Advaita Vedanta vs Buddhism

[Vajrahridaya]

Thanks for the clear explanation

 

I wouldn't say that luminosity is ignorance, but that the failure to see the empty aspect of luminosity is the basic ignorance that causes samsara.

 

http://www.rinpoche.com/qa.ram

 

Q: "If the nature of mind is this all-pervading, brilliant union of luminosity and emptiness, ungraspable, how is it that it could be obscured even for a moment, let alone for lifetime after lifetime?"

 

Answered by Thrangu Rinpoche (btw his book Essentials of Mahamudra is also a good read).

 

Luminosity is not ignorant or non-ignorance, it's just part of D.O. thus, can be experienced as nirvana or samsara.

[xabir2005]

Not because there is something there that is inherently existent as a free cosmic agent, but that the very nature of not being an identity, but rather a part of a vast process of interconnection, it, in itself, does not exist, and because it is connected to a vast, endless ocean of interconnectivity without soul identity, neither does the rest... in a sense of ultimately.

If there is no doer of deeds and actor of action, can there be 'part' of a chain of dependency?

 

See 'part' as the appearance of 'interconnectedness'.

Edited May 30, 2009 by xabir2005

[Vajrahridaya]

If there is no doer of deeds and actor of action, can there be 'part' of a chain of dependency?

 

See 'part' as the appearance of 'interconnectedness'.

 

Of course, it's D.O. interacting with D.O.

 

That's why i said, buddhahood is ignorance too, as an identity, there is no buddhahood ultimately.

[Enishi]

Very fascinating!

 

This is probably one of the best discussions I've seen on here in awhile, and it actually rekindled my interest in Buddhism (although I still feel more comfortable with Taoism or Mystic Christianity as a path at this point in my life).

 

One's mind does tend to get wrapped into a pretzel though at the thought that there's an infinite number of Buddha's, but also an infinite number of mindstreams which are not yet enlightened, and that they will always exist due to the fact they're recreating each other every second.

[Vajrahridaya]

Very fascinating!

 

This is probably one of the best discussions I've seen on here in awhile, and it actually rekindled my interest in Buddhism (although I still feel more comfortable with Taoism or Mystic Christianity as a path at this point in my life).

 

One's mind does tend to get wrapped into a pretzel though at the thought that there's an infinite number of Buddha's, but also an infinite number of mindstreams which are not yet enlightened, and that they will always exist due to the fact they're recreating each other every second.

 

Yeah... truly mind boggling!

 

Even infinite universes, not only this universe with it's endless array of galaxies...

 

The mind pretzel is a yoga pose... breath into it as the knot is released... aaaaaaaahhhhhhhh!!

 

edit: Yeah, Xabir and his thusness quotes, are like light sabers on justice boats...

 

LOL!!

Edited May 30, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[dwai]

That's the Hindu dogma I was talking about, originating dependent upon the un-recognition of dependent origination and what dependent origination actually means. Thus, the great difference and total rift between Advaita/Vedanta and Buddhism. The very definition of enlightenment is entirely different.

 

the shortcoming i'm afraid is in you. if you understood frameworks you would know...

 

No, we are not the same but we are ignorant in the same way. So, to not recognize the framework that all is ignorant by, which is Dependent origination, is to not recognize how the cosmos works, period.

 

since you are on the framework bandwagon, you must know that truth-claims made within the frameworks are relative right? Will be glad to elucidate if you like.

 

The Hindu's claim of all paths are equal, is an ignorance and a dogma.

 

All paths are not equal. Some are easier, some are hard. The underlying existent that every path is alluding to is the same.

 

ekam sat vipraha bahuda vadanti

 

Of course.

You have no idea what I know. I know lots and lots of Indians from India. I know that out of the 1 Billion people of India, there are so many, many creeds as it's the most diverse country in dialect and religious branches in the entire world, so many cults of worship and practice, etc.

 

All that is an etic perspective. to understand something you have to be part of it. You cannot learn to swim without jumping into the water.

 

I could say the same about you.

 

Well I'm not the one strutting around about how my "tradition" is the best...

 

Let us continue with your education...

No, the chain of D.O. is eternal and not because it's a self. In Samsara it was based upon non-recognition of movements non-inherent nature, but in Nirvana it is based upon the recognition of movements non-inherent nature. It's a chain of sequences of a complex and layered pattern. There is only dependent origination, which does not even inherently exist, there is no abiding source. There is no eternal substratum.

