Simple_Jack

.

Check out these threads: http://thetaobums.com/topic/33010-nondual-in-buddhadharma/?p=507136 http://thetaobums.com/topic/33009-salt/?p=507102 http://thetaobums.com/topic/33574-substance-dualism-in-buddhadharma/?p=519642 Read Rongzom: http://vajracakra.com/viewtopic.php?p=13827#p13827 Rongzom treats the issue as follows in his Theg chen tshul 'jug: Now then, in the sravaka system phenomena have no nature of self, and because is also asserted there is no identity existing in any phenomena, all phenomena are established to be empty and without self. Nevertheless since [all phenomena] are asserted as the nature of subject and object, the category “natureless” is not understood. Since in the yogacāra system the nature of subject and object are not asserted, the natureless is established; since at that time there is no difference between naturelessness and emptiness and selflesness. Nevetheless, since they assert the dependent, arising from cause and conditions, the category of “established as non-arising” is not understood. Since in the madhyamaka system the ultimate is understood as free from proliferation, non-arising is established. At that time there is no difference between non-arising, naturelessness, [67/b] emptiness and selflessness. Nevertheless, since they assert a true relative truth [Candrakirti established two kinds of relative truth as well], the category of “established as homogenous” is not understood. Since in the system of secret mantra asserts the two truths to be inseparable, homogeneity is established.At that time there is no difference between homogeneity, non-arising, naturelessness, emptiness and selflessness. Nevertheless, due to anxiety about not being able to practice uniform behavior and not being able to remove that anxiety quickly, for that purpose they undertake ascetic hardships. Therefore, the category “all phenomena are established to be non-dual” is not understood. Because the system of dzogchen understands four things for all phenomena— understanding what is to be abandoned; understanding what is to be taken up; understanding what can be left in equanimity; and understanding what can never be actualized, it establishes all phenomena as non-dual. At that time there is no difference between non-duality, homogeneity, non-arising, naturelessness, emptiness and selflessness. Since that is so, because this establishment of all phenomena as non-dual is the heart of all intimate instructions, therefore, [dzogchen] is “the heart of all intimate instructions”. http://www.amazon.com/Establishing-Appearances-Divine-Reasoning-Madhyamaka/dp/1559392886

.

.

.

This is also pertinent to the discussion: http://thetaobums.com/topic/33466-innate-purity-of-phenomena/?p=518225 Indeed, from the perspective of Madhyamaka a thing and its nature are identical. This is not so for those in lower schools. To elaborate, conditions are merely an appearance. The notion of conditioned and unconditioned arises out of the substantialist roots of the substantialist tenet systems. By showing that the essence of phenomena is unconditioned, you are essentially showing that phenomena are in truth unconditioned. This is why the Prajñāpāramita makes statements like: Any teaching by the Bhagavan that matter lacks inherent existence, does not arise, does not cease, is peace from the beginning and is parinirvana by nature, all such teachings are not the indirect meaning, nor the intentional meaning, but must be understood literally. (Ārya-pañcaśatikā-prajñāpāramitā) ~ Loppon Namdrol

Unless you're writing a college paper choose whichever one resonates most with you. It's ultimately up to you what to make of this, but this link is one place on the net which makes those comparisons, albeit from the perspective of "direct experience", though that is only if you choose to put any stock in the words of random persons on the internet: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/. The only way to really satisfy your curiosity is by going through the experiential process yourself, and with that I leave you with some advice worth remembering: "Trust your experience, but keep refining your view" -- via Rob Burbea

It is not so black and white in Dharmic tradtions, and specifically in reference to Buddhism, terms such as "awakening" or "enlightenment" have become so arbitrary, they lack any significant meaning. There are nuances which these catch-all terms erase in respect to progression on the path and stages of insight.

How does one determine for oneself whether they might be an alcoholic? Beyond the social aspects of being labeled an "alcoholic", how can this prove inadvertently inadequate in a real sense?

I think a better question would be how one determines they're an "eternalist", because I can't determine that for anyone.

Because I get off on trolling the eternalists on the TTB's.

I asked steve earlier in the thread, how else neoadvaita was going to be undermined on the TTB's, thank you for the encouragement.

Topic-split: http://thetaobums.com/topic/35347-enlightenment/

Seriously, I could give a rats ass about that stuff, I'm only concerned with how Buddhism, as a vehicle in its own right, is understood.

Please continue to contradict yourself with your precious Tony Parsons & neoadvaitan cohorts.

Dude, this bullshit reminds me of your posts from yesteryear, that's not even an insult per se, it's actually a form of flattery. Your posts were an inspiration for my post here: http://thetaobums.com/topic/32820-debunking-a-creator/?p=503998. What do you think?

