The Chicken or the Egg?

[Vajrahridaya]

Them not being equivalent is merely your opinion.

I have the opposite one.

 

Can you explain why they are not equivalent?

 

One reifies a cause. Say's we are all one mind stream, that we all merge with the divine essence at the end of the cosmic eon. One reifies non-conceptuality as the basis of all being. The other as in Buddhism, does none of this.

 

That's just simply put. If it hasn't become clear through the abundant explanations displayed in the entire forum. Then, hey! That's fine.

 

You might want to read, Advaita vs. Buddhism thread.

 

Hi Vajrahridaya,

 

The link worked. Can't help with the other stuff because I not familiar enough with this board. Maybe someone will come along with some help.

 

Yes, I am familiar with the area you talked of. I have walked a number of Arroyo in 1986 when I was travelling through there pursuing my short-lived rock collecting hobby.

 

I do like that part of the country a lot but the low humidity does a job on my skin and I get electrocuted by almost anything I touch.

 

Be well!

 

That's awesome! I love that neck of the woods as well. Everything is so pure and beautiful, aside from the high level of radiation due to the fact that the government ships tons of nuclear waste there from the entire country to be dumped in Carlsbad caverns. Los Alamos (where there's a nuclear lab) where I went to school for a year and a half has one of the highest rates of cancer in the country if not the world. But yes, besides the many crazy things that happen in NM, it's scenery is amazing! But what a play of our own creation, such a beautiful place, yet abused by our enslavement to convenience. The Native American spiritual traditions there in that neck of the woods are quite amazing. In many ways like Tibetan Buddhism in fact. They even dress the same as Tibetans and have many of the same cultural traditions and even a few of the words are the same. It's really odd. These cultures grew out of totally different regions of the planet! Yet if you look at Navaho native dress and Tibetan native dress, and even the way they kind of look similar. It's quite odd.

[Marblehead]

The Native American spiritual traditions there in that neck of the woods are quite amazing. In many ways like Tibetan Buddhism in fact. They even dress the same as Tibetans and have many of the same cultural traditions and even a few of the words are the same. It's really odd. These cultures grew out of totally different regions of the planet! Yet if you look at Navaho native dress and Tibetan native dress, and even the way they kind of look similar. It's quite odd.

 

Hi V.,

I won't talk about how our government sometimes abuses our environment here in this thread.

 

But, to your mention of Native Americans. I agree with you although I don't find it really too amazing. Actually, I find it rather logical as I hold to the understanding that the NAs migrated to the American continent from Asia. And when one looks at most NAs one can see a mixture of the different peoples of Asia - mainly a mixture of Peking man and various strains of Caucasian man - Peking from China and surrounding areas and the Caucasian from India and Siberia. So even though the cultures developed differently the roots can be seen in many aspects of their life. What is the most strange to me is that the NAs never domesticated the horse as a beast of burden; they ate the horses.

 

Be well!

[dwai]

One reifies a cause. Say's we are all one mind stream, that we all merge with the divine essence at the end of the cosmic eon. One reifies non-conceptuality as the basis of all being. The other as in Buddhism, does none of this.

 

That's just simply put. If it hasn't become clear through the abundant explanations displayed in the entire forum. Then, hey! That's fine.

 

 

For the n'th time...that is simply YOUR MISINTERPRETATION. There IS NO Merging...you already are Brahman.

[Marblehead]

Do I see someone here trying to shove the egg back up the chicken's butt?

 

Be well!

[dwai]

Do I see someone here trying to shove the egg back up the chicken's butt?

 

Be well!

 

[Vajrahridaya]

Hi V.,

I won't talk about how our government sometimes abuses our environment here in this thread.

 

But, to your mention of Native Americans. I agree with you although I don't find it really too amazing. Actually, I find it rather logical as I hold to the understanding that the NAs migrated to the American continent from Asia. And when one looks at most NAs one can see a mixture of the different peoples of Asia - mainly a mixture of Peking man and various strains of Caucasian man - Peking from China and surrounding areas and the Caucasian from India and Siberia. So even though the cultures developed differently the roots can be seen in many aspects of their life. What is the most strange to me is that the NAs never domesticated the horse as a beast of burden; they ate the horses.

