayana for going back to Hinduism don't understand Mahayana, otherwise they would be Mahayanists. Mahayana's one mind is actually from Yogacara or Chitamatra, but it's still a state where things are understood to be the manifestation of many intermingling minds that are all inherently empty of self substance, thus things aren't the creation of one mind, just experienced in a connectivity, but the intention is different than what "Brahman" posits. Also, Buddhanature is always pure and unstained only in as much as things have not arisen and nothing has inherently happened due to dependent origination/emptiness, not due to an all pervasive substance which makes all things one under it's sublimation. Buddhanature is also, not established. The subtle difference is that in a subtle intuitive seeing, which leads to a different experience and a different way of enacting enlightenment even after realization. Advaita Vedanta cosmology still thinks that there is a source that all things arise from and subside into at the beginning and end of the cosmic cycle. This is a huge main point that the Buddha shows is Samsaric and only happens to Samsarins. Dwai, this paper is not a proper critic of Buddhism at all.

Yes, but Shentong does not believe in a one that is everyone. Shentong talks about the state of enlightened awareness that is a result of Prasangika Madhyamika, it still originates dependent upon realization of dependent origination. I love Tulku Orgyen Rinpoche and should not have made the comment, it was out of line and mostly a joke anyway... based on my own ignorance. I do bow to him!! Thanks for more clarity Michaelz!! Your awesome!!

That's true! I read his autobiography and was surprised how his take seemed somewhat like Advaita Vedanta. Well, maybe his new incarnation will get that mistake all cleared up.

'dwai' date='Jun 14 2009, 05:24 AM' That's what monism means. That only one exists. It indicates substantial non-duality where everything is just a single substance. Then it's dualistic and makes no real sense unless you make imaginative jumps in logic, which you have shown that you do, over and over again. When is the act of superimposition? How does it happen if they are not intrinsically linked? Like I said, the Buddha considers all this a mistaken cognition. XABIR Wonderful explanations! Yes, but not many Masters agree with Shentong or take it literally.

LOL! Advaita Vedanta is MONISM, which means one-ism, as in only one exists. There also is no brahman and no emptiness according to Buddhism. You can keep making things up though, you sure are imaginative. To quote Adi Shankaracharya... "[i am] the nature of Pure Consciousness. I am always the same to beings, one alone; [i am] the highest Brahman, which, like the sky, is all-pervading, imperishable, auspicious, uninterrupted, undivided and devoid of action. I do not belong to anything since I am free from attachment. [i am] the highest Brahman... ever-shining, unborn, one alone, imperishable, stainless, all-pervading, and nondual-That am I, and I am forever released." This is the very definition of Monism. The Buddha called this a mistaken cognition. Your attachment to an essence, a soul of the universe is exactly what keeps you recycling. No matter how faceless, non-phenomenal it's made out to be, it's still a clinging to an identity, no matter how subtle, how non-dual, how all pervasive, it's a clinging. This is what the Buddha taught and this is not what Advaita Vedanta teaches. Realization is different for both paths, they lead to different places. Edit: Shankara talks about the Impersonal Brahman becomes Ishwara, the personality of the Lord of the Universe. He say's Brahman is both personal and impersonal. In Buddhist cosmology, there is no lord of the universe, there is no being that could be called a creator of all things cosmically. The intention of Emptiness in Buddhism points to an entirely different conclusion than Brahman does in Vedanta.

No Dwai, for Buddhists, it's the entire path. As the Buddha said, "If you see dependent origination you see buddhahood" Which is a realization, not an identity, not a merging with any source of existence as to Buddhism there is no source of existence. There is no soul of existence, not one bit, not even an iota, everything is relative, and that's what the ultimate Truth in Buddhism is. That's the two truths model, not that there IS ultimate identity, but that all things are relative and ultimately empty of inherent existence. Thats what Buddhism teaches. There is no ultimate consciousness, only ultimate realization. Buddhism does not secretly teach Vedanta and Vedanta does not secretly teach Buddhism. The Buddha also said, there is nothing that exists outside of dependent origination. Nagarjuna said, "There is nothing that is not dependently originated", and he included Brahman, because he too considered Vedanta and the Upanishads off the mark. Ngarjuna was a total Elitist and said, "Only the path shown by Shakyamuni is complete while other paths only lead to the edge of Samsara." Nagarjuna actually said that. Vedanta say's whatever they want. It still has nothing to do with what Buddhism teaches and what Buddhists know Buddhism teaches. Your just superimposing your ideas over it, thinking subjectively and not seeing what Buddhism says at all. You have not digested a single thing said by any of the Buddhists on this board. Vedanta/Theism/Monism and Buddhism are fundamentally at odd's with what they feel liberation means and how the cosmos works. There is no Brahman, no faceless consciousness that all things are, no emptiness that all things are in identity. Things are empty, they aren't emptiness. This subtle nuance is completely missed by you. Emptiness is not an identity or a reality, it's a quality and Brahman is also empty of inherent existence and in fact to Buddhists, is a mistaken interpretation of meditative experience. Pratityasamutpada does not mean superimposition.

