Advaita and Buddhism are the Same After All

[Vajrahridaya]

Been where? Done what?

 

You've gone to South America? You've done ayahausca?

 

haha. Typical brush off without details.

 

Back to your Dgozchen cave!

 

Yeah that's right! Dogschzoen!!

 

Advaita my ass.

 

Dude you still got your internet job?

 

You did ayahausca in NYC??!??

 

haha.

 

Did you do it in full lotus? Or are you above full lotus!!

 

I know that your upbringing in the Muktananda cult has left you a bit "sheltered."

 

So I feel for you!

 

Oh yeah NOW I remember -- YOU got a Brazilian girlfriend!!!

 

You marry her yet?!! That was the plan right!

 

haha.

 

So you went to Brazil!?!

 

I think you might need psychological help.

 

Take care.

[dragonfire45]

 

dragonfire45: You might want to read up on the influence of Trika Shaivism on Tibetan Buddhism.

 

What makes you think I have not? Have you read any? Alexis Sanderson is one of my teachers if it helps. When I concluded that Tibetan Buddhism was a lot of things made to fit into the shoes of Buddhism and explained as 'its all about the view', I didn't do that without proper study.

 

Did you say you were a Moslem before? Is that somehow responsible for your prejudice against Vedas or Hinduism? That need not be necessary but that seems cultural among the lots of Moslems I have seen. They seem to have baseless hatred for Hinduism and side with anything that challenges Hinduism. So far, on this thread, I have seen no direct indication if you are one such person, but hell, what is the harm in asking!

[nac]

d: I haven't had awesome experiences of India or anything, I'm just an average engineering student in Kolkata who's "narrating his experience as simply and as easily as he can".

 

I am speaking after deep and careful study and introspection.

Convince me.

[dragonfire45]

Chill dude, it's just a joke.

 

Didn't someone say Buddhists are all funny and happy and post some Dalai Lama poses on another thread. Where is all that humour in the face of criticism? One finds the joke about picking a brain gross, the other flares up for no reason etc. But I thought one of the precepts at the stage of yogatantra and resulting from mahayoga was compassion and composure during the hardest times in terms of speech, thought and action. So did folks here graduate to the highest vehicle of Dzogchen skipping the lower yanas? You guys crack me up! Talking like you know better than the Tathagata himself!

 

Oh, and this was not directed towards nac. You seem to be more sensible than the other Buddhist fanatics on this thread and that shows when you point out the development of Sutrayana from sharamana system and tantra from Trika Shaivism (Not really trika as trika itself is derived from older Agama Tantras but not important).

[dwai]

I suggested Indian traditions developed in isolation from each other? Me? All I said was that Shramana is at least as old as Hinduism, if not older. Buddhism considers itself part of that tradition.

 

Buddhism refuses to reify an existent world-phenomenon of any kind, so it's not a realist school. Ignoring subtleties, delusion is an ontological property of sense-perception IIRC, (generally speaking, if anything can be said to have an ontological property in Buddhism) and the cause of dukkha. What does this have to do with realism?

 

Buddha's refusal to comment on the existent vs non-existent doesn't count as denial. And Advaitan concept of Brahman is not reification either. There is a lot of misunderstanding about what Brahman entails...for instance Vajra thinks it means "Source of everything". In the non-dualist perspective, Brahman is not a source or a cause, it is everything and everything is it. Cause and Effect can only be if there is distinction...there is none...so Brahman can neither be cause nor effect. I would encourage you to read "Introduction to Indian Philosophy" by Dr Ramakrishna Puligandla. I haven't found a more lucid and brilliant introductory course yet.

 

PS. I am an Indian. Why would Americans get mad at me for talking about Hinduism?

 

PPS. What does this have to do with anything?

 

What reductionist? What conjecture?

 

What's your real full name? PM me if you don't want to share it in public...from what I remember of our previous PM interactions, you didn't exactly come across as an Indian...

 

As far as reductionism and conjecture goes, you very well know what I am referring to.

[Vajrahridaya]

Vajra will throw a fit at this one! Lol it won't matter to fanatics that this is true.

 

I won't throw a fit. It's just not true. Vajrayana Buddhism in north India pre-dates Trika by hundreds of years, it's more likely the other way around that Trika was influenced by Vajrayana.

 

 

And Tibetan Buddhism - Bon, Shaivism influenced Lamaism with a superimposition of Mahayana philosophy. Tools from everywhere and anywhere put inside the Mahayana case. That makes it Buddhist, so claim some. There are those who disagree, even within Buddhists and also historically.

 

Lappon Namdrol would put this through the ringer siting historical texts and anthropological findings.

 

Tibetan Buddhism is Vajrayana coming straight outa India, though yes... many aspects came into being only in Tibet. It's still completely Buddhist with the 4 seals, including Anatman.

