Sunya

it's not off-topic, I just don't think anyone here is qualified to help you.

what are you talking about?

Brahman is: static, same. single, self, pure being? correct? this is the position of Advaita on the Absolute truth?

you're posting on a Taoist forum about a Buddhist meditation practice. I suggest you post here http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/ there is a Meditation subforum where many advanced practitioners frequent, i have complete faith in their ability to help you

why don't you just fuck her and stop fighting your feelings maybe there is a connection between this and your prostate issues? could be wrong, but I think you are blocking some tubes or something. masturbating isn't that bad for you at your age, not like every day.. but couple times a week won't hurt. and you have a girlfriend so get in that! explore that sexuality

it is this "I am" that Buddhism has a problem with, the identity of the subject with the totality, when both are completely empty so no identity could exist. this identity, according to Buddhism, causes problems in realization because it is a subtle grasping for self, an inability to freefall into the groundless realization of emptiness. and this duality between non-phenomenon and phenomenon is a subtle duality that Buddhism also has a problem with. I don't think you understand what emptiness is all about.. your logic doesn't make sense to me. how do you go from "if phenomena are empty" to "the buddhist ultimate reality is also a phenomenon" ? phenomena are inter-dependent and empty of inherent existence. emptiness is a teaching about phenomena not inherently existing, the Buddhist ultimate reality isn't really talked about, though the closest you will get is in Vajrayana with the 3 Kayas, but this is complicated stuff and i'm not ready to talk about it. you are looking at emptiness as self-existing instead of a pointing towards non-conceptual realization. About Dzogchen, there is no identification. stop using that word, because that is the main difference between any form of Buddhism and Hinduism. there is NO identification in Buddhism because there is no Self at all to identify in the first place. I think you mean Sogyal Rinpoche, and if he clearly expresses this can you quote it?

As far as I know, emptiness is not a phenomenon, nor is it a ground. it's a realization and it is ground-less. you wanted a discussion about the differences between the two traditions. i think me and xabir have provided some discussion and have quoted accordingly, in response you've only said "oh advaita has that too", yet providing no direct evidence. I don't think it's very fair to go tell us to read certain books, pointing away from the discussion, instead of directly addressing the topic and providing quotes or paraphrasing I never said anything derogatory about Hindus, if you are referring to me. I've lived in India and traveled to Varanasi; I have a deep respect for Hinduism. the ad-hominum stuff was solely in Silicon's corner, who's taking things way too personally here; referring to people as children and getting all wack in a philosophical debate only makes your position look bad. so, given Silicon's temper I think he should sit this one out. let's get back on topic here. a historical debate is going in the wrong direction imo, so is getting personal and missing the topic's point. dwai, you said Nirguna Brahman is the same as Buddhist emptiness. can you tell us what Nirguna Brahman is and how it's the same? This is interesting, talks about the difference between Madyamika emptiness and Dzogchen emptiness http://books.google.com/books?id=ZWWEqmgaC...snum=3#PPA60,M1 I would quote, but you can't copy and paste from google books I think that the take of Dzogchen more relates to the Advaita approach, because Dzogchen is much more subjective in its method, while Madyamika emptiness is more objective. Dzogchen "sees all phenomena as empty not because they are unfindable but because they are one in essence with mindnature" the nature of mind is empty, and all phenomena is empty. so mind and phenomena are one in essence.. but this does not mean that Dzogchen espouses 'oneness', it is not pantheistic or monistic, but rather phenomena and mind are of one taste. raw awareness sees everything as empty, one taste, and subject and object duality is not present.. but the mind stream still remains single. even after Buddhahood the mindstream is independent. there is no 'merging' with the All as in Advaita [correct me if I'm wrong, this is the goal isn't it?] So i'd like to point the discussion in the direction of discussion of Mind [and relation to Atman] and Fruit. i'll post about this later, I have to run.