 

who told you Advaita Vedanta claims that Brahman is a self? It is non-phenomenal. It is not an object, or an entity. It simply is. It always has been and will always be. No creator, no maker, not a creator, not a maker. It is pure objectless consciousness, which has always been and will always be.

 

Dependent Origination is a concept. It demonstrates that all phenomena are interdependent and therefore empty of self-nature and self-existence. The question then arises, why do phenomena exist?

 

Brahman is not a substratum but every phenomenon is an appearance of it via superimposition.

 

Those who have realized this fact have articulated this in various ways. But that (whatever you choose to call it), cannot be articulated. It is beyond the realms of mind, reason, material objectivity. It simply is. That is Brahman.

 

My mind stream is my beginningless stream of dependent origination, awareness is included. It inter-relates with infinite other mind streams, mingling and separating...

 

So where did the first mind stream come from?

Edited May 30, 2009 by dwai

[dwai]

From the perspective of the 'Eternal Witness': Apparent objects comes and goes within consciousness, but the witness is unaffected by the apparent coming and going of object. That is why it is called the Eternal Witness. It is totally unattached to the objects, and is independent of them. Objective consciousness is when you are attached and identified with the objects, or the pinpointed focus or fixation on finite objects. When standing as the Witness you are alone and free (of the constriction and identification to finite objects). The Witness does not fixate upon objects, the mind does. The apparent objects just come and go by itself within vast objectless consciousness. Just because clouds move through the sky doesn't mean the sky is inherently cloudy -- it is still as vast and 'objectless' as before. The only question is whether you are identified and fixated on the clouds or know yourself as the vast opening. Also the 'eye' sees many things but cannot see itself, for it is not an object to be seen but the seer. It just sees. This can be intuited and recognised.

 

Ceasing modifications of the mind (identifications and attachments to object) is the side effect of realizing the fact. You can't force the cessation of identification unless there is insight into who you are.

 

When that level of realization is reached, the "You" has been transcended. There is not separation, there simply is being.

 

Sureshwara:

 

"That Innner Dweller, The Witness, all knowing and un objectifiable, appears to become a separate object through the false superimposition that is aviydA"

 

Shankara:

 

It is the overseer of all actions, the indweller in all beings, the Witness, Pure Consciousness, that which is all that is left (when avidyA removed), and is beyond all qualities.

 

-----------

 

Buddhism however, does not talk about a Self or a Witness or a background. There is awareness, seeing, presence, but not separate from transience and mindstream. There is seeing, but not a seer, the seeing can't be separated from the seen. There is hearing, but not a hearer, and the hearing is the sound. etc....

 

In Buddhism, Awareness is not seen as the ultimate subject.

 

Self-manifestation, which has never existed as such, is erroneously seen as an object.

Through ignorance, self-awareness is mistakenly experienced as an I.

Through attachment to this duality we are caught in the conditioned world.

May the root of confusion be found.

 

.................

 

Through the examination of external objects we see the mind, not the objects.

Through the examination of the mind we see its empty essence, but not the mind.

Through the examination of both, attachment to duality disappears by itself.

May the clear light, the true essence of mind, be recognized.

 

~ 3rd Karmapa

Anyway, there's a good article on the difference between Witness and Non-Dual by Ken Wilber here: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/200...ity-by-ken.html

 

Just a note.. Ken Wilber is very clear on non-dual but still does not have the understanding of dependent origination and emptiness. So it is still more 'brahman' than 'shunya'.

 

When you witness, there is an object to be witnessed. Where is this object? Where is this witness? What is being superimposed upon? That is Objectless Consciousness. That is Brahman. That is emptiness.

 

You cannot have a separation of Witness and Witnessed without giving rise to duality (if there is a witness, there is a subject, there is an object). Only way non-duality can arise is when there is no object, no witness, no subject.

[Vajrahridaya]

'dwai'

the shortcoming i'm afraid is in you. if you understood frameworks you would know...

since you are on the framework bandwagon, you must know that truth-claims made within the frameworks are relative right? Will be glad to elucidate if you like.

All paths are not equal. Some are easier, some are hard. The underlying existent that every path is alluding to is the same.

