stefos

Addressing your statements: I'm not a "Mahayanist"....never was. I've studied the Pali texts, some Visuddhimagga and now the Vimuttimagga. I've also received Guru yoga empowerment from CNNR along with other empowerments. Shakyamuni never said Samsara/Nibbana same coin, 2 different sides. This is why I reject this "2 truths system." The Pali texts never posit this nor did any ancient sect. Dzogchen does not posit this either. Ultimately, the Mahayana IS a Dharmic vehicle and Nirvana is it's end goal. Their is no difference between a Buddha and HIS state: Nibbana in this life, Parinibbana at death. Period. This is my understanding & the Mahayana reflects this also. "Not with deluded cognition, but through liberating insight. Which is gained when one hears/reads, reflects on and meditates on the meaning of the teachings. The basis of which are the 4 noble truths and 8-fold noble path." The Pali texts say this, Mahayana says this too. So, I have nothing more to say as I'm correct. Thanks & Good day sir, Stefos

Yes, he did because ALL Buddhist schools, not the Pali texts & not Dzogchen...perhaps Mahamudra, believe in "momentariness"....Guess what? you can't even have skhanda's or a "mind stream" without continuity or "Non-momentariness"...Hence the reason why the Alaya-Vijnana concept was thought up by later Buddhists which is nothing but Brahman without calling it so. For your information, read "The Brahma Sutras" by Swami Sivananda: Chapter 2, Section 2 Sutras18-32..... You'll see how the Vaibashika, Sautrantika, Yogachara & Madhyamika get "addressed".....and subsequently denied via their own logic. Dzogchen & Theravada never operated on the above lines....Smart.... All the above schools are later so-called Buddhists embellishments....The don't even acknowledge the Pali texts. I've yet to see a Tibetan school not down the Thera's as "Hinayana"....Why? Don't they know that they're 2 different schools? Lastly, I don't think you "believe" in anything (probably quasi-"Buddhist") but are here to just rage out and be polemic. Check yourself and your belief system. That's my last statement to you buddy...Take care....Drop the hate. No more communication from me to you at all. Stefos

Regarding Mahayana: I have always understood Mahayana to be a Dharmic vehicle and not some "divider" between Buddha & Nibbana! Mahayana never saw themselves, insofar as I know, to be a "less than Nibbana" path. How do you or anyone separate "Buddhahood" not Arahatship from Nibbana/Nirvana? One could say, in a Pali sense, Solitary Buddha and even Paranibbana but not "Buddhahood vs. Nibbana" because that streches the credulity of Mahayana. It sounds like you've culled your info. from Tibetan works which "substandardize" Mahayana, in a sense. I don't agree. That separation doesn't make sense to me....Nor is it reflective of a Dhammic vehicle sir. Regardng Dzogchen: Yes, Samantabhadra is our "nature of mind" or NIbbana. It is not monism....however: When the personality is gone & lust, craving and hatred are gone....Who/What says so? Do you see what I mean? How do "you" qualify Nibbana? This is the point I've been discussing since the beginning. The human mind wants to neatly "package" everything while everything isn't so nicely packaged in reality and according to Shakyamuni Buddha especially NOT Nibbana although the Pali texts have him qualifying it, in one sense (See my prior posts) E MA HO! indeed Stefos

The goal of Dhamma is Nibbana, Mahayana says it's Dhamma/Dharma, get over it. You are only an antagonist....I'm not here to become mean spirited and debate. Apparently this is where this discussion with you is going. Sorry but discussion with you is over. Stefos

O.K. This is the deal: If you're a Buddhist, then why don't you LIVE IT? Your responses have been agressive and childish. I don't have time for you anymore. Conversaton over clown Stefos

You are confused my friend.... Mahayana means "Great vehicle" in contradistinction to Hinayana....as many Tibetan works constantly point out, with Nibbana as its end/goal. Stefos