This sub-forum is a flame war in the making, when the conditions are ripe, add more flames to the fire! Together we could transmute this sub-forum from a stinking pile of shit into gold...comedic gold that is! Realists (Buddhist definition) dislike Prajnaparamita. Comparing your sentiment, with that of the majority on the TTB's, and it doesn't seem all that crazy when Nagarjuna describes neck hair standing on end, or the welling of tears of those who are "suitable vessels", when encountering Prajnaparamita (although lack of these signs doesn't exclude an individual with the requisite merit to encounter Prajnaparamita).

Gatito's the prototypical neoadvaitan telling everyone they "don't get it", while correcting the understanding of an entire lineage. He's represented by the brown bear in this video:

You know what's funny? This is playing out exactly like when Vajrarhidaya was still posting on here...except dwai was fulfilling the role of supreme Vedantin when he was telling the Buddhists they "don't get it".

Like it said in the post on the previous page, what Dzogchen is dismissing are the two truths: http://thetaobums.com/topic/33466-innate-purity-of-phenomena/?p=522861 ...Dzogchen rejects the two truths, because relative "truth" is not true, being a deluded cognition. But Dzogchen does not reject appearances which appear to ignorance (ma rig pa). Dzogchen substitutes vidyā and āvidyā (rig pa and ma rig pa) for the term "pāramārtha satya" and "samvṛitti satya". Also one will discover that Dzogchen, in rejecting the two truths, also rejects ultimate truth, as it states in The Mind Mirror of Samantabhadra: Since there is no ultimate, also the name “relative” does not exist. And as it says in Soaring Great Garuda: Since phenomena and nonphenomena have always been merged and are inseparable,there is no further need to explain an “ultimate phenomenon”. So not only is the relative negated in Dzogchen, so is any concept of ultimate. ~ Loppon Malcolm As you can see from these posts in standard Mahayana an "ultimate truth" is unestablished: http://thetaobums.com/topic/33466-innate-purity-of-phenomena/?p=519163 "Nirvāṇa is an illusion. Even if there is anything greater than Nirvāṇa, that too will be only an illusion." ~ Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñapāramitā Sutra http://thetaobums.com/topic/33466-innate-purity-of-phenomena/?p=531522 "Good son, the term 'unconditioned' is also a word provisionally invented by the First Teacher. Now, if the First Teacher provisionally invented this word, then it is a verbal expression apprehended by imagination. And, if it is a verbal expression apprehended by imagination, then, in the final analysis, such an imagined description does not validate a real thing. Therefore, the unconditioned does not exist." (Samdhinirmocana Sutra, ch 2, p 12) It's not surprising you would find sources claiming that, but if you've seen the thread "Substance Dualism" on the previous page, epistemologically speaking, Dzogchen rejects the dichotomy of mind and matter latent in Buddhism: http://thetaobums.com/topic/33574-substance-dualism-in-buddhadharma/?p=519642 While there are of course Dzogchen texts that describe mind and body as separate, in general, the innermost secret cycle holds that the perception that there is a difference between the animate and inanimate is a mistaken one. In the state of ultimate liberation [i.e. samyaksambuddhahood], the distinction between animate and inanimate disappears because it is not true. Further, like other Vajrayāna traditions, Dzogchen provides a physical account for the process of rebirth for example in the Vajramala Tantra: it is proposed that the alayavijñāna, which is inseparable with the mahāprāṇavāyu, is responsible for transmigration; for the appropriation of a new series of aggregates. But Dzogchen goes a step further and explicitly identifies consciousness as the operation of a vāyu in the body. Vāyus of course are the function of the refined element of air inside the human body. http://thetaobums.com/topic/33574-substance-dualism-in-buddhadharma/?p=523639 Prior to analyzing phenomena as mind-only, mind and matter are conventionally regarded as a dualism even in Yogacara. Why, because the imputed nature is exactly the conventional world. Also in standard Madhyamaka, on the conventional level mind and matter are regarded as distinct. While the annutarayoga tantras move in the direction of dissolving the distinction between mind and matter, the substance dualism in Buddhism is only satisfactorily resolved in Dzogchen (but not by regarding all phenomena as mind-- which is a point of view rejected by Longchenpa incoherent). In Dzogchen, mind and matter are regarded as seamlessly welded, not that mind has primacy over matter. Dzogchen texts even go so far as to reject the formless realm as truly formless. This is why for example the Khandro Nyinthig states very clearly "Sometimes we say "citta", sometimes "vāyu", but the meaning is the same."Vāyu is just the element of air i.e. motility present in matter. This also accounts for rebirth. In the Guhyasamaja, for example, the ālayavijñāna is wedded to the mahāprāṇavāyu -- this union allows rebirth to happen. ~ Loppon Namdrol Once you've become more familiar with Advaita and Kashmir Shaivism, it's possible you'll start to see how this addresses your questions, especially the posts I linked in the previous page (although one of the threads do mention Trika in passing).

Says the guy who deferred to Hegel's dialectic of Being.

Same with nonviolent communication....the irony is not lost on me.

Nuff said.

Ralis's trump card: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime

At least you spared us from your e-prime. Remember when that was your trump card?