The Superiority of Tantra to Sutra

[RongzomFan]

Dennis Waite, who invented this Direct Path Advaita and whom you cite all over the forum including your personal forum:http://thetaobums.com/topic/32791-neoadvaita/,endorses Greg Goode in the highest terms:

"In modern times, it finds expression through teachers such as Greg Goode and Francis Lucille."
"Greg goes on to say:"
"As Greg Goode points out...."
"As Greg Goode puts it:"
"was recommended to me by Greg Goode"
Quotes from Back to the Truth: 5000 years of Advaita by Dennis Waite

You even cite Greg Goode directly:

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/32760-direct-path-advaita-resource/?p=500348

Greg Goode dropped Advaita and now follows Madhyamaka

Edited February 15, 2014 by RongzomFan

[Simple_Jack]

Not a fact - just your your opinion

 

I'm basing it mostly off of these remarks.

 

That's the irrelevant bit of the whole thing. What difference does any of that make at all.

He absolutely does nail it and his demolition of the false counter arguments is a masterpiece.

 

Nice to see the false premises in todays institutionalised, pseudoacademic "Buddhism" being demolished.

 

Perhaps it will lead to a renaissance of the actual teachings.

[Simple_Jack]

You even cite Greg Goode directly:

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/32760-direct-path-advaita-resource/?p=500348

 

Greg Goode dropped Advaita and now follows Madhyamaka

 

Proof of it here:

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=15368&p=212112&hilit=greg+goode#p212112

 

Greg Goode wrote about this not too long ago:

"Nagarjuna argues that the faculty of vision cannot ultimately exist. And then neither can a seer or visual objects.

 

Then generalizes to other senses.

 

Even the first two verses deserve lots of contemplation:

 

3.1. "Vision, hearing, taste, smell, touch, and the inner sense (manas or the mind)

are the six faculties; the visible and so on are their fields."

 

(This is the doctrine, and it is held that they exist inherently. This latter claim is what Nagarjuna will refute.)

 

3.2. "In no way does vision see itself.

If vision does not see itself, how will it see what is other?"

 

Verse 3.2 seems odd, because we would normally think that vision is not SUPPOSED to see itself. It is only SUPPOSED to see something other than itself, right?

 

Verse 3.2.a is a version of the non-reflexivity principle. The eye cannot see itself, the knife cannot cut itself.

 

Verse 3.2.b seems like a non-sequitur. Here is what the Indian commentaries said about it.

 

There are at least several ways to look at this:

 

-1-

 

Think of being seen as a property or attribute, something that pervades a substance. It is like the scent of jasmine pervades the jasmine flower before pervading the air around it. If the flower is not pervaded by its own scent, then neither can the air be pervaded by it.

 

So in this way, is vision itself pervaded by the property or essence of being seen? Clearly not. So, like the example of the flower, the property of being seen cannot pervade anything else.

 

So nothing is pervaded by the property of being seen, and the visible is not established. Vision is also not established.

 

-2-

 

If seeing is the inherent, intrinsic property of vision, then it must see all by itself, regardless of whether there is an object present. If vision depended on an object in order for seeing to work, then vision would not be ultimately, inherently existent. Seeing would not be an inherent property of vision.

 

But vision does not see by itself. So it isn't an inherently existent element, and can't inherently see anything.

 

-3-

 

Another way to look at vision is by the objects it sees.

 

Vision either sees the presently visible, or the presently invisible, or both, or neither.

 

Vision doesn't see objects that are presently visible, because they are already being seen. Because they are already being seen, they do not need vision to see them. So this vision is not what is seeing them.

 

Vision doesn't see objects that are presently invisible. Invisible objects have the property of not being seen, so nothing can see them.

 

Vision doesn't see objects that are both visible and invisible because of a combination of the first two reasons above.

 

Vision doesn't see objects that are NEITHER visible nor invisible because we can REVERSE the first two reasons above.

 

Therefore vision doesn't see. If it doesn't see, then seeingness is not its intrinsic nature. Then it makes no sense to think that vision exists in the ultimate way that it appears to.

 

If vision doesn't exist, then how can visible objects exist?"

...

"Vision doesn't see itself. It is not reflexive. Vision is not pervaded by the property of being seen. So if it can't even pervade itself with a property it is supposed to have inherently, then how can it ever spread out and pervade other things? So therefore, the analogy with the flower fails. Vision is more like a knife that can't cut itself than it is like a flower that pervades itself with its own scent.

 

If it is the intrinsic nature of something to be seen, then vision doesn't see it (as it's not necessary), and non-vision doesn't see it (as it's not possible)..

 

If it is the intrinsic nature of something not to be seen, then vision doesn't see it (or then it would be seen and not unseen), and non-vision doesn't see it (because non-vision cannot see).

 

A visual object is either seen by vision or not seen by vision. If vision doesn't see it (because vision is superfluous), then it is not a visual object. If it is not seen by vision because its own nature is to be unseen, then it is also not a visual object.

 

Therefore there are no visual objects.

 

The key to getting this logic is that the assumption of inherent properties make any relationships either impossible or superfluous."

[gatito]

Dennis Waite, who invented this Direct Path Advaita and whom you cite all over the forum including your personal forum:http://thetaobums.com/topic/32791-neoadvaita/,endorses Greg Goode in the highest terms:

 

"In modern times, it finds expression through teachers such as Greg Goode and Francis Lucille."

"Greg goes on to say:"

"As Greg Goode points out...."