 

Be well!

 

Yes, but that happened thousands upon thousands of years ago. So the initial cultural seeds sprouted somewhat similar trees in two different regions of the planet. Of course change for thousands of years in culture in the East was not nearly as fast as in the recent European and American West and Globalization. We've experienced more change as a global humanity within 1 hundred years than we have in thousands upon thousands of years put together. There has been change, but not nearly as intense as recently I think.

 

For the n'th time...that is simply YOUR MISINTERPRETATION. There IS NO Merging...you already are Brahman.

 

No I'm not, I'm inherently empty of any static essential nature. Brahman is a misinterpretation of spiritual experience according to Buddhadharma and it's notion, philosophy and practice does not lead to Buddhahood.

 

Besides, it's not my misinterpretation. All over Vedanta literature and poetry there is talk of "merging with Brahman". Of course I understand, it's merely recognition that the drop is the ocean type of things and it's more of a poetic description. But, non-the-less, it's not the same goal as Buddhism.

[Marblehead]

Hi V.,

 

We've experienced more change as a global humanity within 1 hundred years than we have in thousands upon thousands of years put together. There has been change, but not nearly as intense as recently I think.

 

Indeed. It is obvious (in my mind) that the NAs have not be able to adapt to the rapid changes that the Europeans brought with them to the New World.

 

It would be interesting to see what the effects of all this rapid changing of humanity will be, say, 500 to 1,000 years from now. (I'll miss that show, I guess.)

 

Be well!

[Vajrahridaya]

Do I see someone here trying to shove the egg back up the chicken's butt?

 

Be well!

 

AAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! BAAAAAAAAACKOOOOOOOCK!!! OUTCH!!!

[Sunya]

http://www.inch.com/~shebar/gold/gold1.htm

 

interview with an anthropologist who did years of research and lived with Navajos and Tibetans, he talks about the relatedness of the two cultures and their spiritual beliefs

[Marblehead]

That was interesting. Thanks for sharing.

 

Be well!

[dwai]

No I'm not, I'm inherently empty of any static essential nature. Brahman is a misinterpretation of spiritual experience according to Buddhadharma and it's notion, philosophy and practice does not lead to Buddhahood.

 

Besides, it's not my misinterpretation. All over Vedanta literature and poetry there is talk of "merging with Brahman". Of course I understand, it's merely recognition that the drop is the ocean type of things and it's more of a poetic description. But, non-the-less, it's not the same goal as Buddhism.

 

Actually you are. You see, the Atman (True Self, which is also Brahman, Tao, Shunyata) when suffering from the limiting adjunct (physical body, brain, intellect, etc), uses categorical frameworks such as what you keep touting as the "Ultimate truth that is not Ultimate" to create it's reality -- which is vyavaharika or lower reality. It is subject to percepts, concepts, dependent on categorical frameworks...It is relatively true, but not absolute. The only absolute is Brahman, Tao, Shunyata.

Edited July 28, 2009 by dwai

[Sunya]

Actually you are. You see, the Atman (True Self, which is also Brahman, Tao, Shunyata) when suffering from the limiting adjunct (physical body, brain, intellect, etc), uses categorical frameworks such as what you keep touting as the "Ultimate truth that is not Ultimate" to create it's reality -- which is vyavaharika or lower reality. It is subject to percepts, concepts, dependent on categorical frameworks...It is relatively true, but not absolute. The only absolute is Brahman, Tao, Shunyata.

 

after weeks of trying to explain to you how Shunyata could not possibly be pointing to the same realization as Brahman, you still cling hopelessly to your fixed ideas. I hope they help you sleep better at night

[Vajrahridaya]

Actually you are. You see, the Atman (True Self, which is also Brahman, Tao, Shunyata) when suffering from the limiting adjunct (physical body, brain, intellect, etc), uses categorical frameworks such as what you keep touting as the "Ultimate truth that is not Ultimate" to create it's reality -- which is vyavaharika or lower reality. It is subject to percepts, concepts, dependent on categorical frameworks...It is relatively true, but not absolute. The only absolute is Brahman, Tao, Shunyata.