 

ekam sat vipraha bahuda vadanti

 

It's all relative, even your idea of a featureless cosmic consciousness that everything superimposes over.

The view is different, so is the result.

 

There is no underlying reality in Buddhism. How many times do we have to prove that to you for you to get that. THERE IS NO UNDERLYING EXISTENT IN BUDDHISM!! LOL!!

 

Again, that's a Hindu idea, not a Buddhist idea, and never was Buddhas intention if you read the Suttas carefully.

 

Oh well... someone is reading and understanding. I know your whole identity is too immersed in being Hindu to think otherwise for this lifetime?

 

I remember being all sorts of things in past lives, so I know that such a hard identity is really silly. I had to be objective, because I used to believe as you do, exactly in fact... and had meditative experiences that fortified this belief, but realized... I was wrong. Just as you are wrong now.

 

All that is an etic perspective. to understand something you have to be part of it. You cannot learn to swim without jumping into the water.

Well I'm not the one strutting around about how my "tradition" is the best...

who told you Advaita Vedanta claims that Brahman is a self? It is non-phenomenal. It is not an object, or an entity. It simply is. It always has been and will always be. No creator, no maker, not a creator, not a maker. It is pure objectless consciousness, which has always been and will always be.

 

Brahman is called the Self of all in endless Vedantin scriptures.

 

No such things in Buddhism, again... you must not be reading our posts at all. Because that has not sunk in. According to Buddhism, that is not enlightenment, but a subtle obscuration leading to re-absorption into a long lived formless realm at the end of the particular universe that the person existed in. Meanwhile a Buddha ascends to a Buddha realm and continues to work on Samsarins in other universes, while that person eventually looses consciousness of focus on a featureless consciousness and falls into suffering Samsarin experience again and that bliss of featureless consciousness is forgotten again, over and over again throughout endless cycles. It's not final emancipation according to the Buddha, never was, never will be.

 

Buddhism teaches something entirely different and Buddha himself thought it was the best and most clear, an incredible teaching like none on earth at that time. Though he also said to weigh it with experience. So you don't have to agree with me, but it is different.

 

Dependent Origination is a concept. It demonstrates that all phenomena are interdependent and therefore empty of self-nature and self-existence. The question then arises, why do phenomena exist?

 

There is no reason, it's just an endless flow. Dependent Origination is not really a concept. If you think so, you don't understand dependent origination.

 

Because things and the seer of things, including your consciousness are interdependent, they do not truly exist in and of themselves and don't have inherent reality. This is a subtle intuitive comprehension that transcends your view and Advaita view. You can think that it doesn't, but the Buddha said it did, Nagarjuna said it did and Padmasambhava said it did. So... whatever you think about it. Buddhism teaches something different than Advaita, and it has nothing to do with structures because to Buddhism, enlightenment IS NOT an underlying existing principle without structure, to the Buddha, that's a subtle structure.

 

In Buddhism, the no-thought, no-buddha, is just a way of explaining dependent origination, not an underlying de-qualifier of phenomena.

 

Your conceptual-less consciousness is a concept according to the Buddha, your idea of an underlying existent that just is, is a trap, according to the Buddha and all of Buddhism, every single school, except for some off shoots that aren't accepted as proper Buddhadharma.

 

Brahman is not a substratum but every phenomenon is an appearance of it via superimposition.

 

That's what substratum means!

 

Same thing... there is no superimposition over an absolute ground of existence according to Buddhism.

 

You are still not understanding how dependent origination absolutely eradicates any footing and any universal source of existence. These are flawed interpretations of seemingly concept-less meditation.

 

According to the Buddha...

 

These are the highest types of formless meditation...

 

Dimension of infinite space.

Dimension of infinite consciousness.

Dimension of nothingness.

Dimension of neither perception nor non-perception.

 

If any of these is deemed as not dependently originated, no matter how free from concepts they may seem, that is a subtle concept. Your Brahman is considered a subtle concept in Buddhism, a deep seed that is the actual cause of samsaric experience within a mind stream. Vedanta's philosophy and ending experience is considered samsaric according to Buddhism and the Buddha... always has been as such.

 

All the above mentioned states in Buddhist cosmology lead to long lived formless realms that eventually lead to ignorant re-birth...