Buddhist view is a view without concepts, a method to disentangle one from limiting beliefs. if an Advaitan cannot question his beliefs then he isn't a true seeker of truth. every Tibetan source translates it as this in this context. and the Tibetans were pretty meticulous at translating Sanskrit into tibetan, i don't really care, you're just arguing for the sake of argument now and i'm about done with this thread. everything that 'we' have said has been carefully explained to avoid confusion, if you care to prove a point its your job then to explain it clearly. this is tiresome. take care

yeah.. i'm still pretty ticked they decided to close that down! but there are some existing threads still from the past about this > Shankara Defeats Buddhism?, did he really drive then out of india? http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=87105 > Advaita Vedanta And Buddhism http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=86717 > Buddhist Advaita, Oneness of emptiness http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=21186 > Question About "the Supreme Source", The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=2247 Chill. "This pansentient totality is the great continuum, the "great perfection" or "total completion" (Tibetan: rdzog pa chen po) of Dzogchen and Ati Yoga (Tibetan: shin tu rnal 'byor where "shin tu" holds the semantic field "total", "complete", "absolute" and "rnal 'byor" holds the semantic field of "yoga"; Sanskrit: "Ati" holds the semantic field "primordial", "original", "first"; "yoga" holds the semantic field "communion", "union")." Bliss is a side-effect, not the goal, and not the means to test. Being happy certainly doesn't make him enlightened. rather it is realization of emptiness and I have no doubt that the Dalai Lama has this realization since he is a Dzogchen master and is qualified to give transmission, introduction to the true nature of mind. Only one who has realization of emptiness can do this. you quoted a bunch of Sanskrit terms, a language i'm unfamiliar with. can you talk about these specific instances and concepts in your own words to describe them?

so you're saying that the Mundaka Upanishad contains the teachings of emptiness, dependent origination and 2 truths? could you cite examples?

Nice credentials. i've lived in India too, for a short amount of time. and have a deep respect for Hinduism. I think it's pretty self-evident how Advaita differs from orthodox Hinduism. does this really need explanation? "Regarding orthodox Hinduism, Shankara believed that early Vedantins, such as Ramanuja and Madva, failed to grasp the real nature and meaning of the philosophy of the Vedanta as taught in the Upanishads. According to Shankara, pre-Shankara Vedanta was theistic and realist. It conceived of Brahman as unity-in-diversity, with internal individual distinctions being admitted. In mukti (liberation), the jiva (individual soul) retains its individuality. These views were not palatable to Shankara, and in contrast he taught the doctrine of non-dualism (Advaita). According to Shankara, in the state of mukti, an individual is absorbed in the Brahman. By embarking in this direction, Shankara created a new form of Indian philosophy quite different from his predecessors." http://etd.gsu.edu/theses/available/etd-11...o_200612_ma.pdf was pre-Advaita Hinduism truly non-dual or not?

welcome i've done this as well.. days of pacing around thinking about all this.. nights of waking up only to realize i've been thinking about this in my sleep... i've been there. Buddhism does have karma as well, but there is no sense of 'evolution' that is found in Hinduism, going from ignorant to wise to know your Self as All. I mentioned this earlier in this thread... I think this is based on the concept of Grace, which doesn't exist in Buddhism. karma exists, but there's no purpose. karma is just based on your past actions. I still really like the evolutionary model actually, and want to look into this further, how it fits into Buddhism. I'll post about this on E-Sangha, but my current understanding is that this is not compatible, as there is no 'meant to be', this is fatalistic, deterministic, and since there is no God in Buddhism, its incompatible. I don't know. in my opinion, any belief or concept that you can have about the Ultimate Reality will pale in comparison to the Actuality of It. I think this is why Buddhism stresses not having any concepts and getting caught up in the traps of Eternalism, Nihilism, or other limiting views. in Vajrayana there are even methods to get people unstuck from the concept of Emptiness. even Emptiness can go wrong as a method because people have a natural tendency to get stuck in ideas. All of Buddhism is just method. I think its good to just totally embrace that you don't know, that you have no idea, and maybe something will arise from that Related to what i said earlier... I wouldn't say BUddhism says theres NO ultimate reality.. it just doesn't posit any position or ideas or concepts about it for you to get stuck in. If you're excited that's a very good thing.. there is a connection. Dzogchen is very exciting, I love it. the book Crystal Way by Namkhai Norbu is excellent.. Dzogchen and Kashmir Shivaism share similar historical sources I believe.. and Namdrol (a pretty knowledgable fellow on E-Sangha) has said that Kashmir Shivaism leads to very high realization, and shares similarities with Dzogchen, but the latter has unbroken lineage and preserved method. So right now, today, its a more preserved tradition. the view is also a little different...so... In my opinion, you have to choose. they have different views and view is very important (i dislike sounding like a broken record, but its true).

