Sankaracharya and his confrontation of Buddhist philosophy

[RigdzinTrinley]

some more lists and definitions of terms:

 

essence, nature and energy is one = non dual gnosis (its all in dharmakaya rigpa, so if we get that we got the essence of all yanas, practices, lineages, transmisions, deities, vows and samayas etc in one practice)

 

essence is emptiness (the empty aspect of the nature of mind)

nature is clarity (the appearances, what in sutra is called appearances is called luminosity, or clarity aspect of the nature of mind in Tantra)

energy is infinite emanations of compassion (the energy that comes from seeing the union of appearance/emptiness is great compassion, natural and unobstructed)

 

essence is dharmakaya

nature is sambhogakaya

energy is nirmanakaya

 

the perfectly pure nadis are nirmanakaya (impure nadi is the body and what gives rise to the body)

the perfectly pure prana is sambhogakaya (impure prana is the speech and what gives rise to speech)

the perfectly pure bindu is dharmakaya (impure bindu is dualistic mind and what gives rise to mind)

 

"all form are deity" how to purify forms into the nirmanakaya (basic view for this to work? form is emptiness)

"all sounds are mantra" how to purify energies, vibrations, sounds into the sambhogakaya (sound is emptiness)

"all minds are yeshe (nowness awareness)" how to purify all concepts into the dharmakaya (mind is emptiness)

 

for me it all boils down to understanding appaerance/emptiness

 

and that things are constantly happening is only possible because they are empty appearance

 

dream like

 

so its important to understand the union of appearance emptiness, if there is no appaerance you can't talk about emptiness at all, if there is no emptiness you can't talk about appearances at all

 

so dreamlike appearances is the union of appearance/emptiness (there is not even an atom between those two)

Edited October 15, 2015 by RigdzinTrinley

[seekingbuddha]

P.S. I understand that Sankara acknowledged Sunya but he said "there is more beyond that" essentially which is why he refuted the Buddhist schools he did.

Interestingly, both Dzogchen and Mahamudra speak of the "nature of mind" as opposed to the mind itself.  To me, this is non other than Sat-Chit-Anand.

 

Stepos,

     The following points are in reference to your postings.....

1. It is widely accepted by indian historians that  Buddhism died in india  for one primary reason:    Hinduism  embraced  Buddhist  teachings  into  its  wide  array of  practices and philosophies.  In fact,  lot of Hindu's will accept  that  Buddha  is  the latest  re-incarnation of God.   This  fact  is also substantiated  by the posting  earlier by  forestofemptiness.   After all, the  deepest layer of truth  is  NOT fragmented,  but humanity has fragmented it into multiple religions.
2. The pali canon is  NOT  dated  1 st century.   Oral transmission  of Buddha's words  started  in the 1st council of  Buddha's  disciples led by the Elder disciples.  This 1st council was held within 100 years of  Buddha's  death. What you are referring to maybe the 4th council,  which happened around the time of Jesus.  For this reason, you won't find  lot of  fragmented thoughts in  Pali canon - it will be quite repetitious  in its teaching  because  Buddha's core message  was the same, which he repeated  to many different people during different discourses.  So, this is as close to Buddha's words as you can get.
3. It has been accepted by modern scholars of all schools that the oldest versions of Buddha's words are the Pali canon.  I am confident in saying that  according to Pali canon (which is the basis for Theraveda tradition),  Buddha clearly said  there is  more beyond  Sunya (nothingness or emptiness - choose any such word here).   So Sankaracharya  is simply  reiterating  Buddha's words.   This  reinforces point #1. Because high Hindu teachers like him taught the same  teachings  of Buddha,   Buddhism  got absorbed,  and declined in India.

