stefos

I seriously doubt you have any historical knowledge about Buddhism or Shakyamuni then. If you don't care OR know what Shakyamuni actually taught, how can you even begin to make statements about so-called "Buddhism" or "Buddhist thought?" Go back to the Pali suttas and start there and look into the Vinaya my friend. If I don't see that you quote historical sources and the Pali suttas, our discussion is over unfortuneatlly. I have no desire to debate but only to discuss....and this discussion could become a debate REAL soon. Shakyamuni ABSOLUTELY taught what Dzogchen teaches! Dzogchen is a word from Oddiyana....not Sanskrit. Where is the Dzogchen found in the suttas? All throughout the suttas especially in Udana..."uncreated, unborn, undying, unbecoming" That covers the rest of the qualities of Rigpa, right? THIS is the nature of the mind...Notice NOT "the mind" as the Buddha didn't worship the Chitta or Manas or Vijnana. For example of how people twisted the Buddha's teachings: Anapanasati....People think this means "I watch the breath and therefore the breath becomes the locus" Wrong! It's not the breath but awareness that is the focal point......Big difference! Go to the Theras and tell them this....You'll be asked to leave the Wat or what have you. Stefos

O.K.....what DO you consider Dzogchen to be? Dzogchen avoided the visualization of Vajrayana and the mental juxtaposiitoning of "Self vs. Other" of Mahayana thought. It can be said to be a pure form of Sutric teaching....much better than Mahayana & Vajrayana combined although the Mahayana & Vajrayana DO have important points. The "points" made by Vajrayana & Mahayana however are found in the Pali Suttas already. I consider Dzogchen to be THE superior mode of teaching due to effort being applied with "naked awareness" rather than with complex visualizations aka Vajrayana style which involves using time to gain leverage. It takes time to "make" a visualization and then transfer your being "into" that being...kind of silly. Why not examine yourself instead? Why do I need to be the 1000 armed Avalokiteshvara? I don't. It takes no "time" to be nakedly aware hence Dzogchen IS the highest vehicle and is probably what Shakyamuni taught when I read the Suttas in Pali. Your Vajrayana bias is now fully shown....Where did you learn that statement you made? In a Gelugpa school? hmmmmm....Shakyamuni didn't teach "Hinayana" and Theravada isn't Hinayana either. Hinayana is a dead school that was related to the teachings of the Theras but different as the pudgalavadins were. Shakyamuni taught the right path which dealt with "bare attention" or as we say in Dzogchen "naked awareness", it's his disciples and their disciples disciples that bastardized the whole thing! Read how the early schisms occurred in the History of Buddhism: In particular the 3rd & 4th.....and then see which brand of "Buddhism" Ashoka bolstered and then see what happened during the "24 schools period." Do yourself a favor: Do the research, Post a synopsis afterwards Stefos

How do you know that Madhyamaka WAS the Buddha's original teaching? You do not know therefore in saying that the Mahasiddhas taught from Madhyamaka is correct. 2 different things: Shakyamuni Buddha's teaching & Later Madhyamaka....the 2 are NOT the same. Take Dzogchen for example: Dzogchen is not based on Madhyamaka! Stefos

My point of contention is "What did Shakyamuni actually teach?" The Mahasiddhas were saying "We ARE teaching Dharma in particular the Tillakkhana or "3 marks"" Did they teach Shakyamuni's Buddhadharma? I don't know. Stefos

Look, Nirvana is the goal. What do you mean by stating "Buddhahood?" The Buddha spoke of Shunya or emptiness not nothingness and most definitely not about annihilation. THIS was the "state" of the Buddha = empty not nothing You aren't making sense alwayson..... Stefos

Oh there was a reason for the Buddha to teach. The problem is that after he died since things weren't tightly recorded, nonsense came in which led to the questioning of actual Buddhadharma and then the subsequent screwup called "the 24 schools period" and then the pushing of particular "Buddhist" sects over others by Ashoka, etc. etc. Read all about the syncretism in "Buddhist history"......... Shakyamuni Buddha taught with 1 aim, not 12 different aims, with 1 corpus or body of teachings. His teachings became corrupted and the current Theravada state that they have the "original teachings" which is untrue. Mahayana is Mahayana.....Vajrayana is Vajrayana........Mahamudra is Mahamudra.....Dzogchen is Dzogchen If they lead to ACTUAL Nibbana/Nirvana, awesome....If not, toss them into the trash. The salient issue is: what IS "actual" Nibbana/Nirvana? Who defines it? Is it fixed or dynamic? Stefos