 

There is no ground of existence. Your fearture-less consciousness that everything is a part of is a concept according to Buddhism.

 

You say your free from frameworks, but your thinking in a very Hindu framework about what concept-less means. It doesn't mean the same thing in Buddhism. Beyond concepts is a different intuitive experience in Buddhism. That's why you have to intuit dependent origination, it has to be a deep experience... it's not really just a concept, it's a concept pointing to the extinguishing of your recycling seed, that you call Brahman.

 

Those who have realized this fact have articulated this in various ways. But that (whatever you choose to call it), cannot be articulated. It is beyond the realms of mind, reason, material objectivity. It simply is. That is Brahman.

So where did the first mind stream come from?

 

There is no beginning, there is no first cause. There is no from where... it's an endless, beginning-less flow, that samsarins experience as samsara and buddhas experience as nirvana. Period... no source, no absolute ground of existence. Just a constant process without substance.

 

There is no first mind stream, period!

 

That's why Buddhas talk about remembering past lives that pre-exist this universe and pre-exist the pre-existent universe, and so on. Our mind streams are without beginning.

[Vajrahridaya]

When that level of realization is reached, the "You" has been transcended. There is not separation, there simply is being.

 

Yes, but what that means to a Buddha is different from a Siddha of Advaita. To an advaitin, there is an idea of everything "being" of a singular "being" that all inherently "is".

 

To a Buddha, it is just "being" in the flow of experiencing samsara as nirvana without identity. There is still work to be done for the rest of eternity for a Buddha, and that is to express the framework that explains the framework of samsara as it truly is, so that others can become Buddhas. To also pacify false doctrines, just as the Buddha Shakyamuni did and yes many Brahmins didn't like him.

 

When you witness, there is an object to be witnessed. Where is this object? Where is this witness? What is being superimposed upon? That is Objectless Consciousness. That is Brahman. That is emptiness.

 

Are you even trying to understand the meaning of our words? Doesn't seem so.

 

There is no witness, there is no where, there is no superimposition or that to be superimposed on. Brahman is not the same as emptiness. Gaudapada did not understand Nagarjuna or the Buddha, neither did Shankaracharya.

 

There is only the flow that has no absolute value in and of itself. Not even consciousness, objectless or filled with Hindu or Buddhist concepts.

 

It's just that Buddhist concepts clearly lay out the path out of Samsaric experience, while Advaitin concepts, lead merely to the edge of samsara. Nagarjuna said this.

 

You cannot have a separation of Witness and Witnessed without giving rise to duality (if there is a witness, there is a subject, there is an object). Only way non-duality can arise is when there is no object, no witness, no subject.

 

Right, but you guys think of it as a universal consciousness that subsumes all. Buddhists see no witness and no subject/object, etc. From a standpoint of there never really having been any of it. But not that we are all one in a concept-less ocean of consciousness. Nope, all Buddhas have separate and unique realization of the empty nature of all. They are unified in intention of compassion towards beings who do not understand the Sanatana Dharma. A word first coined in the Buddhist Dharmapada, later taken by various Hindus.

 

For Advaitins, you think of it as a oneness without a second. To Buddhists, neither oneness or many-ness.

 

Again, there is no underlying existent in Buddhism.

[Siliconvalley1]

There is no witness, there is no where, there is no superimposition or that to be superimposed on. Brahman is not the same as emptiness. Gaudapada did not understand Nagarjuna or the Buddha, neither did Shankaracharya.

 

Unfortunately, some of us have work to do, things to take care of and even something to "practice" - and jeez even sleep! - to refute every thing you write - which is not really that difficult - like I said, we have better things to do.

 

And, neither Shankara or Acharya Gaudapada were trying to "understand" either Buddha or Nagarjuna as that was not the objective of their study. As a matter of intellectually understanding, they certainly did - and so did Sureshvara and Kumarila - to be able to refute their standpoint. Just because you don't follow something, you cannot conclude nobody else did! You have failed to get the same being stated from the other side that you folks don't really understand what Shankara said. You cannot because the understanding cannot come from merely reading stuff - even which is lacking considering not one correct thing you have stated here about Advaita or kevala to be precise - but by "understanding", which requires Shat Sampatti or the six virtues. While I don't claim to possess even one of them, if the way you write is any indication (ignoring the pom pom that I have experienced it all he he) - neither do you.