There is no real ultimate Truth in Buddhism. The two truths model is entirely different for us. Things appear, but are inherently empty of any self substance. Faceless infinite consciousness is just a state of focus on non-conceptuality, but not an ultimate truth and is dependently originated according to the Buddha. This is what the Buddha found and why he left his Vedantin meditation teachers because he was looking for a subtler truth of how the cosmos works and he found it. Co-dependent arising, pratityasamutpada. He saw that the experience of seeing everything as Brahman was wrong and samsaric, so subverted this idea through debate. Buddhism does NOT identify everything with an underlying reality that dependent origination superimposes onto. It does not in the Pali Suttas, it does not in the Mahayana sutras and it does not in Nagarjuna's explanations, it does not in Abhidharma. Your talking Hinduism's cosmology and not Buddhist cosmology. Brahman is NOT equal to Buddhist emptiness and never was according to Buddhists. If I were to agree with you, I would cease to be Buddhist.

a bloated gasbag insult escapes fire mind calm water absorbs

No, Brahman is identified as being one entity that all is. So, we are not talking about Brahman. You see, realizing Brahman is an absorption into an identity of the universe, the true Self of everything. The idea of merging with the cosmos. Nirvana does not exist in Buddhism, it's a realization of the inherent non-existence of things, the realization of the nature of the flow. There is no core, no true identity or essence to anything. Brahman exists according to Vedanta, and is weather I realize it or not. For Buddhists, this is just not the Truth, nor real liberation.

rotating spindle going without essence to flowing always full

What non-abiding emptiness means is this... Which is why the Gelugpas of Vajrayana talk about the fact that each individual thing has it's own emptiness is that emptiness is not an all subsuming non-thing, non-phenomena, but rather intrinsic with the constant cycling flow of arising, sustaining and falling (brahma, vishnu, shiva) of cosmic expression. But that realizing the emptiness of all phenomena including consciousness, leads consciousness to be omnipresent even of it's own consciousness because the all-ness is inherently non-existent (thus realized Buddhahood "awakehood" blossoms endlessly), but only relative to its interconnectivity. So, there is no omnipotent one consciousness at fault here, it's all just infinite consciousness' (individual beings) karmas from formless to form to formless, on and on, inter-connected and co-creating. It made more sense before I tried to put it into words... um... Always flow... Even the seeming balance is merely the heart of Samsara, and not Nirvana, seeing that the balance itself has no real core, one stays awake, even while the Brahma dies to the new Brahma (based on the merit of a being from the previous cosmos) this of the next cosmic expression. Thus, Buddha realms transcend even the Pralaya and stay to churn the potentiality of the new cosmos in order to bring forth the potential for the activity to help infinite beings realize Buddhahood. This potential is based upon the previous cosmos' disillusion into an idea of abiding singularity, which is the illusion of a core that pulls like a black hole and re-expresses like a sun burst into a solar system. Those that follow the way of absorption, are blessed upon entering in bliss, but doomed to be re-expressed ignorantly according to their merits or de-merits as they fall into this. hmmm... How to explain?

It's infinite mind-streams connected through inherent non-abiding emptiness which is tied intrinsically with the experiential of any format; faceless, concept-less or concept-filled, doesn't matter. It's an infinite sideways-ness. Not top down like everything superimposed over Brahman, as one with Brahman as core. It's no single identifiable core, which leads to utter compassion for infinite Samsara and continual expression as enlightened activity through Buddhahood realization of co-dependent arising. It's not a superimposition over a non-conceptual non-dual substantial real-ness that expresses and consumes everything. Pratityasamutpada transcends absorption paths totally and clearly. This is beyond pralaya. Link to an explanation of Pralaya according to Vedanta.

