Simple_Jack

All of these posit some sort of ontological reality. Which is why I asked how you defined relative and by what terms.

Not in monotheistic terms. Think of it in terms of Saguna Brahman.

But it does have enduring traditions spanning back to times of antiquity; enduring yogic traditions which are not solely quantified on the 5 senses.

Relative how or in what way? According to who's paradigm: East or West?

Blind belief is not a factor in accepting the tenet systems of Dharmic religions.

What if an absolute answer is irrelevant?

Sure not in the realm of epistemology and teleology.

I'm just saying, I personally wouldn't put them in the category of monotheism. It's your prerogative to disagree with me.

This can be approached differently depending on the context of the tradition. Either way, all of this is irrelevant to understanding how affliction arises. Thanks for that.

It can't be categorized strictly as monotheism, since the devotion to Vishnu for example is synonymous with Brahman; making it closer to monism.

Adding a fourth with Kathenotheism. Categorizations of Dharmic religions aren't as black and white as Abrahamic religions. P.S. Samkyha is for the most part an atheistic dualist school.

I would not categorize these beliefs as monotheism, but closer to one of these three: 1. Monism 2. Henotheism 3. Monolatrism

Yes, I agree that this is a douche statement: "Meaning you don't have to have all the religious trappings to believe in a Creator. Is that plain enough for you."

The Vedas are considered by Hindus as shruti i.e. eternal and uncreated; considered as of 'divine origin'.

This may not be necessary considering that a creator god is not a determining factor for Samkhya, Jainism, Mimamsa, Vaishnavism, etc. I would also put forth the idea that monotheism didn't enter the cultural sphere of Chinese thought until Zoroastrianism, Nestorian Christianity and Islam were introduced into China through the Silk Road.

This must be a misnomer because Neo-Advaita is devoid of any path to follow.

Not according to the Gelugpas.

Because they are conventional designations which can be used to understand ultimate truth.

Because it still assumes an identity.

These translations of a couple talks given the 3rd Jamgon Kongtrul Rinpoche and Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche (of the Kagyu sect) are pretty good. They cover the three roots and and pure perception of the deity: http://www.rinpoche.com/teachings/3roots.htm http://www.rinpoche.com/teachings/mandala.htm http://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-masters/khenpo-shenga/advice-on-yidam - something else worth sharing; this is not a form of Buddhist monism.

Now apply what I posted above to Cit itself, not citta.

No, my viewpoint isn't petty like that. You advised people to examine their experiences instead of blindly following belief systems as spoken by the Buddha. Shakyamuni Buddha taught that consciousnesses arise dependent on namarupa and by applying mindfulness we can notice these factors of experience are impermanent, unsatisfactory, not-self.

They're different paths because they are predicated off of different views; the latter of which is dependent origination.

Yup, most of us won't be able to achieve the body of light while still living...if we can even manage to achieve it during the dying process.

You mean like this? http://thetaobums.com/topic/32311-the-importance-of-bodhichitta-and-compassion/?p=496946 Lotus_Bitch wrote: Go tell an Advaitan that cit is conditioned by certain factors of mentality (nama) and materiality (rupa), dependent on contact to give rise to the 6 sense media and to practice by being mindful of the arising and passing of each. You will either get a confused look, be laughed at or both.