[dragonfire45]

d: I haven't had awesome experiences of India or anything, I'm just an average engineering student in Kolkata who's "narrating his experience as simply and as easily as he can".

 

 

Convince me.

 

 

Why? Not of any use to me! And you did not even disagree with me here when I said Tantrayana pulls off from bon and Trika. So why convince and for what? Just to keep this Buddhism thread up and running for ever like some would like?

 

Awesome experiences.....easily as he can - Not sure what you mean by this. I don't find it to be relevant to what I said above. If you were replying to something else, it helps to quote suitable and keep the conversation structured.

[nac]

What makes you think I have not?

Because you skipped over it and commented on a bunch of random offtopic issues, so I thought you were attempting to dispute the point for whatever reason.

 

Did you say you were a Moslem before?

Yep, Muslim family. Kazi Nazrul Islam's, believe it or not. Dwai will know who that is.

 

Is that somehow responsible for your prejudice against Vedas or Hinduism?

I have nothing personal against Hinduism.

[dwai]

d: I haven't had awesome experiences of India or anything, I'm just an average engineering student in Kolkata who's "narrating his experience as simply and as easily as he can".

 

 

Convince me.

 

I don't have to. You are welcome to your opinions, I am to mine. When you start doing sweeping generalizations, that's where the problem starts. Kon College'e podcho Kolkatay? Badi Kothay? Amar badi Baguiati-te...kintu thaktam Mysoray...

 

Abbosho, Kolkata'r Bangali traditioney khub akta bhul montobbo koro ni...bangali-ra iktu beshi paka hoy onnoder theke

 

[dragonfire45]

 

Tibetan Buddhism is Vajrayana coming straight outa India, though yes... many aspects came into being only in Tibet. It's still completely Buddhist with the 4 seals, including Anatman.

 

 

Yes it's totally different! Its not Diet Coke, it's Coke Zero. Color is different, even tastes different if you drink a couple gallons and check, bottle has a slightly different shape and the name is different. The whole concept of coke zero is different. Who says so? The guys who make Coke Zero and it must be true. Diet Coke is all about Atman/Brahman flavor. Coke Zero has different packaging and the text on the bottle clearly says - No Atman/Brahman is in use. Only Anatta used.

 

So they are totally different.

[dragonfire45]

 

I have nothing personal against Hinduism.

 

One would have to take this at a face value as it's not true with 90% of the Moslems in India. Does not everyone know about it? I lived in India for 11 months and it was pretty evident. Yes, it is possible you are among the remaining 10%. Would need to read more of what you write to figure out if that is true at all.

 

Oh, when you talked about over intellectualization among Hindus... the Buddhists claim that the Buddha and his bunch knew everything about evolving science, knew of Quantum Physics and Quantum Physics is in fact a proof for Buddhism. What is your take on it? I am an Engineer turned Physicist too but would like to know your opinion since you come from scientific community as against wanna be philosophers with no academic background in science who have derived such conclusions.

Edited May 18, 2010 by dragonfire45

[nac]

Buddha's refusal to comment on the existent vs non-existent doesn't count as denial.

He explicitly denied the existence of an abiding self.

 

And Advaitan concept of Brahman is not reification either. There is a lot of misunderstanding about what Brahman entails...for instance Vajra thinks it means "Source of everything". In the non-dualist perspective, Brahman is not a source or a cause, it is everything and everything is it. Cause and Effect can only be if there is distinction...there is none...so Brahman can neither be cause nor effect.

So you know that I understand the concept.

 

I would encourage you to read "Introduction to Indian Philosophy" by Dr Ramakrishna Puligandla. I haven't found a more lucid and brilliant introductory course yet.

I can't do that now, but I'll try to get hold of it.

 

What's your real full name? PM me if you don't want to share it in public...from what I remember of our previous PM interactions, you didn't exactly come across as an Indian...

How so? I'm in Kolkata right now. Ask a mod if you don't believe me.

 

As far as reductionism and conjecture goes, you very well know what I am referring to.

Nope.

[nac]

Why? Not of any use to me! And you did not even disagree with me here when I said Tantrayana pulls off from bon and Trika. So why convince and for what? Just to keep this Buddhism thread up and running for ever like some would like?

 

Awesome experiences.....easily as he can - Not sure what you mean by this. I don't find it to be relevant to what I said above. If you were replying to something else, it helps to quote suitable and keep the conversation structured.

That quote isn't even yours.

[RongzomFan]

I think there are some people in this thread who are not aware that "Tibetan buddhism" was practiced in INDIA for hundreds of years. All the tantric deities, like Heruka etc. are Indian.

 

For pete's sake, all the commonly used root tantric texts in "Tibetan Buddhism" are completely Indian in every single way including linguistically, culturally, and geographically. And of course all the major heroes like Padmasambhava, Nagarjuna, Virupa, Tilopa, Naropa, Aryadeva Shantideva etc. are Indian. Even in Tibetan buddhist artwork, have you guys not seen brown skinned Indians?