[Jeff]

some more lists and definitions of terms:

essence, nature and energy is one = non dual gnosis (its all in dharmakaya rigpa, so if we get that we got the essence of all yanas, practices, lineages, transmisions, deities, vows and samayas etc in one practice)

essence is emptiness (the empty aspect of the nature of mind)

nature is clarity (the appearances, what in sutra is called appearances is called luminosity, or clarity aspect of the nature of mind in Tantra)

energy is infinite emanations of compassion (the energy that comes from seeing the union of appearance/emptiness is great compassion, natural and unobstructed)

essence is dharmakaya

nature is sambhogakaya

energy is nirmanakaya

the perfectly pure nadis are nirmanakaya (impure nadi is the body and what gives rise to the body)

the perfectly pure prana is sambhogakaya (impure prana is the speech and what gives rise to speech)

the perfectly pure bindu is dharmakaya (impure bindu is dualistic mind and what gives rise to mind)

"all form are deity" how to purify forms into the nirmanakaya (basic view for this to work? form is emptiness)

"all sounds are mantra" how to purify energies, vibrations, sounds into the sambhogakaya (sound is emptiness)

"all minds are yeshe (nowness awareness)" how to purify all concepts into the dharmakaya (mind is emptiness)

for me it all boils down to understanding appaerance/emptiness

and that things are constantly happening is only possible because they are empty appearance

dream like

so its important to understand the union of appearance emptiness, if there is no appaerance you can't talk about emptiness at all, if there is no emptiness you can't talk about appearances at all

so dreamlike appearances is the union of appearance/emptiness (there is not even an atom between those two)

 

Thank you for your continued definitions. As it relates to my original question, I take it that your response implies that you do not experience the "appearance" of things like chakras and energy? Or what you may describe as the relative increasing "purity" that leads to the sambhogakaya?

 

 

[3bob]

People, consider moving your happy Buddhist discussion to the Buddhist forum - where it obviously belongs.

Edited October 16, 2015 by 3bob

[dwai]

 

Stepos,

     The following points are in reference to your postings.....

1. It is widely accepted by indian historians that  Buddhism died in india  for one primary reason:    Hinduism  embraced  Buddhist  teachings  into  its  wide  array of  practices and philosophies.  In fact,  lot of Hindu's will accept  that  Buddha  is  the latest  re-incarnation of God.   This  fact  is also substantiated  by the posting  earlier by  forestofemptiness.   After all, the  deepest layer of truth  is  NOT fragmented,  but humanity has fragmented it into multiple religions.
2. The pali canon is  NOT  dated  1 st century.   Oral transmission  of Buddha's words  started  in the 1st council of  Buddha's  disciples led by the Elder disciples.  This 1st council was held within 100 years of  Buddha's  death. What you are referring to maybe the 4th council,  which happened around the time of Jesus.  For this reason, you won't find  lot of  fragmented thoughts in  Pali canon - it will be quite repetitious  in its teaching  because  Buddha's core message  was the same, which he repeated  to many different people during different discourses.  So, this is as close to Buddha's words as you can get.
3. It has been accepted by modern scholars of all schools that the oldest versions of Buddha's words are the Pali canon.  I am confident in saying that  according to Pali canon (which is the basis for Theraveda tradition),  Buddha clearly said  there is  more beyond  Sunya (nothingness or emptiness - choose any such word here).   So Sankaracharya  is simply  reiterating  Buddha's words.   This  reinforces point #1. Because high Hindu teachers like him taught the same  teachings  of Buddha,   Buddhism  got absorbed,  and declined in India.

Hello,

 

Buddhism's decline in India is primarily because of Islamic invasions and massive extermination of Buddhist temples and universities. This paper discusses the underlying causes of Buddhism's decline.

 

Buddhism's Disappearance from India

[3bob]

 Sanatana Dharma is not Buddhism - get that straight 

[dwai]

 Sanatana Dharma is not Buddhism - get that straight 

Hi 3Bob,

 

This is an often beaten, almost decrepit topic (Buddhism vis-a-vis Hinduism/Sanatana Dharma). That's why I'm not engaging in the discussion from that perspective. You are right, discussions of dharmakaya, sambhogakaya, etc should be done in general discussion or buddha-bum section. Not here...

[3bob]

Dwai, Indeed and thanks...