O.K. Here's the bottom line: The Buddha posited the ONLY reality: a metaphysical one called Nibbana/Nirvana. Everything else really HAS been demolished by his teaching, per se. You have to look at the Udana when the Buddha defines Nibbana/Nirvana as "the unborn, undying, uncreated, unbecoming, etc." I haven't heard you define Nibbana at all, please start qualifying Nibbana. You can argue against the teachings of Brahman = Atman You can argue for Nibbana = Anatman But you better darn well make sure that you KNOW what the Buddha actually taught. THAT, my friend, you don't know. Furthermore I don't care about Rahula, period. Regarding this statement: "Haha, not surprising you would quote someone like David Loy in order to support your position. Quoting him is like quoting the abomination that is 'Dark Zen' or that Zen/Neo-Advaitan crossover Adyashanti....No credibility whatsoever when it comes to Buddhism." It's obvious to me that you are a die hard modern "Buddhist" and have not heard 1 word of what I've shared with you over & over again. The scholarship exists which discusses pre-Buddhist Brahman & atman and the history of these 2 words. How do YOU know what the Buddha taught against when he said "anatman?" Do you? No because you weren't physically present to hear his exact words about exactly what he meant about what atman meant to him. David Loy however IS right on this issue as he differentiates between the teachings of the Theras, which is a disjointed hodgepodge of meditation techniques, Abhidharma and other things versus what Shakyamuni Buddha actually stated. Theravada is NOT Shakyamuni Buddha's original message, neither is Mahayana or Vajrayana. Only Dzogchen says "Nibbana is the nature of the mind which is nondual and luminous and non created." And this is exactly what Advaita vedanta today now states.....period. No difference. There you go! Stefos

@SimpleJack, Here you go....Quoting David Loy (http://www.scribd.com/doc/116964830/Loy-David-Are-Nirvana-and-Moksha-the-Same) "In the Brahmanimantanika Sutra (Majjhima-Nikaya), the Buddha says: Do not think that this [nirvana] is an empty or void state. There is this consciousness, without distinguishing mark, infinite and shining everywhere (Vinnanam anidassanam anantam sabbato-pabham); itis untouched by the material elements and not subject to any power. The passage reappears in the Kevaddha Sutra (Digha Nikaya I. 213) with the addition: "Here it is that conditioned consciousness ceases to be." This distinction between conditioned consciousness and an infinite consciousness, shining everywhere, is inconsistent with the usual Theravada view that all consciousness is the result of conditions and does not arise without those conditions; but it accords very well with the Vedantic position, as we shall see. Elsewhere in the same Brahmanimantanika Sutra the Buddha criticized the idea of an omnipotent Brahma (God), but he never said anythingabout the impersonal Brahman of Advaita" There you go! Stefos P.S. I don't interpret things willy nilly!

Well, please do your research and post what you find then....easy. If what I say is wrong, then correct me because I want to be right when I make statements. Stefos

Regarding Dzogchen: Thanks for your concern. I actually have a lot of books by Guru Norbu. I refrain from speaking because the teachings are meant for those initiated not open discussion here. Of course, general things can be spoken of. I just prefer not to go into huge debates....it's called burnout. Regarding Nibbana: "Quote:" — Ud 8.1 "There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned." The Pali suttas DO contain a metaphysical framework. This is obvious, as you know. The pinnacle of this framework is Nibbana/Nirvana. The Buddha said that Nibbana is where "conditioned consciousness ceased to be/is non-existent." (This is found in the Suttas, unfortuneately I don't remember where but it is there if you search.) So, Brahman as taught by Sri Ramana Maharshi & Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj is the same as what the Buddha states, supposedly, here. That's all I'm ultimately saying. Stefos

Oh well!!!! The 10-12 used in the Prasthanathraya by Sankara are pre-Buddha. It's very easy to conflate every idea about Brahman to a "Buddhist influence." Not that I'm saying you are saying this. Stefos There IS a difference between PRE & POST Buddha Upanishads....just don't confuse the two to make things "easy." There was a great schism within the Buddhist Sangha called "The 24 schools period." I am VERY leery of all modern "Buddhist" schools just as I am "Christian" denominations and forms of "Yoga." Stefos