you're going against your tradition here! I thought he was an incarnation of Vishnu or Krishna or something

Buddha was concerned with truth, first and foremost. He had many teachers and learned many methods. His teachers even asked him to take over because he got to a very high realization, but he knew this wasn't enough. Instead of reaching a goal given to him by scripture he, always being critical, knew he had to go further. So even if he had Hindu teachers that doesn't mean he was at the same level as them, or that he simply combined prevailing ideas at the time.. his realization had nothing to do with combining ideas, it had to do with letting go of ideas. He let go of Brahman. Yes i'm like a child, good argument.

No, I was referring to Buddha being influenced by Vedas, since some of the Upanishads were around during the same time (the early ones), and some came after Buddha. but that doesn't mean they directly influenced him. As for Samkhya, it is a dualistic philosophy of emanationism, not similar to emptiness. it is more akin to Taoism. maybe Buddha was influenced by Upanishads, and used different teachings, language, and method to get to the same goal, but I think that if Buddha read the Upanishads, achieved moksha, and thought that these methods and philosophies were ok.. he would not have started a new religion. Buddha was concerned with truth, first and foremost. He had many teachers and learned many methods. His teachers even asked him to take over because he got to a very high realization, but he knew this wasn't enough. Instead of reaching a goal given to him by scripture he, always being critical, knew he had to go further. So even if he had Hindu teachers that doesn't mean he was stuck at the same level as them, or that he simply combined prevailing ideas at the time.. his realization had nothing to do with combining ideas, it had to do with letting go of ideas. He let go of Brahman.

This is in reference to Buddha being influenced by the Vedas. I think its very dangerous to jump to conclusions and assume that since two systems have similiar ideas than one borrowed it from another, even if these system derived from the same region. In the history of philosophy, especially in science, we see that there are many instances when two (or more) scholars came to the conclusion of very similar theories, independently of each other. Of course, one of them will always be slightly earlier than another. Only later, often several years, do they find out that someone else came to exactly the same conclusions. If karma and rebirth are actual facts, and this is what Buddhism and many other Indian systems are saying, then it is quite possible that these facts can be independently realized. Therefore, just because one person comes to discover this fact and then some time later another person also discovers this fact, does not mean that the latter "adopted" the idea from the former. I think that such a conclusion is a fallacy. Unless of course, scholars work on the a priori assumption that things such as karma and rebirth are in fact false, and not independently verifiable. But such an assumption would simply be another methodological error. But.. it is very possible that Buddha used the prevailing ideas already in Indian culture as a backdrop for his teachings on emptiness, which are not found anywhere before him.

You are challenging anyone how? you didn't respond to anything Xabir said. It really doesn't matter. this sort of historical argument is useless. here are some facts: there is no thing close to dependent origination or emptiness, sunyata, or the 2 truths teaching in the Upanishads or any of the Vedas in fact. If these elements are in Vedanta then there is obviously Buddhist influence.. Buddha was not a Hindu, he completely rejected the Vedas and discarded any notion of a permanent essence-like Brahman. but his line of thinking was Indian, and having rejected the Vedas he was still influenced by them too: such as the notion of liberation. these are all facts, anything else is theory.

I know this is a Taoist forum, so in continuation of my previous post about emotions I found something in Tao Te Ching verse 58 Happiness is rooted in misery Misery lurks beneath happiness Who knows what the future holds?

yes Sankara did borrow heavily from Nagarjuna but Advaita is still monistic, while Buddhism is the middle way between monism and nihilism dependent origination isn't just saying phenomena are interdependent, but that phenomena are empty. nothing to hold onto, nothing real, no Brahman. "...it requires more than just confusion in order to turn Vedanta into something compatible with Mahayana Buddhism. Given the formulation of the Vedantic view, Brahman has to exist. It simply would make no sense if it was empty (in the Buddhist sense)," I think the main philosophical points have been discussed, and now it's time for us to find out what's true and what's not true. I plan on finding out if what the Buddha said was true. You find out if what Sankara taught was true and once we reach the pinnacle of our respective traditions, we meet and see if we have the same realization or not.