Don't worry...research and tell me! Stefos

No, I really don't. Shankaracharya made mincemeat out out the Madhyamika's. You should read "Self Liberation through seeing with Naked Awareness" by Guru Padmasambhava It's because they are the only ancient school left around and I use them as a de facto example, that's all. Theravada needs to clean up a lot of disjointed things (meditation practice wise & philosophically) that they hold. I respect Theravada but not the ultra-rationalism...The Buddha did talk about devas, maras, bodhisattas, etc. Stefos

Thank God & Buddha Shakyamuni..... BTW, NIce of you to post that Theravada & Hinayana ARE 2 distinct schools. Many people don't realize this from the Tibetan polemical works. Folds hands to heart.... Stefos

No, absolutely RIGHT. Mahayana is a Buddhist sect that has nibbana in view as the goal. Absolutely YESSSS..... I make statements only revolving around the historicity & authenticity of the Pali texts to Shakyamuni's actual life & teachings, not aliens. Stop philosophically trolling & post something useful or our conversation will end. Stefos

No....I respect Theravada not love it. It is the only ancient school, to my understanding, alive. I wrote what I wrote in the context of the "Tantric Theravada" article posted by Dao rain Tao....actually No, the philosophical background & framework of "Pure Land" Buddhism & Dzogchen are RADICALLY different hence the practices are ultimately different in ends. Research the matter and post. Stefos

I'll address each one by the numbers sir... 1. The vimuttimagga is NOTHING like what is being taught in the world today! If this is an early Theravada teaching manual....and what manual it is.......What DID the Buddha really teach? I'm not sure. 2. I am familiar with phowa. The point is Nibbana and not being reborn in a pure land. I'm not argueing about pure lands....I'm saying that Nibbana is not impingent upon me or you praying to Amitabha for salvation. This is a foreign soteriological teaching which has no early Buddhist "flavor" at all whatsoever. 3. The reason I vehemently go after what I do is because the earliest teachings of the Buddha are constantly & virtually only commonly known to be the Pali texts! These are from a Thera slant/bent and have their propaganda latched to them. What Shakyamuni Buddha said is important to me as all later schools say "We ALONE have the Dhamma" in effect. People can't even agree about the Pali texts which are the most ancient complete texts that we have (not necessarily the most ancient available today.) I am persuaded that the Buddha DID believe in God it wasn't recorded and it was twisted years after his death. The history of early Buddhism is unstable at best and confusing with large portions of original texts lost. That's why I persue it. Stefos

@ Alwayson, What do you think about this now? Quoting DAO rain TAO....... Quote: "Tantric Theravada? http://abhidharma.ru...ontent/0003.pdf End Quote Do you see how important historical understanding is now? You really need to research stuff man. Stefos

See what happens when someone ACTUALLY does their research? So much for Rationalistic Theravada glorification! LOL Exactly....."It died out"...........Hopefully Archeology discovers a lot more stuff like this. That is the reason why I say "Be leery of modern Buddhism, no matter how ancient unless...." No wonder the Theras use their tatoos and kasinas and now "mantras & yantras." This stuff is from Vedic sources. Nice........ The Buddha knew about Brahman alright....The Thera redactors of the Pali texts made the Buddha stupid & mute about this salient issue. Stefos

Again...Thank you! However, I understand this. The point here is Buddha and God.....The Pali texts posit devas or gods and Brahma a "God." 2 different beings. The Pali texts don't reflect the fullness of Shakyamuni Buddha's teachings. They are clearly ancient and they clearly, I believe, hold SOME of, if not a LOT of Shakyamuni's teachings but not all. The Pali texts are from the Theras and not the Sarvastivadas or any other ancient school. Untill I see something closer to the time of Shakyamuni....ALL texts & writings are subject to questioning by me considering the mess that happened to the original Sangha 150+yrs after Shakyamuni died. Finis Stefos

In Dzogchen, pure land means one thing. In the Pure Land cult of Japan, it means something else with a different framwork and foundation ALTOGETHER. Don't put Dzogchen into the same basket as the Pure Land cult. Stefos

