shengong29

Where though did I state the view point of Advaita as being Buddhahood? I am only answering Lucky's questions that arise out of Newage beliefs and neo non-dual merchandise. It does not matter that Buddhahood rejects Advaita. Advaita rejects Buddhism. But neither of this proves any point. Both schools have a set of assumptions and what they think are foolproof evidences of their correctness. If you apply Buddhist paradigm, assumptions and framework, it is obvious Advaita is refuted. Vice versa is true as well. But what really is the point here? It is like using apples to describe the taste, texture and color of an orange. Does not make sense. Take for example the historical and often violent bickering between early Sautrantikas and later Vijanavadins, or even the debate between the madhyamikas (or mahayana if it sounds better in this context) and theravadins (often identified incorrectly as hinayana) - they all try to interpret the other system within the adjunct of their own set of assumptions and paradigms and end up finding the other not confirming to their pre-conceived set of notions. If this is the case within Buddhism, what to speak of systems outside the Buddha's teaching? There probably is a clear sense of objectivity in such activity, but not to the degree where one can make absolutist statements such as 'the realization of this path transcends that'. I have personally heard some reputed Dzogchen masters dismiss Mahamudra when one who has clearly studied both understands the fallacy of this approach. I doubt you will make an attempt to understand any of this with an intention other than to reply and prove me wrong, but I write nevertheless.

You sure believe people fast don't you? And didn't bother to check? Brahman is described as nishkala - without parts. How can there be a part of something which does not have parts? And how can something merge into its whole when there are no parts to begin with? The concept of God, personal deities etc. are all to prepare the mind to see the higher truth. And none of those who exist in such concept-realms are students of Vedanta or even ready for it. That is good and true for them but not really true at all levels. There is an eternal debate between fate and free-will. Vidhi or fate shaped by karma is fate. Efforts represent freewill. Effort determines the fate and fate determines the freewill. Both these concepts arise because of the sense of a lower 'I' and thus have limited truth. At the end of the day, there is neither. The illusory nature of a sense of agency, which is quite compatible with its madhyamika and to an extent sautrantika counterparts, is an important block of vedanta. The aim of a vedantin is not to get entangled in this debate between fate and free-will but rather to transcend it and this transcendence comes in favor of neither for reasons already stated. Mystery is a key aspect of brahman as well - much to the dislike of some Buddhists like vasubandhu, but the difference between tao and brahman is simply the degree to which an attempt is made to shed light verbally on this 'Mystery'. The path, the traveler and the goal are really one, so its the path that is all, if that is how someone would want to interpret it! Reification is an expression, not a necessity or even a shortcoming many a time.

He has been quoting quite a bit on Taoism as well! Does that not prove anything, does it? Without an assumed level of expertise, how is he writing Taoism off as an erroneous view or conclusion? Taoists on this board have the necessary time and effort to write, quote and counter his arguments on Taoism. Hinduism does not have an equal representation here nor are people well-versed here with Hindu scriptures. If there are, they probably don't have the time to sit and argue with someone who has nothing better to do. That does not mean his conclusions are correct. Do they? Please stick to what you think you know Extensive - ROFL

Hello :-)