 

LOL!

 

We are not all one non-conceptual essence. It has nothing to do with frameworks. You don't see the meaning of the words being relayed to you by Me, Xabir, and Michaelz. You just see framework because well... that's all we can use here are words that attempt to point to a realization beyond words.

 

Vedanta reifies non-conceptual experience as a universal essence that subsumes everything and everyone, Buddhism does not. Hinduism sees one mind stream, Buddhism see's infinite mind streams that have no beginning but are all inherently empty, yet connected, but not one.

 

Buddhist Cosmology transcends a causeless cause.

 

But, I understand, you strongly identify with being a Hindu with a family lineage that is Brahmin. It's very entwined with your self, Self identity.

 

It would cause you a period of suffering forcing you to really let go and self examine that would probably be deeper than my period of suffering that it took me to go through to transcend my birth religion of Advaita Vedanta Universalism and truly experientially understand what the Buddha was talking about.

[Sunya]

non-dual awareness is not unique to Buddhism. Hindus got it (Vedanta and Kashmir Shivaism, though the latter I think is clearer), Sufis got it, early Christians, Jewish Qabbalists, Taoists, probably some Shamans as well. But its the interpretation of that experience and seeing that pure awareness as empty of essence, no self-nature, and interdependent with phenomena that sets Buddhism apart and thats why its the Middle Way. Buddhists do not take that experience of non-dual awareness and worship it, call it God, and say everyone is One with it. Taoists seem much clearer than other traditions about this, but Buddhism and Taoism very heavily mingled. I don't know what the original Taoists had to say.

Edited July 28, 2009 by mikaelz

[dwai]

LOL!

 

We are not all one non-conceptual essence. It has nothing to do with frameworks. You don't see the meaning of the words being relayed to you by Me, Xabir, and Michaelz. You just see framework because well... that's all we can use here are words that attempt to point to a realization beyond words.

 

Vedanta reifies non-conceptual experience as a universal essence that subsumes everything and everyone, Buddhism does not. Hinduism sees one mind stream, Buddhism see's infinite mind streams that have no beginning but are all inherently empty, yet connected, but not one.

 

Buddhist Cosmology transcends a causeless cause.

 

But, I understand, you strongly identify with being a Hindu with a family lineage that is Brahmin. It's very entwined with your self, Self identity.

 

It would cause you a period of suffering forcing you to really let go and self examine that would probably be deeper than my period of suffering that it took me to go through to transcend my birth religion of Advaita Vedanta Universalism and truly experientially understand what the Buddha was talking about.

 

 

I think it is you who is obsessed with a mistaken understanding of Buddhism.

By virtue of being an Advaitin Taoist Tantrika, I automatically discard the categorical framework, since I know it only leads to relative truths.

 

You and Mikaelz need to spend some time contemplating your obsession with Buddhist exclusivism...then your categorical framework will become clear automatically.

 

after weeks of trying to explain to you how Shunyata could not possibly be pointing to the same realization as Brahman, you still cling hopelessly to your fixed ideas. I hope they help you sleep better at night

 

 

You are not worthy of teaching anyone anything at this point son...first spend some time learning (really learning)...and find a real teacher who will tell you that your fanaticism wrt Buddhism is antithetical to Buddha's middle-path. Then perhaps you will develop enough prajna to teach yourself. After that, you can venture to teach others...

[Marblehead]

I love seeing two Buddhist disagree. It is so non-Buddhist. Hehehe.

 

Be well!

[Vajrahridaya]

I love seeing two Buddhist disagree. It is so non-Buddhist. Hehehe.

 

Be well!

 

Nope, Buddhists disagree with each other all the time. HAHA!! Not so much the high ups, those that have fully transcended Buddhism as a mere belief system. They'll disagree with others, but not each other, because they see right through each others views.