"As Greg Goode puts it:"

"was recommended to me by Greg Goode"

Quotes from Back to the Truth: 5000 years of Advaita by Dennis Waite

 

You even cite Greg Goode directly:

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/32760-direct-path-advaita-resource/?p=500348

 

Greg Goode dropped Advaita and now follows Madhyamaka

 

Complete misrepresentation and therefore ubsuprisingly incorrect.

[Simple_Jack]

Complete misrepresentation and therefore ubsuprisingly incorrect.

 

It can't be denied that Greg Goode follows Madhyamaka.

Edited February 15, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[gatito]

It can't be denied that Greg Goode follows Madhyamaka.

 

Can't it?

[Simple_Jack]

Can't it?

 

Nope. I can find more posts of his from http://dharmaconnectiongroup.blogspot.com/ talking about Madhyamaka.

[gatito]

Nope. I can find more posts of his from http://dharmaconnectiongroup.blogspot.com/ talking about Madhyamaka.

 

So what?

[Simple_Jack]

So what?

 

It means he's a practitioner of buddhadharma. He's also a Gelugpa.

[gatito]

Again......so what?

[gatito]

It means he's a practitioner of buddhadharma. He's also a Gelugpa.

 

Again......so what?

[Simple_Jack]

Again......so what?

 

Well, he's an advocate of buddhadharma. He actually practices buddhadharma.

[RongzomFan]

Again......so what?

 

Dennis Waite, who invented this Direct Path Advaita and whom you cite all over the forum including your personal forum:http://thetaobums.com/topic/32791-neoadvaita/,endorses Greg Goode in the highest terms:

 

"In modern times, it finds expression through teachers such as Greg Goode and Francis Lucille."

"Greg goes on to say:"

"As Greg Goode points out...."

"As Greg Goode puts it:"

"was recommended to me by Greg Goode"

Quotes from Back to the Truth: 5000 years of Advaita by Dennis Waite

 

You even cite Greg Goode directly:

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/32760-direct-path-advaita-resource/?p=500348

 

Greg Goode dropped Advaita and now follows Madhyamaka

[Simple_Jack]

Well, he's an advocate of buddhadharma. He actually practices buddhadharma.

 

I think it's safe to conclude that the same cannot be said of you and yabyum24.

[gatito]

Dennis Waite, who invented this Direct Path Advaita and whom you cite all over the forum including your personal forum:http://thetaobums.com/topic/32791-neoadvaita/,endorses Greg Goode in the highest terms:

 

"In modern times, it finds expression through teachers such as Greg Goode and Francis Lucille."

"Greg goes on to say:"

"As Greg Goode points out...."

"As Greg Goode puts it:"

"was recommended to me by Greg Goode"

Quotes from Back to the Truth: 5000 years of Advaita by Dennis Waite

 

You even cite Greg Goode directly:

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/32760-direct-path-advaita-resource/?p=500348

 

Greg Goode dropped Advaita and now follows Madhyamaka

 

I've already said that this is a misrepresentation of the facts and therefore incorrect.

[RongzomFan]

How is it a misrepresentation?

[gatito]

I think it's safe to conclude that the same cannot be said of you and yabyum24.

 

Without meeting us you wouldn't actually have the faintest idea.

 

Therefore you are again incorrect, as is also the norm.

[asunthatneversets]

Dennis Waite, who invented this Direct Path Advaita and whom you cite all over the forum including your personal forum:http://thetaobums.com/topic/32791-neoadvaita/,endorses Greg Goode in the highest terms:

 

"In modern times, it finds expression through teachers such as Greg Goode and Francis Lucille."

"Greg goes on to say:"

"As Greg Goode points out...."

"As Greg Goode puts it:"

"was recommended to me by Greg Goode"

Quotes from Back to the Truth: 5000 years of Advaita by Dennis Waite

 

You even cite Greg Goode directly:

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/32760-direct-path-advaita-resource/?p=500348

 

Greg Goode dropped Advaita and now follows Madhyamaka

Greg did not drop Advaita and now follows Madhyamaka. He has followed both teachings, among others, for many years. He is actually writing a new Direct Path book now.

[Simple_Jack]

Without meeting us you wouldn't actually have the faintest idea.

 

Therefore you are again incorrect, as is also the norm.

 

I'm basing it mostly off of these remarks:

 

That's the irrelevant bit of the whole thing. What difference does any of that make at all.

He absolutely does nail it and his demolition of the false counter arguments is a masterpiece.

 

Nice to see the false premises in todays institutionalised, pseudoacademic "Buddhism" being demolished.

 

Perhaps it will lead to a renaissance of the actual teachings.

Edited February 15, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[gatito]

Greg did not drop Advaita and now follows Madhyamaka. He has followed both teachings, among others, for many years. He is actually writing a new Direct Path book now.

 

The first two sentences are not incorrect.

[RongzomFan]

He is actually writing a new Direct Path book now.

 

A book does not have Direct Introduction, therefore there is nothing Direct about it.

[gatito]

I'm basing it mostly off of these remarks:

 

I've noticed you habitually jump to usualy incorrect conclusions due to lack of evidence

[gatito]

A book does not have Direct Introduction, therefore there is nothing Direct about it.

 

The Direct Path is taught in person.

 

John Levy is very specific about that

[RongzomFan]

The Direct Path is taught in person.

 

John Levy is very specific about that

 

Jesus, again with the John Levy?

[Simple_Jack]

That's the irrelevant bit of the whole thing. What difference does any of that make at all.

He absolutely does nail it and his demolition of the false counter arguments is a masterpiece.

 

Nice to see the false premises in todays institutionalised, pseudoacademic "Buddhism" being demolished.

 

Perhaps it will lead to a renaissance of the actual teachings.

 

This is how I can deduce that neither of you are practitioners of buddhadharma.