Disclaimer: Are you speaking to me or someone else? Please clarify when posting, I'd appreciate it! Thank you, Stefos The 10-12 classical Upanshads of the Prasthanathrya are all Pre-Buddhistic, not post. That a number of Upanishads were influenced by "Buddhist" thought is true. However, IS that brand of "Buddhism" what Shakyamuni taught? Remember, Upanishads were also written post Buddha and pre-Vajrayana...waayyy before Vajrayana in a number of cases. Take care

When looking into Brahman, we should perhaps state the following: 1. "Brahman isn't mentioned in the Pali suttas." 2. We should also state the the Buddha said that Nibbana "is where conditioned consciousness" isn't. 3. We should state that the Buddha called NIbbana "the unborn, undying, uncreated, unbecoming" as well. Sooo...Overall Nibbana is the ONlLY metaphysical reality that Shakyamuni Buddha posits.....Period. My current level of understanding is that Brahman is the same as Nibbana: Part of human existence and a metaphysical reality. Regarding "naked awareness": I got that from a book by Jonathan Myrdhin Reynolds entitled "Self liberation through seeing with Naked Awareness" I never meant to go into a long &/or heady explanation about rigpa! I just wanted to state that "bare awareness" is also very similar to (not the same however) as "naked awareness" mentioned by Guru Padmasambhava who wrote the above text Stefos

WHAT???? I respectfully disagree! The whole of India had the vedas but not the whole of it was tiered into an ossified caste system. Even when the caste system appeared, it was originally based on your character and categorically NOT your birth. It became degraded into a rigid "birth based" system.......Swami Prabhupada of ISKCON mentioned this quite a bit from what I understand, to mention one source. Besides, as I stated many moons ago, the term "atman" had a LOT of different meanings in the time of Buddha Shakyamuni. Not only that but If you read "The origin of Buddhist meditation" by Alexander Wynn, you'll see that the Pali texts put vedic concepts into the mouth of the Buddha left & right. OM AH HUM Stefos

Of course, a spoken word is a human construct and NOT beyond the sphere of a human construct. Nibbana is not a human construct, it is a fact! Being in the state of bare attention as the Theras say or as we say in Dzogchen "Naked Awareness", thoughts can viewed and allowed to dissipate leaving a state in which the mind doesn't "spew" thoughts........This is called the "calm state" and past that is the state of presesence OR the "unconditioned consciousness" that Buddha Shakyamuni spoke of. Stefos

However the ones that came BEFORE the Buddha reveal a different understanding of Brahman and the so called "gods" of "Hinduism" per se. There simply is ZERO proof that the Buddha denied Brahman. Nibbana is beyond Shunya....The Buddha stated "HERE is where conditioned consciouness ceases to exist." One must posit that SOMETHING positive is metaphysically qualified as Nibbana due to the above statement, at a minimum. 'Nuff said! Stefos

O.K.....by the numbers sir: 1. Ch'an is close to what the Buddha taught. I did read what you posted & thank you for it. Tell me please: Does Ch'an have an Abhidharma similar to the Theras or not? The Theras Abhidhamma & Sutras are at odds with one another and their system of meditation absorptive states or "jhanas" are taught in a gradual way. Many problems with the Sutras & Theravada Abhidhamma. 2. Nibbana is the "unborn, undying, uncreated, unbecoming" and the Pali texts say "it is HERE that conditioned consciousness ceases to be." Now, the only "thing" as you put it, that fits the bill as to what Nibbana is, is UN-conditioned consciousness which is what Brahman is: Sat-Chit-Anand. Notice I said Brahman, not Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva. In Dzogchen this is called the nature of the mind. Not "the mind"....2 different things in Dzogchen. 3. No where in the Pali Nikayas is the neuter term Brahman mentioned. Futhermore, the Pali Nikayas & Ghandaran texts are not the verbatim word of the Buddha, however due to textual criticism the Nikayas both Thera & Ghandaran (probably since I've never read them) contain portions of the Buddhas words. Of course, Dzogchen has Guru Garab Dorje's teachings which are much "tighter" time wise along with Guru Padmasambhava & Vimalamitra & Sri Singha. OM AH HUM Stefos P.S. "Buddhist Cosmology" is taken from Vedic sources...so the Top/Down framework still is in Buddhism.

