Simple_Jack

Ahhh, ok. Anyways, that's why in reaction to the limitations of his commentary on the Sarvastivadan abhidharma: Vasubhandu composed the Mahayana abhidharma-samuccaya. You might find this thread interesting: http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=102&t=7256. It's on the different views (between Mahayana and Hinayana,) on the fallibility of Hinayana arhats (basically, arhats represent a non-afflictive ignorance.) This book was recommended from that thread, which will be released in May: http://www.amazon.com/Buddhist-Schools-Small-Vehicle/dp/0824835662/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1360110247&sr=1-2&keywords=andre+bareau.

Not with deluded cognition, but through liberating insight. Which is developed by reading/hearing, reflecting and meditating on the teachings. There was a period where the teachings were handed down orally, after Buddha's death. Are you saying that since Buddha's death, everyone up till now: Have been and are continuing to practice and expound a deluded or distorted doctrine? That it has only been revealed until now, that Buddha was actually expounding on Brahman the whole time? This is completely illogical. Ch'an is based off the Tripitaka.

So, I'm going to start with an article that explains emptiness differently, compared to how it's usually presented in Mahayana. It's very down to earth (so to speak) and practical:

For whatever reason, the Sarastivadin Abhidharma and Theravadin Abhidhamma, only expounds on pudgala-anatman. It doesn't go as far as expounding on dharma-anatman. Which is puzzling, because the Pali cannon (and the Chinese agamas) has suttas which fully expounds emptiness (Phena Sutta, Maha-Sunnata Sutta, Cula-Sunnata Sutta, Sunnata Sutta, etc.) To know more about the different schools/sub-schools, these links are okay to start out with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Buddhism & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schools_of_Buddhism

Hey, don't forget about the Chinese Agamas! Anyway's here's what I dug up from DW:

Since everything is but an illusion, perfect in being what it is, having nothing to do with good or bad, acceptance or rejection, one might as well burst out laughing! - Longchenpa

True, but most of the time the vitriol was coming from the side of those, who disagreed with what Buddhism taught.

That's true, though I find it ironic because the crap that get's posted on the Buddhist forum (Either from those who disagree with it's teachings or whatever non-sense from topics that are moved to that forum or posted in that forum.) Alwayson, why are you messing with the people in this thread?

Uhhh, ok. Also: Yay!! I ruined it for everybody!!

The post was on topic. How can this thread not possibly get "personal," when the OP's thread starts with questioning Vmarco's behavior? Let me make the Mods job easier. KC: The difference between Vmarco and Chogyam Trungpa, is whether he is or is not, still stuck within the cycle of becoming. Chogyam Trungpa is an authentically realized mahasiddha. Can we really say the same of Vmarco, based off of what he's posted on this forum? Especially the way he reacts, when the nonsense he presents as the "Buddha's teachings" are called out on? In Mahayana terms, this is how the 8-fold noble path applies to a bodhisattva on the path of meditation. From Patrul Rinpoche's "Guide to the Stages and Paths of the Bodhisattvas:"

It's from the thread on DW, talking about karmamudra (the one you linked to.) Basically, he says (not verbatim) that jhanas are a conceptual bliss and that it is conceptual because it has a subtle conceptual focus (Found another thread which discusses this http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=4547&start=0) Whoops...Sorry, I screwed it up before. Just including it for completeness.

.

If you look back at all those arguments, it was caused by people who don't like what Buddhism actually teaches (or are generally ignorant of what it teaches.) As for the second part: It's all tolerance and harmony as long you don't mention anatta, dependent origination/emptiness or don't buy into the Hindu/New Age dogma of all religions/paths "leading to the same thing! Whooo!"

From Rahula Wapola's "What the Buddha Taught:" Like the song from the "Lion King"..."The cirrrclllee offf liiiiffeee"...Is a nexus of affliction, yay!

According to how Buddha teaches karma:

Taking this from this thread http://thetaobums.co...eo/page__st__16:

I think it has to do with the fact of how difficult it is to actually realize 'emptiness.' By comparison, it is many times easier to recognize the luminosity of mind as described in Hinduism (or Kashmir Shaivism.)

I also meant on an experiential level, as Theravada can be very 'hands-on' oriented also To SereneBlue or anyone else reading this: It's best to read Hindu and Buddhist philosophical systems, separately; from the POV of their own traditions.

As I have seen Malcolm explain it (NOT VERBATIM): Madhyamaka, when properly used, is meant to end proliferations; it's use is meant to lead to non-conceptual realization [that no longer imputes phenomena as 'existent' or 'non-existent.']

.

.