 

 

I think it is you who is obsessed with a mistaken understanding of Buddhism.

By virtue of being an Advaitin Taoist Tantrika, I automatically discard the categorical framework, since I know it only leads to relative truths.

 

In Buddhism there is no ultimate truth that transcends relative truths. Again you are merely coming from your categorical framework. There is only ultimate realization of the relativity of all phenomena and non-phenomenal experiences, and there is no Self there to grasp as an ultimate I.

 

You and Mikaelz need to spend some time contemplating your obsession with Buddhist exclusivism...then your categorical framework will become clear automatically.

 

Nah... you need to read more from deeply realized Buddhist Masters, such as the Buddha even, and Nagarjuna. They certainly disagree with you.

 

It's interesting, I'm more studied in your religion than you are. Over the last few months, I've sold well over a hundred books on Hindu thought on Ebay, all of them I've read, many multiple times.

 

I spent years in retreat just meditating on these Vedantic truths without any TV, much socializing other than to discuss these Vedantic truths.

 

I understand your standpoint very well. You think an ultimate Truth is some transcendent experience beyond all things, that all things truly are. In Buddhism, liberation is not an identity with a non-conceptual state of consciousness that subsumes everything. You have yet to understand infinite regress. In Vedanta, there is still this mysterious will behind everything that is God. That means Vedanta is classified as Eternalism and is not the middle way of the Buddha.

 

Ciao.

Edited July 28, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[dwai]

Nope, Buddhists disagree with each other all the time. HAHA!! Not so much the high ups, those that have fully transcended Buddhism as a mere belief system. They'll disagree with others, but not each other, because they see right through each others views.

In Buddhism there is no ultimate truth that transcends relative truths. Again you are merely coming from your categorical framework. There is only ultimate realization of the relativity of all phenomena and non-phenomenal experiences, and there is no Self there to grasp as an ultimate I.

Nah... you need to read more from deeply realized Buddhist Masters, such as the Buddha even, and Nagarjuna. They certainly disagree with you.

 

It's interesting, I'm more studied in your religion than you are. Over the last few months, I've sold well over a hundred books on Hindu thought on Ebay, all of them I've read, many multiple times.

 

I spent years in retreat just meditating on these Vedantic truths without any TV, much socializing other than to discuss these Vedantic truths.

 

I understand your standpoint very well. You think an ultimate Truth is some transcendent experience beyond all things, that all things truly are. In Buddhism, liberation is not an identity with a non-conceptual state of consciousness that subsumes everything. You have yet to understand infinite regress. In Vedanta, there is still this mysterious will behind everything that is God. That means Vedanta is classified as Eternalism and is not the middle way of the Buddha.

 

Ciao.

 

Unfortunately, despite all your braggadocio, you come across as an empty shell without much experiential knowledge. And going by your posts, your knowledge of "my religion" is so shallow that it is not even worth responding to. Same goes for your "experiences".

 

I know...a few members of my family happen to be the real deal, and a lineage that is only about 4000 years old. And I trust their testimony and my personal experiential knowledge far more than some wannabe internet zealot!

Edited July 28, 2009 by dwai

[Vajrahridaya]

Unfortunately, despite all your braggadocio, you come across as an empty shell without much experiential knowledge. And going by your posts, your knowledge of "my religion" is so shallow that it is not even worth responding to. Same goes for your "experiences".

 

I know...a few members of my family happen to be the real deal, and a lineage that is only about 4000 years old. And I trust their testimony and my personal experiential knowledge far more than some wannabe internet zealot!

 

Ah, the ad-homs and personal pride comes out. So defensive.

 

It's amazing how subjective your view is, because there are plenty that have another opinion about this "wannabe internet zealot". Who's right, and who's wrong? Those that agree with me say, "oh wonderful" and those that don't, "he's so stupid". Praise and blame...