What I'm saying is that I have ZERO experience of the Mahasiddhas except for Sweet Garab Dorje...that's it. Vajrayana is ALSO based on the sarvastivada too. Dzogchen, which is not Vajrayana, is not based on the sarvastivada. Dzogchen IS the authentic essense of the Buddha Shakyamuni! E MA HO!!! stefos

What I'm saying is this: What the Mahasiddhas taught aligns with Tantric thought not the Pali Nikayas. Ch'an is based off the Sarvastivada sect. The most ancient Buddhist set of Nikayas we have is from the Theras. The Tibetan & Chinese tripitaka are newer! The Pali texts have the Buddha stating that Brahma is just a finite "god." In contrast, the neuter Brahman is never mentioned in the Pali Texts. The Pali texts were written (from various sources) early to late 1st century b.c. In absense of proof disproving the Buddha taught against Brahman, I say the Buddha did in fact teach the "neti, neti" way, which is used in jnana yog. Nibbana only being the "blowing out/snuffing out" of conditioned consciousness and NOT the unconditioned consciousness which is Nibbana, per the Buddha's definition in the Pali Nikayas. The Pali nikayas themselves borrowed from the vedic worldview and the cosmology of the vedas can be found within them. In vedic thought, Brahman is the penultimate. Nibbana is always described in a via negativa way never in a via positiva way: Ex. The Buddha says "Monks if there were not this unborn, undying, unbecoming, uncreated, etc. etc. I would have told you so." Notice the Buddha's supposed words here and in the rest of the Nikaya corpus: Buddha explained what was by saying what "it" wasn't. Also, scholars agree that the term "atman" had different meanings in the time of the Buddha also. So, when I say "We don't know Shakyamuni Buddha's full line of thought" we can see why. Lastly, consider and please explain how we 2250 years after the "24 schools" period have THE definitive "word of the Buddha?".........We don't have his verbatim words written down while living, we only have the Pali Nikayas written 350 approx. years after the Buddha's death. Stefos P.S. I don't deny the chakras, nadis, various koshas, etc. only that modern Buddhism is not, en total, the "word of the Buddha."

No, it is not non-logical. Early Buddhist thought & the Mahasiddhas are at odds at one another. Not the same. The Mahasiddhas were influenced by a Mahayana & Tantric viewpoint Yes, you're right. Dzogchen reflects the earliest Buddhist "gist", I believe, Ch'an does also. However it would be incorrect to say that these 2 traditions reflect what Shakyamuni Buddha taught. There is no logical way of proving what Buddha Shakyamuni actually FULLY taught....no way. The Pali nikayas are the oldest & most complete texts we have, written 350 yrs after the Buddha died. Stefos

Hi everyone, Does anyone believe me? It seems this thread just stopped! LOL I swear to you all that the above event occurred as I state it....that's why I'm here. Stefos

AHHH! We agree on something! Very Good. Now, THE salient issue is: If Pali text Buddhism isn't pure Buddhist thought but redactionistic and only A view amongst many, then in truth NO ONE knows what the Buddha actually FULLY taught. THAT sir, is the point of my statements......That is why I don't "buy" into Buddhism of today. I practice Dzogchen & was initiated into Guru Yoga by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche and find that that reflects a same vein of teaching as the Nikayas but without the Theravadic Abhidharmic stuff which is the Theras later add on. Be at peace, Stefos

Hi everyone, Look, the Pali texts posit the Buddha speaking of Brahma and devas but not Brahman, which is neuter! No where in the Pali texts is Brahman even found. Again, this is the situation in the Pali texts written 300 years after the Buddha's death and after the tumultuous "24 schools" period. In the Buddha's day, Brahman was understood AND the Pali nikayas make no mention of this fact which was known in the vedas. As a matter of fact, earliest Buddhism found in the Pali Nikayas shows a Vedic worldview of the Panchatattvas/Pachtattwas: Earth, Wind, Water, Fire, Akash.... Also, the Buddha's 2 pre-enlightenment teachers taught along Vedic lines not non-Vedic lines... Research this and post. Stefos

O.K.....but why should I NOT care about what Shakyamuni taught? I should care. Even in the Pali texts the Buddha is posited as saying "Don't believe what I say, experience it, think about it, see if it is so" It's like saying "The mahayana is the FULL expression of what the Buddha stated" IS it?.....The mahayana separated from the Sthaviravadins due to certain things as did the Sarvastivadins. stefos

I understood that SOME things were done in India but not all Mahasiddhas practices. I refer to the Tibetan Mahasiddhas and not the Indian ones. Garab Dorje who taught Dzogchen was from Oddiyana not India. stefos