Neoadvaita has its flaws

[yabyum24]

Ramana's writings are the worst. I would put Eckhart Tolle above Ramana.....not that I'm endorsing Eckhart Tolle.

Really? Wow. It just goes to show that different people get different things from what they read.

 

I studied the Prasangika tenets for a few years. It's initially impressive but then you realise it's all head stuff and does not accord with any kind of 'direct' experience. Candrakirti's Sevenfold Reasoning says it all about his approach. You know it's coming from a disingenuous viewpoint though, don't you?

 

It's a useful tool to refute Atman Junkies (which was why they had to cook it up in the first place I guess) but once that's sorted, then you can lay it to one side.

 

Just a question for you. As an Indian and former Hindu, do you feel that the Buddhist's representation of the Hindu Atman is a fair one? Is it really as crude, as it's presented? I've always suspected that in some cases it's way more nuanced but you'd be better placed to say.

[RongzomFan]

I studied the Prasangika tenets for a few years.

 

 

There is no such thing as Prasangika. Come on now.

 

When people say they studied Pransangika, that means they just studied Tsongkhapa.

[yabyum24]

There is no such thing as Prasangika. Come on now.

 

When people say they studied Pransangika, that means they just studied Tsongkhapa.

Well, they put great store in Candrakirti, two truths etc. etc. In any case you must have heard of the four 'nominal' schools of Tibetan tenets - 2 hinayana & 2 mahayana.

All part of the fun and games at Nalanda. No wonder Naropa left!

 

(bump) Hindu Atman question???

[RongzomFan]

I don't even care about Madhyamaka. Madhyamaka is just sutra.

 

I'm really comparing Neoadvaita with Mahamudra, which is tantra.

 

Madhamudra has direct introduction.

[yabyum24]

I don't even care about Madhyamaka. Madhyamaka is just sutra.

I don't blame you for not caring about it.

 

It's sutra, but not even very useful sutra in my opinion.

 

Mahamudra on the other hand is something special.

 

What kind of direct introduction have you experienced? If I may be so bold as to ask.

[RongzomFan]

What kind of direct introduction have you experienced? If I may be so bold as to ask.

 

I don't answer that kind of stuff. Suffice it to say I have received transmission from a legit Tibetan born and raised lama.

[RongzomFan]

(bump) Hindu Atman question???

 

Atman is just Sanskrit for identity.

 

There is no Hindu atman, or Buddhist views on Hindu atman.

 

 

[C T]

There are no degrees. You either recognize unfabricated presence versus the conceptualizing mind......or you don't.

The conceptualizing mind does not cease like *POOF* even after direct introduction. You cannot be so naive, Alwayson.

 

Its not like once recognized it stays permanently. If it did, man, you wouldn't even be here trying to put other traditions down.

[RongzomFan]

The conceptualizing mind does not cease like *POOF* even after direct introduction. You cannot be so naive, Alwayson.

 

I want you to point out where I said it would cease.

[Simple_Jack]

How do you bring the non dual into the realm of mind and ideas so you can talk about it using the dualistic mind?

 

Because they are conventional designations which can be used to understand ultimate truth.

[RongzomFan]

Its not like once recognized it stays permanently.

 

The recognition is permanent. But then you have accustom yourself to relax in that knowledge.

 

That's called tr*kc**.

Edited December 2, 2013 by RongzomFan

[C T]

The recognition is permanent. But then you have accustom yourself to relax in that knowledge.

No, people forget easily. Its called straying.

 

Accustomisation is the process which allows stability to gradually take root, and this happens in degrees, depending on all sorts of factors -- personal karma, mental dispositions, laziness, pride, ego levels, etc. These things do not vanish, they return to 'haunt' the initiate after each empowerment, no? Maybe that's why people chase empowerments. It probably stems from greed, and a failure to see the importance of putting in the right effort to practice according to what has been given by the teacher.

[RongzomFan]

I'm surprised no one made the argument that Satsang is a form of Vedanta direct introduction.

[RongzomFan]

No, people forget easily. Its called straying.

 

 

Then they never recognized in the first place.

[C T]

Then they never recognized in the first place.

If the right lama and the right conditions are present, the recognition cannot fail.

 

Like i said, the mind strays again even after 10, or even a 100 empowerments. Neo-vajrayanists collect them like medals.

 

If one remains humble and dogged in practice, one introduction is enough.

[RongzomFan]

The recognition is permanent. But then you have accustom yourself to relax in that knowledge.

 

That's called tr*kc**.

[Jetsun]

Because they are conventional designations which can be used to understand ultimate truth.

 

They can't be used to understand ultimate truth, they can only be imperfect pointers hopefully sending you in the right direction to have the experience of ultimate truth.

 

For example no matter what anyone writes or what ideas people have in their minds about oranges it can't compare in any way to the actual experience of eating an orange. Many of the ideas and concepts people have are just hooks they get stuck on which is why the Vedanta type paths are good for some people as there are far less of those hooks to catch you and slow you down on your way to experience .

[BaguaKicksAss]

OK sooo, I split this thread. Please find the insult each other, swear a lot while putting down teachers and paths, or just plain talk about random other stuff thread here: http://thetaobums.co...-topic-derails/

Edited December 3, 2013 by BaguaKicksAss

[Simple_Jack]

They can't be used to understand ultimate truth, they can only be imperfect pointers hopefully sending you in the right direction to have the experience of ultimate truth.

 

Not according to the Gelugpas.

[RongzomFan]

For example no matter what anyone writes or what ideas people have in their minds about oranges it can't compare in any way to the actual experience of eating an orange. Many of the ideas and concepts people have are just hooks they get stuck on which is why the MAHAMUDRA type paths are good for some people as there are far less of those hooks to catch you and slow you down on your way to experience .

I corrected your statement.

Edited December 2, 2013 by BaguaKicksAss
Edited to show who actually wrote the quote

[Jetsun]

Mahamudra is good too, but in the Vedanta type paths there is not the religious trappings, you don't have to take refuge or swear to anyone, or worship the Guru, or study texts, or do preliminaries, its just basics stripped down to the bone.

[Simple_Jack]

This must be a misnomer because Neo-Advaita is devoid of any path to follow.

[RongzomFan]

And what are Vedantins supposed to recognize?

 

None of you NeoAdvaitins has ever said what you are supposed to recognize.

 

We have precise descriptions of what you are supposed to recognize.

[Boy]

...

Edited January 15, 2014 by Boy

[RongzomFan]

c ) Would you kindly provide links to two of your precise descriptions?

 

1. Schmidt, Erik. (2001). The Light of Wisdom Vol IV. Kathmandu: Rangjung Yeshe Publications. p.77

 

This instant freshness, unspoiled by the thoughts of the three times,

You directly see in actuality by letting be in naturalness.

 

2. Distinguishing rigpa and sems

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=M9VX065ALl4C&pg=PA154&dq=distinguishing+rigpa+and+sems&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iUudUu99xKqQB67ogdAJ&ved=0CFwQuwUwBw#v=onepage&q=distinguishing%20rigpa%20and%20sems&f=false

Edited December 3, 2013 by RongzomFan