 

I just don't use the sanskrit words mostly and get into the gunas because that confuses a lot of people, the different tattvas, and etc. Because it all comes down to the difference that Hinduism posits a real and eternal non-phenomenal, non-conceptual unitary consciousness behind everything as a supreme cause, which makes all branches of Hinduism, no matter how complicated they get in their language and metaphysics, eternalism and therefore a subtle extreme. No matter how non-conceptual you want to make it, it's still an "it" in the mind stream of the experiencer of this nirvikalpa samadhi which reifies the experience and causes future absorptions and unconscious re-births. Vasistha's Yoga translated by Swami Venkatesananda in the big long grey version is actually quite excellent, you should read it. It puts all the different branches of Hinduism together in a seamless way. It's quite good for a theistic approach.

 

Anyway...

 

You can hide behind insults all you want. But, nitty gritty I can get. I can throw out endless quotes from endless scriptures. As I have a pretty extensive library.

 

Still, both Abhinavagupta and Shankaracharya posit a real, self existing source of all existence that all beings are one with, thus is not a middle way. Buddhism does not and that's the rundown.

 

Ciao.

[dwai]

Ah, the ad-homs and personal pride comes out. So defensive.

 

It's amazing how subjective your view is, because there are plenty that have another opinion about this "wannabe internet zealot". Who's right, and who's wrong? Those that agree with me say, "oh wonderful" and those that don't, "he's so stupid". Praise and blame...

 

I just don't use the sanskrit words mostly and get into the gunas because that confuses a lot of people, the different tattvas, and etc. Because it all comes down to the difference that Hinduism posits a real and eternal non-phenomenal, non-conceptual unitary consciousness behind everything as a supreme cause, which makes all branches of Hinduism, no matter how complicated they get in their language and metaphysics, eternalism and therefore a subtle extreme. No matter how non-conceptual you want to make it, it's still an "it" in the mind stream of the experiencer of this nirvikalpa samadhi which reifies the experience and causes future absorptions and unconscious re-births. Vasistha's Yoga translated by Swami Venkatesananda in the big long grey version is actually quite excellent, you should read it. It puts all the different branches of Hinduism together in a seamless way. It's quite good for a theistic approach.

 

Anyway...

 

You can hide behind insults all you want. But, nitty gritty I can get. I can throw out endless quotes from endless scriptures. As I have a pretty extensive library.

 

Still, both Abhinavagupta and Shankaracharya posit a real, self existing source of all existence that all beings are one with, thus is not a middle way. Buddhism does not and that's the rundown.

 

Ciao.

 

None of what I said was ad hominem. Anyone who has observed you since you started will come to the same conclusion as I did (well I'd perhaps exclude Mikaelz from that list).

 

I really don't want to engage you and it's perhaps my ego that keeps drawing me back into these discussions, since I think you shouldn't be left to spread the garbage that you do, under the guise of pretentious proclamations of wisdom and personal experience.

 

Your half baked understanding, coupled with your superficial eloquence (I must admit that you do manage to sound like you know somethings, till one scratches the surface) makes you a potentially dangerous influence on those who haven't yet ventured one or all of the subjects (Buddhism, Vedanta, Tantra). I understand that you have a pretty extensive library which is evident from your "throwing quotes" without using your intellect. That's what rote memorization of scriptures will get you, when the discriminating intelligence (viveka) is not used.

 

If you haven't understood what I am trying to say, perhaps you aren't ready to understand Advaita and Tantra at all...stuck as you are in what you think is the Madhyamika path (but you are not...you are just one lost soul swimming in a fish bowl...)

[Vajrahridaya]

None of what I said was ad hominem. Anyone who has observed you since you started will come to the same conclusion as I did (well I'd perhaps exclude Mikaelz from that list).

 

I really don't want to engage you and it's perhaps my ego that keeps drawing me back into these discussions, since I think you shouldn't be left to spread the garbage that you do, under the guise of pretentious proclamations of wisdom and personal experience.

 

Your half baked understanding, coupled with your superficial eloquence (I must admit that you do manage to sound like you know somethings, till one scratches the surface) makes you a potentially dangerous influence on those who haven't yet ventured one or all of the subjects (Buddhism, Vedanta, Tantra). I understand that you have a pretty extensive library which is evident from your "throwing quotes" without using your intellect. That's what rote memorization of scriptures will get you, when the discriminating intelligence (viveka) is not used.