 

We know there was little influence from "Bon" on Tibetan buddhism, yet this false rumor is quite persistent. Bon did not exist before buddhism came in.

Edited May 18, 2010 by alwayson

[nac]

Kon College'e podcho Kolkatay?

Bengal Institute of Technology. Apni chinben na, Salt Lake-er dike Techno college.

 

Badi Kothay?

Khiddirpur, biye para. Joghonno elaka. Prottek din kan chhire daei. Age jokhon Jadavpur-e thaktam, tokhon akta besh nishtobhdo poribesh chhilo. Ram mandir bhangar somoye jokhon hangama hoecchilo, tokhon paliye ashte hoechhe.

 

Abbosho, Kolkata'r Bangali traditioney khub akta bhul montobbo koro ni...bangali-ra iktu beshi paka hoy onnoder theke

 

lol

 

Ki ar bolbo bolun? Nazrul-er poribar ki na, "Khodar ashon arosh chhediya..."

[voidisyinyang]

O.K. so the great "holier than thou" male diatribes continue! haha.

 

All this stuff comes from the Bushmen in Africa btw -- the ORIGINAL humans -- from 100,000 BCE to 10,000 BCE.

 

Ah but what what lineage did you speak off?

 

Such and such minute off branch of such and such purity in such and such valley?

 

haha.

 

Ah the males stuck in their autonomic sympathetic nervous system.

 

But please don't let me get in your way.

 

Please let's continue this grand gesture in nothingness -- cerebral backwash.

[nac]

I don't have to.

Well in that case, there was no point in contradicting me. I was expressing my honest opinion of your failings. That opinion stands until corrected.

[nac]

O.K. so the great "holier than thou" male diatribes continue! haha.

 

All this stuff comes from the Bushmen in Africa btw -- the ORIGINAL humans -- from 100,000 BCE to 10,000 BCE.

 

Ah but what what lineage did you speak off?

 

Such and such minute off branch of such and such purity in such and such valley?

 

haha.

 

Ah the males stuck in their autonomic sympathetic nervous system.

 

But please don't let me get in your way.

 

Please let's continue this grand gesture in nothingness -- cerebral backwash.

There's no way you can get chicks with that kind of attitude.

[dwai]

Bengal Institute of Technology. Apni chinben na, Salt Lake-er dike Techno college.

 

 

Khiddirpur, biye para. Joghonno elaka. Prottek din kan chhire daei. Age jokhon Jadavpur-e thaktam, tokhon akta besh nishtobhdo poribesh chhilo. Ram mandir bhangar somoye jokhon hangama hoecchilo, tokhon paliye ashte hoechhe.

 

 

lol

 

Ki ar bolbo bolun? Nazrul-er poribar ki na, "Khodar ashon arosh chhediya..."

 

Besh besh...ta e bolo bhai (tumi bolchi, boyeshe aamar theke choto-base kore), aato bittrishna kano hoye geche aamader deshe'r lokeder proti

 

raam mondir'er bapar ta shune mon dukkhito holo...kintu shoytani kora and shetake proshroy deuar jonno shob partybaaj babura boshe achey...tara ki aar dhormo jaaney na bojhey? taara shudhu motlob bhojey...theek ki na?

[nac]

Yes it's totally different! Its not Diet Coke, it's Coke Zero. Color is different, even tastes different if you drink a couple gallons and check, bottle has a slightly different shape and the name is different. The whole concept of coke zero is different. Who says so? The guys who make Coke Zero and it must be true. Diet Coke is all about Atman/Brahman flavor. Coke Zero has different packaging and the text on the bottle clearly says - No Atman/Brahman is in use. Only Anatta used.

 

So they are totally different.

There's a middle ground between exact sameness and absolute difference, you know. Detailed comparison of properties... that's the domain of philosophers.

 

One would have to take this at a face value as it's not true with 90% of the Moslems in India. Does not everyone know about it? I lived in India for 11 months and it was pretty evident. Yes, it is possible you are among the remaining 10%.

Source of these statistics?

 

Would need to read more of what you write to figure out if that is true at all.

Good lord! Why does my background matter so much?

qulwallahu ahad allahus'samad lamyalid walamyulad walamya'qullahu kufu'anahad

 

But then anyone can copy and paste, right?

 

Oh, when you talked about over intellectualization among Hindus...

Pseudo-intellectualism isn't "over intellectualization", whatever that is.

 

the Buddhists claim that the Buddha and his bunch knew everything about evolving science, knew of Quantum Physics and Quantum Physics is in fact a proof for Buddhism. What is your take on it? I am an Engineer turned Physicist too but would like to know your opinion since you come from scientific community as against wanna be philosophers with no academic background in science who have derived such conclusions.