 

While I agree that the viewpoints of the two philosophies differ - in fact I started my agreement with that statement - you still have not proved why the realization of a Buddhist is superior to that of any one else. The only reason you (or the other quoting lengthy paragraphs with too many italics from a blog or another just screaming from rooftop ) have given are built up on Buddhist concepts and assumptions and thus true only for a Buddhist! There has absolutely been nothing in this entire boatload of verbal diarrhea that objectively proves one to be better than the other. I chose to ignore here this: because X or Y wrote so or "my" experience says so - as there are always two sides to such statements and they never serve our purpose here.

Edited May 30, 2009 by Siliconvalley1

[Vajrahridaya]

Unfortunately, some of us have work to do, things to take care of and even something to "practice" - and jeez even sleep! - to refute every thing you write - which is not really that difficult - like I said, we have better things to do.

 

And, neither Shankara or Acharya Gaudapada were trying to "understand" either Buddha or Nagarjuna as that was not the objective of their study. As a matter of intellectually understanding, they certainly did - and so did Sureshvara and Kumarila - to be able to refute their standpoint. Just because you don't follow something, you cannot conclude nobody else did! You have failed to get the same being stated from the other side that you folks don't really understand what Shankara said. You cannot because the understanding cannot come from merely reading stuff - even which is lacking considering not one correct thing you have stated here about Advaita or kevala to be precise - but by "understanding", which requires Shat Sampatti or the six virtues. While I don't claim to possess even one of them, if the way you write is any indication (ignoring the pom pom that I have experienced it all he he) - neither do you.

 

While I agree that the viewpoints of the two philosophies differ - in fact I started my agreement with that statement - you still have not proved why the realization of a Buddhist is superior to that of any one else. The only reason you (or the other quoting lengthy paragraphs with too many italics from a blog or another just screaming from rooftop ) have given are built up on Buddhist concepts and assumptions and thus true only for a Buddhist! There has absolutely been nothing in this entire boatload of verbal diarrhea that objectively proves one to be better than the other. I chose to ignore here this: because X or Y wrote so or "my" experience says so - as there are always two sides to such statements and they never serve our purpose here.

 

I guess your talking in the mirror?

[Siliconvalley1]

I guess your talking in the mirror?

 

I thought you were the one confused with infinite mind streams that exist but dont and stem from one another which exist but don't and which like other paths but still hate and finally prove - based on alllllllll this - that "I am right" - "I alone am"

 

"I "I" "I"...notice that?

 

This is what you've been denying all along but also what you've been working for, toiling away posting for days on this forum.. your efforts are appreciated my friend

[Vajrahridaya]

Anyone is welcome to read my posts from 2003 where I argued against Buddhists in the same way that Dwai does here.

 

Like I said, I was gung-ho with plenty of experience from hours and hours of meditation to back it up. I spent so much time subverting Buddhist Elitism for a number of years. It bore fruit... I realized I was wrong and the interpretation of my meditative experience was missing the view.

 

Link to Vajrahridayas posts from 2003 arguing for the Advaita Vedanta cause.

 

Mir. Sillicon Valley, instead of attacking the person, like your doing, which is pointless. Why not actually refute my statements? That would be more productive, because by attacking me, your revealing your insecurities.

 

 

 

 

I thought you were the one confused with infinite mind streams that exist but dont and stem from one another which exist but don't and which like other paths but still hate and finally prove - based on alllllllll this - that "I am right" - "I alone am"

 

"I "I" "I"...notice that?

 

This is what you've been denying all along but also what you've been working for, toiling away posting for days on this forum.. your efforts are appreciated my friend

 

Yes, I'm inspired to write... I also have no work to do other than this right now. This space in time will end. I'm sorry your so threatened? To much so to actually refute my statements, instead you attack me personally. Not very impressive.

 

You even cut and paste from my myspace page and say something in an attempt to refute the person? Wow...

 

 

Yes, you are just looking in the mirror and calling it Vajrayhridaya.

 

That is very clear!

[Siliconvalley1]

Mir. Sillicon Valley, instead of attacking the person, like your doing, which is pointless. Why not actually refute my statements?

 

I feel the same way too - you are pointlessly brining in Hindus - calling them names - expressing false unneeded sympathy, claiming false familiarity with the scriptures or practices to gain the benefit of pushing across your idea of "I tried it all and then moved over because it was bad"... and a bunch of you have been attacking dwai as well - please show some courtesy before you expect the same ...