 

If you haven't understood what I am trying to say, perhaps you aren't ready to understand Advaita and Tantra at all...stuck as you are in what you think is the Madhyamika path (but you are not...you are just one lost soul swimming in a fish bowl...)

 

Your letting your animal out I see.

 

Ad hominem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

 

Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.

Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer; and the ad hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the arguer as acting or arguing in accordance with the view that he is arguing against.

Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic, since the truth value of premises is taken as given, and the validity of a logical inference is independent of the source making the inference. However, ad hominem arguments are rarely presented as formal syllogisms, and their assessment lies in the domain of informal logic and the theory of evidence.[1] The theory of evidence depends to a large degree on assessments of the credibility of witnesses, including eyewitness evidence and expert witness evidence. Evidence that a purported eyewitness is unreliable, or has a motive for lying, or that a purported expert witness lacks the claimed expertise can play a major role in making judgements from evidence.

Argumentum ad hominem is the inverse of argumentum ad verecundiam, in which the arguer bases the truth value of an assertion on the authority of the source asserting it. Hence, while an ad hominem argument may make an assertion less compelling, by showing that the source making the assertion does not have the authority it claims, or has made mistaken assertions on similar topics in the past, it cannot provide an infallible counterargument.

An ad hominem fallacy is a genetic fallacy and red herring, and is most often (but not always) an appeal to emotion.

It does not include arguments posed by a source that contradict the source's actions.

[dwai]

Your letting your animal out I see.

 

Takes one to know one...

[Vajrahridaya]

Takes one to know one...

 

No, I've always made points against your assertions and have had very little to say about your personally. I've also quoted the Dalai Lama, the Buddha, Nagarjuna and others to support my argument. The Dalai Lama disagrees with you, Buddhist scholars disagree with you, historical Buddhist masters disagree with you as well as current Buddhist Masters. Advaita Vedanta is not the middle way of Buddhism and does not lead to the same realization.

[dwai]

No, I've always made points against your assertions and have had very little to say about your personally. I've also quoted the Dalai Lama, the Buddha, Nagarjuna and others to support my argument. The Dalai Lama disagrees with you, Buddhist scholars disagree with you, historical Buddhist masters disagree with you as well as current Buddhist Masters. Advaita Vedanta is not the middle way of Buddhism and does not lead to the same realization.

 

You have had little to say about me personally because you first attacked and insulted my entire creed (if you haven't gone and deleted your pronouncements in those threads).

 

None of the above disagree with me, except you and perhaps some equally misguided "experts" of neo-Buddhism.

 

Advaita, Taoism, Tantra and Madhyamika Buddhism all lead to the same thing...something that is beyond categorical frameworks, something that cannot be fathomed using the mundane faculties of perception and cognition. They are all fingers that point to the same moon. Some choose to focus on the finger, others on the moon.

 

That something is non-phenomenal, it is self-existent and self-aware/self-illuminated. It is also each and every one of us...sans our limiting adjunct. When we dissolve all objects from our consciousness and only it stands on it's own accord, that is Tao, Shunyata, Advaita, Brahman, Parama-Shiva.

[Sunya]

 

I think it is you who is obsessed with a mistaken understanding of Buddhism.

 

 

 

ah, Dwai. again you show off your true colors, pretending you have a deeper understanding of Buddhism than Buddhists. pretending you understand Buddhism better than Buddhism, Nagarjuna, the Dalai Lama, and many other Masters who throughout the ages have understood the deepest insights.

 

its really amazing what kind of bullshit the ego will concoct to justify its ridiculous habits.

 

yes it is you who has the deeper understanding, yet you can't communicate it. you can't explain it. all you can do is brag about your family lineage and attack people and say the same things over and over again which are constantly pointed out to you to not be true. Keep clinging, tiger.

 

 

If you haven't understood what I am trying to say, perhaps you aren't ready to understand Advaita and Tantra at all...

 

you haven't said anything.