Nagarjuna and Samkara

[RongzomFan]

Honestly both Vaj and Dwai need to study Dzogchen. Maybe you two can agree on some stuff if you both did that.

[RongzomFan]

And there are two different arguments being made.

 

Is Advaita vedanta and Mādhyamaka the same intellectually?

 

Are the two things the same experientially?

 

The answer to one may not be the answer to the other

[Vajrahridaya]

Honestly both Vaj and Dwai need to study Dzogchen. Maybe you two can agree on some stuff if you both did that.

 

Alwayson, Dzogchen is my main practice and study, and Dzogchen does not agree with the premise presented by Vedanta either.

 

You can ask Namdrol about this if you wish.

[RongzomFan]

Alwayson, Dzogchen is my main practice and study, and Dzogchen does not agree with the premise presented by Vedanta either.

 

You can ask Namdrol about this if you wish.

 

What I was trying to say, is that if dwai studied Dzogchen, he would probably abandon vedanta since he preaches about nonduality on the experiential level.

 

and you yourself, definitely need to learn more about Dzogchen teachings atleast on the intellectual level.

Edited February 7, 2011 by alwayson

[Vajrahridaya]

And there are two different arguments being made.

 

Is Advaita vedanta and Mādhyamaka the same intellectually?

 

Are the two things the same experientially?

 

The answer to one may not be the answer to the other

 

The same answer applies to both as Vedanta leads to a long lived god realm or a formless bliss realm. This is easily ascertained if you were to actually read the Puranas, Upanishads and Shastras of Hinduism, including the Maharamayana or Vasisthas Yoga and compare them to what the Buddha taught.

 

Intellectually, the dont have the same conclusions as Madhyamakas two truths are that things arise due to inter-dependence, and the ultimate truth is that they don't inherently exist.

 

Vedanta believes that all things are illusion and that consciousness is all that is true existence. That there is Maya the illusion and Brahman the absolute true existence.

 

So neither does Vedanta say the same thing intellectually nor experientially as a Buddha experiences infinite consciousness in a formless Samadhi, but goes beyond it through insight into dependent origination and doesn't see things as originating from this independent source as one with it as Vedanta says.

Edited February 7, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[goldisheavy]

Actually it is perfectly valid to use Turiya because this is not a state some people experience and others don't, but rather it is a state that every one CAN experience if they follow certain practices.

 

This is hilarious.

 

It is critical in the phenomenological inquiry process to be able to access this state.

 

So some people "access" it and some don't.

It is jargon for those who are not versed in the paradigm of Advaita and Yoga. The paper was meant for people with background knowledge in at least one of them (and possibly both).

 

I disagree. I've been studying Advaita for a while and I haven't run across any mentin of Turiya until way later. Also, I believe Avadhuta Gita makes fun of Turiya as a big joke that it is.

 

I think it is faulty to read a qualitative judgement into the views articulated by Dr. Rama. If you are versed in the philosophical background of the two systems (Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism), which in your case you obviously are,

 

Well, I wouldn't say that. I've studied some Advaita texts and read some Advaita web sites for some time. I believe I have some understanding and a decent degree of experience as well. However, I wouldn't bill myself as an Advaita scholar by any means. I'm not all that scholarly. I am interested in the root meaning. I always look for the bottom line, for the root. I don't memorize a lot of jargon unless it sticks naturally by itself. I don't make it a point to systematically study any tradition.

 

 

then it is nothing but a re-iteration, summarization of the practicing principles of these systems. The demarcation between Pure objectless Consciousness and Consciousness with Object is essential for two reasons:

 

a) to realize that consciousness exists without objects...in that it is self-existent and not dependent on objects (ie beyond duality)

and

 

Alternatively you can say that objects are not what they seem to be in the first place. The nature of all objects is precisely this "objectlessness" you speak of. So you don't need some other consciousness to see it. You just need to see the objects as they actually appear.

 

At this point you may realize that the distinction between the presence of objects and their absence is purely ornamental, without any substance, purely arbitrary and without any real weight or importance.

 

to show that the concept of the two-levels of existence/truth/reality (the relative aka samvritti or vyavaharika satya and absolute or paramartha satya) are validated, re-affirmed via this medium.

 

I see you make the mistake of assuming that by categorizing consciousness in the traditional manner, he somehow qualitatively dismisses the consciousness with objects. That could be (and usually is) a very standard psychological reaction when encountering this system. This psychology leads to misplaced notions of superiority and inferiority. The truth of the matter however is that there is no such thing because they are a continuum and any demarcation between the two is a matter of necessity (to effectively impart the knowledge).