 

Like I said, some of us have things to do and a "practice" that we practice and not only talk and type. Your debate starts with Buddhist assumptions, is based around what you think a person named Buddha wrote and you even believe tales about deities getting liberated and Maitreya coming back to rescue and all that! To debate with you, I would need to educate you, to bring you to speed, on basics of Samkhya to start with, bits of Vaisheshika and Nyaya as you would then probably understand how to correctly hold a debate - oh boy...that's a lot of work. I am willing to do that...but not immediately...there is a time crunch you know.

 

And don't you think this "are you getting threatened" thing is getting a little repetitive? You should get a new catch phrase Miss the Ron Jeremy days ...

 

And let's give it some time as well

 

In 2003 you were championing the cause of Advaita fiercely (I didn't really read that, I am assuming and already can guess the depth of your familiarity with traditional advaita based on your statements here). You now route for Buddhism and condemn advaita. There is no saying there will be something new in times to come

Edited May 30, 2009 by Siliconvalley1

[Vajrahridaya]

 

In 2003 you were championing the cause of Advaita fiercely (I didn't really read that, I am assuming and already can guess the depth of your familiarity with traditional advaita based on your statements here). You now route for Buddhism and condemn advaita. There is no saying there will be something new in times to come

 

You really aren't going on much my dear. I offered you a greater source for which you can extrapolate your disapproval of me from.

 

Plenty of beings who were trained in Advaita then found Buddhism, turned to subvert the tenets of Advaita.

 

So, sooo many.

 

Yes, you are threatened. I didn't personally attack Dwai, he did me a bit, so I touched back a bit, but mostly I'm explaining how different Advaita is from Buddhism. That's the whole point which you already understand, so... we can discuss which one is better if you like.

 

My point to Dwai is that Advaita's realization is different from Buddhas.

 

If you already concede to that point. Then we can have a different debate.

 

The same amount of time that you took to insult me and my experience and knowledge, which you haven't proven wrong yet, you could have just attempted to subvert my findings.

 

That would be more fruitful, or do you get off being a push around?

 

Besides, I'm not attacking the Hindu persons, I'm attacking the doctrines.

[Vajrahridaya]

on basics of Samkhya to start with, bits of Vaisheshika and Nyaya

 

I've read this many years ago, meditated on much of it too. Nyaya or the logic and Vaisheshika about atomic structures being pushed by a supreme will. I am quite familiar with Kapila, the Yoga of Patanjali, the discussion of Parusha and Prakriti, matter and spirit, etc. The 24 tattvas of which Kaula Shaivism add's 12 more to go deeper.

 

I am actually more well read and meditated than you think. Regardless of how threatened you are by my writings from your subjective outlook to turn to attack the writer during your crunch times instead of merely subverting what was written. You are just making excuses.

 

I guess because you think that there's no Maitreya Buddha and that there are no beings in other dimensions is the reason why you don't believe that the Puranas and Janaka tails have any validity. Because your karmic experience has not opened to such dimensions? You consider such things, hallucinations? Hypnosis experiences? Yeah?

 

[dwai]

I've read this many years ago, meditated on much of it too. Nyaya or the logic and Vaisheshika about atomic structures being pushed by a supreme will. I am quite familiar with Kapila, the Yoga of Patanjali, the discussion of Parusha and Prakriti, matter and spirit, etc. The 24 tattvas of which Kaula Shaivism add's 12 more to go deeper.

 

I am actually more well read and meditated than you think. Regardless of how threatened you are by my writings from your subjective outlook to turn to attack the writer during your crunch times instead of merely subverting what was written. You are just making excuses.

 

I guess because you think that there's no Maitreya Buddha and that there are no beings in other dimensions is the reason why you don't believe that the Puranas and Janaka tails have any validity. Because your karmic experience has not opened to such dimensions? You consider such things, hallucinations? Hypnosis experiences? Yeah?

 

 

For a 34-year old you seem to have done a lot mahaprabhu!

You don't even understand what you are frothing in the mouth about. You are stuck in the framework of Dependent Origination. Superimposition is precisely that. When a Jiva superimposes a framework on Brahman, they will see exactly what their framework intends them to see.