Everywhere is thus thus everything is here now to be is to know

Your identifying everything with a single presence, but to Buddhism, does not inherently exist in and of itself. Your still thinking that there is only one mind. The realization is still individual realizing of non-dual non-self flow of every self flow... It's so subtle. Yet, still, there is work to be done and Mahayana talks about the work, while Advaita just subsumes it with a singularity, but Buddhism say's it's more complicated than "that". Edit... let me clarify; there is the single presence of realizing the true nature of all things, but it's an individual Buddhas realization based upon knowing directly the interconnection of inherently empty things and so called non-things (brahmanic realizers) which are things to Buddhism so much as it's experiential. It's not a single consciousness or will, it's seeing through the "infinite will's" as play here, that connect within an infinite paradigm of seeing directly how all things are connected endlessly. No beginning.

That can also be a powerful obstacle based upon previous karmas and the siddhi of charisma.

God... what's that? The interconnecting karma of infinite mind streams? Or a mysterious will who is secretly rolling dice with our lives?

everywhere- nowhere since nowhere does not exist everywhere is thus

He doesn't say different things, he just speaks different topics at appropriate times. He is all about inter-religious dialogue and freedom of religion. But, he doesn't think that all religions have it right. This is not something he says in public talks though. Why should he? He's a political figure and most of his public talks are not about going into the nitty gritty on Buddhist philosophy. What he talks about that is universal is the need for compassion and that most all religions talk about being kind to your neighbors, etc. Though they differ in their ideas of how the cosmos works and what liberation from Samsara means, which are topics he leaves for some of his books and transmissions to sincere Buddhist seekers. He is far from a hypocrite. I'll try to find some quotes for you, but it'll take some digging... Maybe Michaelz can help me a bit too. I've seen him quote some things? Not according to Buddhism. Dependent Origination applies to every dimension of experience, including faceless consciousness which is a state of absorption and not classified as the ultimate place of all things. Your still just projecting your Advaita ideas onto Buddhist ones thinking your right. It's kind of an imperialist thing. Just like when Hindu's equated Buddha with an incarnation of Vishnu who came to just teach people compassion and non-violence. That shows how little study was done of the actual Buddhas teachings to come up with such silliness. In Buddhism there is no faceless consciousness that we are all one with. Everything is not the play of one infinite consciousness, it is the play of intermingling beginningless infinite consciousness'. This is a fundamental Buddhist teaching from the classical Abhidharma that is completely at odd's with your conclusions and the conclusions of Advaita Vedanta. This is not my version of Buddhism, this is just Buddhism. Brahman is a phenomenon because it's experiential. Advaitins just think that because the experience is powerful and that it seems to subsume everything that it's the ultimate truth, it's actually the ultimate final veil that fools the jiva into thinking everything is one ultimate person that we are all expressions of that arise, sustain for a while, then subside in that one person, which is why absorption paths are considered wrong to Buddhism. To a Buddhist this is a mistaken cognition which is why the Buddha taught that vipassana transcends jhana and that only these two hand in hand through practice does one transcend the powerful absorption states of infinite consciousness, infinite nothingness, infinite space and neither perception nor non-perception. It doesn't matter what Vedanta says is true, because Buddhism disagree's from the outset. It has nothing to do with being over-zealous, it's about clarifying the meaning and not making confused gumbo stew.

my organic home replete with impermanence what shall I call true?

Yes, I'm familiar. Buddhism is not an absorption path, it's a cutting through path. We use absorptions to heighten capacity for insight. No, my version of Buddhism has not been understood by you as of yet. But you admit that the dvaitins have a limited view and so Advaita is a clearer interpretation. It's good to be clear about the path and where it leads. Debate is good to clarify the meaning. You can ad-hom all you want though... that's fine. Actually the Dalai Lama is quite the exclusivist, though highly tolerant. He is also a Rime scholar and practices all the different lineages of Vajrayana. But, he does not believe the absorption paths to be complete paths. He has spoken on this before that Buddhism is the only complete path. He wouldn't say this to a large group of multi-faith gatherer's. But he has in various books authored by him. Why is it so hard to see that there is no ultimate truth underlying everything in Buddhism, there is no substratum. You still... miss the point and superimpose your view of superimposition over co-dependent origination which shows that there is no single one non-thing that all things are dependent upon. That's not what co-dependent arising means. Advaita enlightenment is not the same as Buddhahood. It's not just words... Oooo, swords, I used to practice sword fighting.