Who are these Buddhists? I haven't met a single serious teacher who claims the Buddha knew quantum mechanics. I have seen a few inappropriate and unscientific analogies with certain aspects of quantum mechanics, but that's about it. Surprisingly, a handful of apt analogies also exist. After all, both the dharma and theoretical physics confound the conventional mind. In the Pali Suttas, the Shakyamuni declared that he wasn't omniscient. Mahayana Buddhas are "omniscient", but they're more like metaphysical principles as opposed to historical personages, right?

[nac]

Besh besh...ta e bolo bhai (tumi bolchi, boyeshe aamar theke choto-base kore), aato bittrishna kano hoye geche aamader deshe'r lokeder proti

Manusher mone ajkal kono spiritual ambition nei, janen to? Beshirbhag lok gotokaler jhogra niyei pore thakte bhalo bashe.

 

vicious circle + self-complacency = eternal cycle

 

Hopefully this will be broken before long.

 

raam mondir'er bapar ta shune mon dukkhito holo...kintu shoytani kora and shetake proshroy deuar jonno shob partybaaj babura boshe achey...tara ki aar dhormo jaaney na bojhey? taara shudhu motlob bhojey...theek ki na?

I hold no grievances against the ignorant. That includes all of us.

Edited May 19, 2010 by nac

[ralis]

There's a middle ground between exact sameness and absolute difference, you know. Detailed comparison of properties... that's the domain of philosophers.

 

 

Source of these statistics?

 

 

Good lord! Why does my background matter so much?

qulwallahu ahad allahus'samad lamyalid walamyulad walamya'qullahu kufu'anahad

 

But then anyone can copy and paste, right?

 

 

Pseudo-intellectualism isn't "over intellectualization", whatever that is.

 

 

Who are these Buddhists? I haven't met a single serious teacher who claims the Buddha knew quantum mechanics. I have seen a few inappropriate and unscientific analogies with certain aspects of quantum mechanics, but that's about it. Surprisingly, a handful of apt analogies also exist. After all, both the dharma and theoretical physics confound the conventional mind. In the Pali Suttas, the Shakyamuni declared that he wasn't omniscient. Mahayana Buddhas are "omniscient", but they're more like metaphysical principles as opposed to historical personages, right?

 

 

I found this post which may be of interest. Vajraji was arguing similar points last year, claiming the Buddha somehow understood Einstein. He went on to claim Einstein's personal beliefs about Buddhism were science. His arguments were bogus!

 

http://mingkok.buddhistdoor.com/en/news/d/2475

 

 

ralis

[nac]

I found this post which may be of interest. Vajraji was arguing similar points last year, claiming the Buddha somehow understood Einstein. He went on to claim Einstein's personal beliefs about Buddhism were science. His arguments were bogus!

 

http://mingkok.buddhistdoor.com/en/news/d/2475

 

 

ralis

Um... philosophical relativism and the theory of relativity are two different things. Hari is entitled to his opinion, but he doesn't speak for all Buddhists. Holy shit, the University of Hong Kong?

[dragonfire45]

Um... philosophical relativism and the theory of relativity are two different things. Hari is entitled to his opinion, but he doesn't speak for all Buddhists. Holy shit, the University of Hong Kong?

 

PS. For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, a favorite Indian pastime is reading meanings into Hindu scriptures which their originators probably never intended. For example, one of the Upanishads says that life is born from the rain, rain is born from the sun, ... something like that. Nowadays, most Indians will interpret this to mean the sages have always known about the water cycle. "Rain is born from the sun" was clearly intended to mean that the sun evaporates sea water to form rainclouds!

 

 

So Hari can get away with his opinions and a lay Indian cannot because he is not Buddhist?

So which "Hindu Master" claims of these unlike the "Buddhist Masters"? And the sample of Indians you refer to having those fancy pastimes, they represent all Hindus? Hinduism is not even one homogenous system to make such a foolish assumption.

 

And not to forget the Atharvana Veda which does have many concepts covering fields such as astronomy which is currently studied with interest by the West.

 

Talk of hypocrisy!

Edited May 19, 2010 by dragonfire45

[dragonfire45]

And where is the guy who started this thread? Disappeared? Is this one of those pseudo bashing threads that were so frequent on the now gone (thank GOD lol) infamous Buddhist forum? Someone would start a thread trying to harmlessly compare two systems, often sounding sympathetic to the non-Buddhist system but the intention was clear. Everyone had decided they knew Buddhism was the only way and it was just a pastime to bash and grade other systems. An inner need to constantly seek confirmation for their own Buddhist practice could have been a probable reason. But yeah, this does seem one such thread...no drama, so start a thread and toss a bone to the debating Buddhists. Daniel I's forum (or Kenneth's) forum is the only one where I haven't seen such wasteful pastime.