 

That's why all the great masters have said that Brahman/Tao/Sunyata cannot be intellectually understood. They have to be experienced. The way to do that is by ceasing the modifications of the mind.

 

For the Advaita Vedantin, the framework has to be discarded. I guess there IS a difference between Buddhism and Vedanta after all. Buddhists are stuck in the rut of their categorical framework while the Taoists and Advaitins are working towards their liberation.

 

I appreciate xabir2005 of all the "contestants" here. He is respectful while trying to debate.

 

Here's something for you to mull over Hari --

 

Adhjal ghagari chalkat jaye!

 

Ask those "many" indians what this means. Oh...but you probably already know what means...oh half-empty pot of perfection!

Edited May 31, 2009 by dwai

[Vajrahridaya]

For a 34-year old you seem to have done a lot mahaprabhu!

You don't even understand what you are frothing in the mouth about. You are stuck in the framework of Dependent Origination. Superimposition is precisely that. When a Jiva superimposes a framework on Brahman, they will see exactly what their framework intends them to see.

 

That's why all the great masters have said that Brahman/Tao/Sunyata cannot be intellectually understood. They have to be experienced. The way to do that is by ceasing the modifications of the mind.

 

For the Advaita Vedantin, the framework has to be discarded. I guess there IS a difference between Buddhism and Vedanta after all. Buddhists are stuck in the rut of their categorical framework while the Taoists and Advaitins are working towards their liberation.

 

 

Boy are you proud of your heritage.

 

An identity you hold very tightly to, I understand...

 

Be well Dwai.

 

I'm glad there are people here that did learn something and read objectively. I was obviously here for them.

 

Who knows maybe a seed of scrutiny was planted into your mind stream?

 

Again, dependent origination does not mean superimposition. Never has, never will. I know, because I used to think the same thing! But, after years of arguing with Buddhists coming from the same stance as you, and having direct experiences of the truth of my misunderstanding and hindu dogma. I came to realize a subtler truth.

 

Also... this is not the only life I've done things in... but yes, this life has been chocked full of change and transformation.

 

May your brick house fall and the flame of realization burn away your identity and pride.

.

.

.

(froth)

[dwai]

Boy are you proud of your heritage.

 

An identity you hold very tightly to, I understand...

 

Be well Dwai.

 

I'm glad there are people here that did learn something and read objectively. I was obviously here for them.

 

Who knows maybe a seed of scrutiny was planted into your mind stream?

 

Again, dependent origination does not mean superimposition. Never has, never will. I know, because I used to think the same thing! But, after years of arguing with Buddhists coming from the same stance as you, and having direct experiences of the truth of my misunderstanding and hindu dogma. I came to realize a subtler truth.

 

Also... this is not the only life I've done things in... but yes, this life has been chocked full of change and transformation.

 

May your brick house fall and the flame of realization burn away your identity and pride.

.

.

.

(froth)

 

you would be amusing if you weren't so fanatical. I hope you manage to realize that Dependent Origination is just another framework. To get to the "real" no-thing, you have to drop it.

 

Another thing -- I am proud of my Hindu heritage. Unlike converts like you(who try and overcompensate their late arrival to a particular tradition with dogmatic fanaticism), I don't have any compelling reason to prove that "my way" is the "Best way". My way is simply a way. And if you remember, the purpose of this thread was to show similarities not differences. My intention never was to show that Buddhism is not good or that Advaita is better.

 

May your intellect be sharpened to be able to break through the veil of Avidya that your attachment to DO has cast on your chitta.

 

Meanwhile, I will take refuge in my attempts to be Sat Chit Ananda.

[Vajrahridaya]

you would be amusing if you weren't so fanatical. I hope you manage to realize that Dependent Origination is just another framework. To get to the "real" no-thing, you have to drop it.

 

Wow... you really don't understand.

 

There is no "real" no-thing that will liberate you in Buddhism.

 

"That" is the subtle obscuration that re-absorbs you and re-expresses you through the Samsaric cycles.

 

Like when you meditate and come out of it, that's the macrocosmic Samsaric blinking manifesting through the microcosm of you.

 

Absorbing and re-expressing, absorbing and re-expressing.

 

Buddha's cut through, not absorb in.

 

 

You see, Samsara is inherent... Realization is not inherent, in the sense that you are thinking it is not. Or in your not thinking.

