asunthatneversets

I wouldn't be able to say, I'm not familiar with the teachings personally.

Yes it's Advaita, I never attempted to say otherwise. I don't practice it. I'm only involved with groups that Greg either runs himself or regularly frequents, so I read a lot of what Greg has to say, and deeply respect the man, he is an extremely kind and lovely guy.

It could be partly due to that influence, but I know he mentioned that he came across a manuscript of Śri Atmananda's which stated something to the effect of 'In the end not even awareness remains'. So in the end there is a collapse of the awareness that the entire path is predicated upon, and Greg has stated that this matched his own experience. The depth of his knowledge regarding that system is impressive, even the absolute natures that other teachers of Vedanta posit, he is able to put those in context. It seems the majority of Vedanta teachings are instances where the instructions really don't go as far as they could, but instead get stuck in certain subtle areas which are mistaken as the end of the path. Greg does a great job with that teaching.

In the context of Advaita Vedanta it very well may be direct. It is a completely different context, holding it to a standard of a different teaching it isn't even related to doesn't make much sense. Now if the book claimed to be a buddhadharma teaching I might perhaps understand the objection.

The direct introduction part of it is a complete non-sequitur. It's like saying Brazilian football players don't wear a helmet and pads so they aren't playing football.

Greg did I'm fairly certain. He has explained the origin of the name but I cannot recall the details. It is based on the teachings of Śri Atmananda Krishna Menon. I don't practice Advaita, but as far as those teachings go Greg's path is the most refined I have ever encountered. It even deconstructs itself at the end so there is no 'Brahman' or 'awareness' left over, which is unlike any other paths of that kind. Quite interesting.

It has nothing to do with direct introduction to begin with. Nor did it ever aspire to. It isn't related to the buddhadharma, so it's context is completely different. 'Direct Path' is merely a title.

Greg did not drop Advaita and now follows Madhyamaka. He has followed both teachings, among others, for many years. He is actually writing a new Direct Path book now.

Which is another reason that a decent understanding of Madhyamaka (or dependent origination) is helpful.

The same is true for Dzogchen. Consciousness is dependently originated and arises in accordance with the afflicted nidānas, the root of which is avidyā [ma rig pa].

Projection of the shadow.

So then what is the issue? If relative truth is just a skillful means, then aside from its implementation in the Madhyamaka praxis it holds no weight. It is a raft to be abandoned.

He discusses the fact that fire circles are no more valid or invalid than the firebrand which makes them.

Madhyamaka says this about madhyamaka.

Relative truth is judged according to the efficacy of conventional designations and appearances, it (relative truth) is a useful notion, but since those truths cannot withstand analysis, and cannot be found (or verified) when sought, they are not ultimately true. In Madhyamaka, even the ultimate truth [emptiness] is not truly real, so how on earth could relative truths be real? This is why Nāgārjuna states that nirvana is the sole truth, and those who attest otherwise are deluded. And even then, nirvana is not ultimately veridical either, demonstrated by Nāgārjuna in his analysis of liberation and the tathāgata in his Mulamadhyamakakārika.

Yes, Malcolm too makes the case in that thread that 'relative truth' is not an actual truth.

A core element which is a means to an end i.e. a provisional methodology. Ultimate bodhicitta is the sole truth, and not even that 'truth' gets to hang around in the end.

The two truths are a provisional methodology. Just like the aspects of the path in tantra are provisional methods or means. The two truths are not a 'problem' if one knows how to implement them effectively and their nature is properly understood.

Meditation will pacify the winds eventually, but it is a far longer process and doesn't allow for the same level of control. Śamatha will do the trick eventually though, as mentioned per Dudjom Lingpa (by way of Alan Wallace) like Tibetan Ice referenced above.

There are other subtle differences, such as the fact that Madhyamaka does not involve energy nor does it approach the topic of lhun grub. However as far as the fundamental view goes, aside from the praxis, it is no different than the 'higher yānas'.

In the context of the respective praxis of the paths. So yes, he is comparing the efficacy. The fundamental differences in outlook concern the paths alone. The result is always the same in the buddhadharma, it is only the paths which differ. Just as Vairocana says: "According to grades of capacity, there are individual gateways into the innermost view of ultimate dharmatā; One will obtain or realize the result by realizing any doctrine in the vehicle of the sublime Dharma." [Per Malcolm]

Right, if someone were to assert that any other alleged 'truth' is ultimately on par with the sole truth of nirvana, they would be unwise. Just as Nāgārjuna states.

Ha, you removed the context which validated Rongzom's critique.

And that, coming from Nāgārjuna, shows that Madhyamaka does not ultimately state that there are indeed two truths.

Madhyamaka posits two truths conventionally, as a skillful means and pedagogical methodology. It does not, however, contend that there are actually two truths. How could it when it doesn't even allow the ultimate truth [emptiness] it asserts to stand on its own? "When the [ultimate] truth is explained as it is, the conventional is not obstructed; Independent of the conventional, no [ultimate] truth can be found." - Nāgārjuna So again, we see that what is really being addressed in the deprecation of Madhyamaka is not the system itself, but the efficacy of its path. Due to the fact that Madhyamaka implements logic as its primary means, its process is not as swift as those paths which rest upon uncontrived dharmatā. However it is an efficient path in and of itself, which is available for those who find Madhyamaka to resonate with them, and for that reason it should not be rejected. Truly, even in a path such as Dzogchen, where the afflictive nidānas arise due to non-recognition, Madhyamaka logic applies because the nidānas proliferate in accordance with dependent origination. So it is all relative. Deprecating Madhyamaka beyond the pale of conventional discourse which is comparing and contrasting the efficacy of these paths is truly selling oneself short.