You, me and baby Buddhist makes 3! YAY....3 people know this! Most people are unaware of this.....Given the nature of "Pop Buddhism" in the U.S. and weird cults like the "Friends of the Western Buddhist order" and "Pure Land." Dependent Origination is true...absolutely, BUT....Nibbana IS posited positively, "supposedly by the Buddha in the Pali Texts." The buck just doesn't stop at D.O.....no the goal is "The other shore" and D.O. is a part in understandng that integrally. D.O. is just part of the Buddha's teaching, a part of "the finger pointing to the moon." (Yes, I know it's from the Ch'an school) My point still stands. Stefos

That might be in some traditions but not in Dzogchen. Again, In Dzogchen the nature of the mind is luminous, clear and free...that's it...the NATURE of the mind...it's essence.... The Pure Land Cult is past a bardo experience, past the rainbow body, past any form of Buddhist school of thought in history! Sorry but I flat out reject it outright. Stefos

Restart of thread: Dzogchen NEVER had a "Pure Land-pray to Amitabha for salvation" schema. Try reading "Self Liberation through seeing with Naked Awareness" by Guru Padmasambhava or a work by Sri Singha or the 3 statements of Garab Dorje.....All Dzogchen works Do your homework and come back. Stefos

Wonderful! The fact remains that the Pali canon is 400 years after the historical Shakyamuni Buddha. The other fact remains that other ancient schools that no longer exist had their own "canons" too. Whom to believe? YOU tell me......Back it up with historical proof. That's all I ask. Stefos

Read the above post & consider your statement. Stefos

No, Pure Land Buddhism is about chanting to a Buddha to "save one's self." This is not the Pali text portrayal of Nibbana AT ALL. A Dzogchen terton being in a pure land is one thing......The Pure Land cult is quite another. Dzogchen states that the nature of the mind IS free already, one just needs to access it. Pure Land posits Amitabha as a "saving Buddha" like Christ. Dzogchen & Pure Land are diametrically opposed. Stefos P.S. Have you considered what I stated to you in my prior post about researching early Buddhist history?

The issue is that most people haven't truly researched what they accept. Period. Every form of modern "Buddhism" is questionable by me and a number are flat out cults like Pure Land which are late inventions used to brainwash people. Example of Buddhist thought in history: -Chanting to Amitabha Buddha to save you? That has got ZERO to do with the Pali texts! Versus The Vimuttimagga which speaks of mindfulness, kasinas, development of siddhis, various states of consciouness, etc. This is culled from the pre-Mahayana sects. Now, Which one sounds more similar to what the Historical Shakyamuni Buddha probably taught & heard based on solid scholarship? Riiiggghhht? Stefos

Right. One needs to establish what Shakyamuni's "Dhamma" was. Not Mahayana, Not Vajrayana, Not even Dzogchen! These are quite evident. There exists a whole body of literature from scholars "not David Loy" who question the validity of the Theravada Pali canon. They say that a lot of hagiography, embellishments, Theravada bias, etc. came together to create the Pali canon. I believe it. Personally, I can't wait until the recent bark find of ancient texts by archeologists is deciphered and published. People take one canon, Pali, and glorify it higher than the heavens, making it to be THE sole source par excellence. To encapsulate, Take an example: The Visuddhimagga.....Much of it was lifted from the Vimuttimagga......How many "Buddhists" even know this? When you read the Vimuttimagga, it mentions kasinas, development of siddhis, mindfulness, bare awareness, etc. This is much more in line with the Tibetan Vajrayana actually than any other current "Buddhist" sect. Let facts speak for themselves. Stefos

No, Buddha never denied Brahman.....He did deny Brahma only. The neuter term "Brahman" isn't found in the Pali nikayas. Please state the facts and not fantasy. You ASSUME that the Buddha's teachings yielded 500 realized disciples. Arhats? Bodhisattas?...........How do you know even IF the whole & proper corpus of what Shakyamuni taught exists still? Answer: You can't to all the above questions Humility is needed here. That's exactly right! The Buddha didn't teach a gradual method, his later followers created a gradual method. BTW, neither does Advaita Vedanta. Hmmmm???? I wonder if there is ANY similarity at all. There is. Read this book: The origins of buddhist meditation by Alexander Wynne Come back and repost. Stefos