 

 

 

 

There is no "no-thing" that cannot be explained, because concepts and non-concepts are the same in their non-abiding nature interdependency. The cosmos IS a framework and Buddhism is the match that explains it perfectly. Freedom from mental proliferation means something entirely different in Buddhism.

 

Your still going on the non-conceptual is the container of the conceptual, framework. This whole, "neti-neti" but, "Tat Tvam Asi" idea. Your so immersed in this subtle framework. Like a being looking in the mirror and calling the reflection the reality and the person an illusion.

 

Another thing -- I am proud of my Hindu heritage. Unlike converts like you(who try and overcompensate their late arrival to a particular tradition with dogmatic fanaticism), I don't have any compelling reason to prove that "my way" is the "Best way". My way is simply a way. And if you remember, the purpose of this thread was to show similarities not differences. My intention never was to show that Buddhism is not good or that Advaita is better.

 

Oh well...

 

I was actually raised Advaita Vedanta Siddha Yogi, since before birth. I was not raised Catholic or Christian. The first movement I did when I moved my body were hatha yoga movements because my mom was doing hatha yoga with me in the womb.

 

Yes, you are proud and attached. That's fine!! You have plenty of time to get it.

 

May your intellect be sharpened to be able to break through the veil of Avidya that your attachment to DO has cast on your chitta.

 

Chitta, has always been a part of DO.

Meanwhile, I will take refuge in my attempts to be Sat Chit Ananda.

Exactly... you want to be something. Some identity that's buried under all that changing ego, something real and tangible, something to hang on to that doesn't change.

 

That's the agent of recycling, the builder of the house.

 

You keep building the house of Samsara on the lot of Brahman, calling Brahman your true nature.

 

The house of Samsara has a seed and it is your formless seemingly non-conceptual bliss states in meditation. The final veil.

 

We are having this discussion and you are effected. So the seed will take hold in your mind stream some time in the future.

Edited May 31, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[dwai]

Wow... you really don't understand.

 

There is no "real" no-thing that will liberate you in Buddhism.

 

"That" is the subtle obscuration that re-absorbs you and re-expresses you through the Samsaric cycles.

 

Like when you meditate and come out of it, that's the macrocosmic Samsaric blinking manifesting through the microcosm of you.

 

Absorbing and re-expressing, absorbing and re-expressing.

 

Buddha's cut through, not absorb in.

You see, Samsara is inherent... Realization is not inherent, in the sense that you are thinking it is not. Or in your not thinking.

There is no "no-thing" that cannot be explained, because concepts and non-concepts are the same in their non-abiding nature interdependency. The cosmos IS a framework and Buddhism is the match that explains it perfectly. Freedom from mental proliferation means something entirely different in Buddhism.

 

Your still going on the non-conceptual is the container of the conceptual, framework. This whole, "neti-neti" but, "Tat Tvam Asi" idea. Your so immersed in this subtle framework. Like a being looking in the mirror and calling the reflection the reality and the person an illusion.

Oh well...

 

I was actually raised Advaita Vedanta Siddha Yogi, since before birth. I was not raised Catholic or Christian. The first movement I did when I moved my body were hatha yoga movements because my mom was doing hatha yoga with me in the womb.

 

Yes, you are proud and attached. That's fine!! You have plenty of time to get it.

Chitta, has always been a part of DO.

 

Exactly... you want to be something. Some identity that's buried under all that changing ego, something real and tangible, something to hang on to that doesn't change.

 

That's the agent of recycling, the builder of the house.

 

You keep building the house of Samsara on the lot of Brahman, calling Brahman your true nature.

 

The house of Samsara has a seed and it is your formless seemingly non-conceptual bliss states in meditation. The final veil.

 

We are having this discussion and you are effected. So the seed will take hold in your mind stream some time in the future.

 

Doesn't matter. Everything is Brahman anyway.

[Vajrahridaya]

Doesn't matter. Everything is Brahman anyway.

 

I understand that the older you get, the harder it is to have a paradigm change.

 

It's ok though... you'll be a new born baby once again.

[Pero]

Dwai, DO isn't just a concept. I think it's a concept just as much sunyata is.

[xabir2005]

Edited May 31, 2009 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Edited May 31, 2009 by xabir2005