 

It is like night and day being two distinct states...and saying that night is worse than day somehow. The fact is that night and day are part of a continuum of less light and more light (which come with their own implications of course) and any distinction between the two is a phenomenological statement of observation (empirical) as opposed to articulation of any absolute stand or position.

 

For what it's worth, I actually agree with the main thesis of the article.

[Vajrahridaya]

and you yourself, definitely need to learn more about Dzogchen teachings atleast on the intellectual level.

 

I don't talk much Dzogchen, but sure... there is tons of Dzogchen termas to study which I have yet to. Absolutely!!

[RongzomFan]

So going back to the starting post of the thread....This is my opinion:

 

Advaita Vedanta is not the same as Mādhyamaka on the intellectual level, even though Advaita Vedanta has heavy Mādhyamaka influence historically speaking.

 

On the experiential level, they may or may not be the same.

 

But neither are on the same level as Dzogchen in any way.

Edited February 7, 2011 by alwayson

[goldisheavy]

And distinguishing Rigpa from mind is the beginning practice of Dzogchen, lol. Of course that's not all there is to it.

 

There is only one way to distinguish mind from anything else: you must have a preconception about mind first. In other words, you must be ignorant.

[RongzomFan]

There is only one way to distinguish mind from anything else: you must have a preconception about mind first. In other words, you must be ignorant.

 

 

???

[Vajrahridaya]

There is only one way to distinguish mind from anything else: you must have a preconception about mind first. In other words, you must be ignorant.

 

This is true in a sense. I must agree... in a sense.

 

But this is the basic assumption when a tradition is taught, as it's not taught for the omniscient, but for the ignorant.

[dwai]

What I was trying to say, is that if dwai studied Dzogchen, he would probably abandon vedanta since he preaches about nonduality on the experiential level.

 

and you yourself, definitely need to learn more about Dzogchen teachings atleast on the intellectual level.

 

I did start reading Dzogchen about 10 years back...but I don't have the time to learn yet another Advaita or Taoist-like practice. Honestly, there is nothing in what I read so far that would lead me to believe that either intellectually or experientially it will be any different from what I already do.

 

You could of course say, that I won't know till I actually try it out...and while that might be the case, I highly doubt that it would lead me to change my understanding about anything dramatically.

[dwai]

This is hilarious.

 

 

 

So some people "access" it and some don't.

 

 

 

I disagree. I've been studying Advaita for a while and I haven't run across any mentin of Turiya until way later. Also, I believe Avadhuta Gita makes fun of Turiya as a big joke that it is.

 

I fail to find the hilarity in this.

 

I suspect that your study of Advaita must have matured for you to have "run" into Turiya. A lot of preparatory stuff might not really deal with the practical aspect of it, but leave that to the practice of Yoga.

In fact, Yoga is a highly relied upon practical side to a lot of indic systems, including Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta and Tantra. So, while the Turiya state is often integral part of Yogic practice and terminology, the preparatory Advaita teachings might willingly have omitted these.

 

There is a concept of Adhikara (or Right to Know or Eligibility). And a student surely traverses the ladder...kind of like moving up from nursery to KG to primary school to finally Graduate and Post-graduate studies. I hope you get the point...

 

Well, I wouldn't say that. I've studied some Advaita texts and read some Advaita web sites for some time. I believe I have some understanding and a decent degree of experience as well. However, I wouldn't bill myself as an Advaita scholar by any means. I'm not all that scholarly. I am interested in the root meaning. I always look for the bottom line, for the root. I don't memorize a lot of jargon unless it sticks naturally by itself. I don't make it a point to systematically study any tradition.

 

It is fascinating how you can get to the root without knowing how to identify it as such. This would lead to another completely mind-numbing round of analogies and metaphors so I will leave this at that...

 

Alternatively you can say that objects are not what they seem to be in the first place. The nature of all objects is precisely this "objectlessness" you speak of. So you don't need some other consciousness to see it. You just need to see the objects as they actually appear.

 

 

I see you still haven't grasped the point I was trying to make. There IS NO "Other consciousness", there is only one consciousness. Only difference is whether there are objects or not.

 

At this point you may realize that the distinction between the presence of objects and their absence is purely ornamental, without any substance, purely arbitrary and without any real weight or importance.

 

 

 

For what it's worth, I actually agree with the main thesis of the article.

 

 

Glad you agree with the main thesis.