generally it seems that people who want all religions to be the same, haven't fully studied all religions, especially Buddhism. This is a big New Age habit, as people tend to sleep better at night knowing that 'it's all the same'. This is a bad habit of Hindus too where the tradition is to view all as paths up the mountain; unfortunately most Hindus never fully digest Buddhism because they look at it through a Hindu view (Ken Wilber for example). those that do digest Buddhism tend to stick to it, realizing the inherent differences between religions. I have a feeling this whole New Age 'let's bunch all religions into one' came from Hindu influence, since they love to attribute everything to Hinduism. such as Buddha being an incarnation of Vishnu or Krishna and merely reforming the Vedas. and of course, Jesus going to India to learn Yoga. Does it really make sense that all religions lead to the same goal? Are all people of the same caliber and understanding? Doesn't it make more sense that there are varying degrees of experience, not just one, and that not all religions reach the highest summit? This isn't directed towards Advaita, but just in general to all practitioners: Let's stop fantasizing for a second and get real. There is a presupposition that is tarnishing the view of most Hindus and New Agers and that is: we are all "evolving" on a path to realize Oneness, we will get there eventually: so view isn't important. Grace will bring you there, all you have to do is give up, surrender, and get on the ride. Take the elevator all the way up. All you need is Shaktipat or whatever, and that's it. I used to think this as well, but I don't think it's that easy. I don't think this is true at all. There is no God that will 'bring you up'. We need to get real here, we need to get serious. What if there is no Higher Self or God? what if this belief is a mind creation, furthering your dualistic tendencies and furthering suffering? I think it's time to take our enlightenment more seriously, and to stop fantasizing.

two very essential points that need stressing to understand the difference 1 - The main teaching of the Buddha was that View is very important, in fact View is the most important aspect of understanding truth. With the 'Right View' you are free to do whatever method to realize truth. Having Right View is like putting your car in the right direction, and any method you do will be pushing the gas pedal. This is why Tantra utilizes profound methods such as alcohol and sex. Not everyone can do this, because there are many karmic propensities (bad habits) to sink into wrong view, so Tibetans have many preliminaries to get your view right. For someone utilizing these methods with the wrong view is driving your car off a cliff, because you're still holding onto some form of Self, transcendent or not. Tantric method or not, View is essential. So its very important if you want to understand Buddhism to see that View is everything. 2- So, since View dictates your experience (if you believe in a transcendent Self, or some real existing substance behind phenomenon you will experience that and stop there, not moving beyond your pre conceived beliefs.. because your beliefs, your conceptions, your View dictates your experiences) it is then important to look at Dependent Origination, Emptiness, Anatta, and how this relates. Xabir quoted earlier an article about Dependent origination and No-View. Essentially they are the same, because Dependent origination, and futhermore Nagarjuna's Madhyamika, is a view meant to completely tear down any fabricated erroneous beliefs, because as stated earlier according to Buddhism : View dictates experience. Since Buddhism is concerned with experiencing completely unblemished Truth, and since dualistic concepts and beliefs will tarnish the experience of Truth, it is therefore essential to have No-View, or Right View of Emptiness. Advaita does not contain teachings on Dependent Origination or Emptiness because Advaita presupposes that Brahman exists. This is an idea, this is a concept, this is a belief. So, according to Buddhism, Advaita has wrong view because of the limiting beliefs inherent to its system and philosophy.

WOW I a bit speechless after watching this movie. I was browsing through IMDB and this strange gem came up. I saw surrealist and mystical religious symbolism and was hooked. It's about a man who sort of is like Christ, walking around a world that is a bit nutty. With his rebellious nature, and a bit of a dark side, he's drawn to some abstract goal that isn't really apparent yet. Climbing a tower, he meets his Guide, his Master, his Guru. who , through alchemy, transforms this man into a more purified being. then he introduces him to 8 powerful people and their mission is to go to a mountain to become immortal by killing the 9 immortals living there. but it doesn't end there. that is only the beginning very influenced by Mysticism,..western and eastern. its very surrealism and makes you think about things. for a mystical geek like me it was just very fascinating for those who know how to use bitorrent its findable. or just buy it, for those who have seen it....whatd you think?