The Dao Bums
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About TaraTarini

  • Rank
    Dao Bum
  1. Self vs No-Self

    Thank you brother.I have looked at the arguments for momentariness or anatman and it basically all boils down to the fact the contents of consciousness are momentary so there is no unchanging consciousness.I found this a weak argument and I found Adi Shankara’ and ramanuja’s arguments against anatman more powerful.there are plenty of Buddhists that believe in a atman or higher alaya so this doesn’t prove Hinduism above Buddhism per se,but it does prove that Nagarjuna was wrong and anatman is wrong. nagarjuna’s emptiness empty of itself would be a reality if there were a true infinite chain of arising and cessation.but true infinite’s numerically are impossible and arising and cessation are impossible outside of consciousness so shunyata and anatman do not exist.there is empty of other but not self as dolpopa wrote imo I haven’t really done much spiritual practice so I can’t say I had a direct realization of atman but logically you can’t escape atman and yes I have debated many Buddhists on this matter.
  2. Self vs No-Self

    I think that to believe in anatman you must believe basically that things arise out of nothing.let me explain:the alaya is made up of a composition of momentary cittas all arising and perishing instantaneously.to believe that a citta arises anew when it’s former citta has already ceased is to say things Arise from nothing and that infinite new persons make up yourself when there is only a sence of continuity of yourself with recognition and remembrance.to accept anatman is to accept radical momentariness wich even Buddhists agree must be heavily meditated on to grasp as it cannot be understood logically.thats just my opinion. Also if we take mipham’s four great logical arguments against arising and apply them to citta or the alaya,we will come to accept a permanent self.arising can only happen within consciousness. https://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-masters/mipham/four-great-logical-arguments
  3. I was reading his commentary on the Brahma sutras and came across his critique of momentariness,wich he says all Buddhist schools hold to(IDK how true this is ): the gist of his critique is that the atom or vignana perishes before it’s subsequent descendant arises.if that is the case how can there be a continuity of things he asks?one atom or vignana can’t condition its subsequent atom or vignana?also if this is the case from what permanent source do the atoms arise from?does a thing arise out of nothing ?what is the Buddhist belief regarding this?btw by continuity I mean that say I stand over by the tree the aroma and vijnanas that make up me (or just vignanas if you’re Mahayana )will be at the same location until I Or the next person that makes up my mindstream gets up and leaves.if one momentary Thing cannot condition its subsequent momentary thing how do things arise in a unbroken continuity?and from what?thats the gist of his argumentation. At the surface this sounds like a good and simple critique of momentariness,but I’m sure that Buddhists have a good reply to it so I’m asking here what the Buddhist answer is to ramanuja. im wondering if other systems of momentariness hold that the thing perishes only when it’s descendant arises.there would be confused experience then and you must still answer how something has causal power to create out of nothing(other, wich interestingly ramanuja says the madhyamika criticized this type of arising in his day)Especially if it doesn’t have volition like a atom or vignana.but it would save the whole accusation that you believe things just pop into existance atleast in its most obvious way(ramanuja says the madhyamika thought otherwise)
  4. Kalpataru is a Shaktih from an awakened ajna chakra or third eye and you can make reality and events happen as you wish and live in abundance.does anyone know wich texts speak of this power?
  5. Why I believe in atman over anatman

    even if infinity were a actual thing and a infinite regress could be posited there would still be two problems:1.in a infinite set of conditioned phenomena,no particular condition could be met and so the entire chain ceases to exist at any point in time. 2.true production out of nothing and other (wich is still out of nothing in a sence)cannot actually be established and thus we would have two things(Matter and mind,or mind alone in the synthesis schools)being enduring and not subject to flux,and thus one or two selves.this refutes anatman.even if it were subject to a change in condition,it would not be in terms of essence. still we would come to a permanent enduring thing,a atman of sorts.thats just my opinion.
  6. Why I believe in atman over anatman

    I heard from some knowledegeable people that buddha nature isn't the same as atman,but rather the inherent potential for nirvana in all beings?it isn't the alaya consciousness wich is the final consciousness,and so isn't like the atman of vedanta and kashmiri shaivism wich is one pure witness.nirvana is not uniting with the alaya,and nirvana does not create samsara. Malcolm returned to dharmawheel.
  7. Why I believe in atman over anatman

    How Can one prove that awareness is not dependently originated?and how can one be aware without an object?You mean like in Samadhi?
  8. Why I believe in atman over anatman

    Also Malcolm doesn’t accept that a unconditoned cause is not dependent for its Own existance and that this is meant by unconditioned reality even if the effect were different from the cause wich it isn’t in Kashmiri shaivism and shaktism.Anyway I don’t debate on Buddhist forums like dharmawheel due to Moderation and censorship.I am open to debating on a platform like this though!malcolm btw has never refuted my unconditioned reality argument just asserting that it’s a solely theistic argument as if it can’t apply to absolute idealism.He hasn’t refuted the premises.
  9. Why I believe in atman over anatman

    I have debated Malcolm before,his line of reasoning is that a unconditioned reality cannot be a cause as it becomes dependent the minute it becomes a cause.I say that it can interact with itself and within Kashmiri Shaivism wich I lean towards,thats all that it is doing by multiplying into jiva and tattva.his other reasoning is that a permanent entity cannot be a cause and must create all at once.he is confusing permanent with static and immutability with impassibility and he doesn’t give a good reason why a permanently enduring entity cannot be a cause.furthermore a being with limitless resources and time can create over time if he wants to and is under no obligation to create all at once for efficiency. In my debate with Malcolm all I hear is that I do not understand anything and that I am no shentongpa but a non dual shaivite.I never claimed to be exclusively one above the other but rather follow the tradition of the eight mahasiddhas like machendranath and gorakhnath and follow both(though I consider myself a seeker and do not really label myself Buddhist or Hindu yet let alone exclusively one or the other).Malcolm freaks out about the shentongpa and claims they are nothing like I think they are when in a post in 2010 he had a high Rinpoche admit that shentong and Advaita were no different in how they presented their view. I have been warned by other users on dharmawheel not to debate with Malcolm as he treats people a certain way(even if I do believe he is a nice guy)in debates. I am open to written debates all the time however so if you have any of his students come debate me then that would be fine. Okay,I have never heard this before and was genuinely confused as to what he believed about causation.does Nagarjuna hold that matter and mind are separate yet do not arise and thus are not existent by a certain definition of existance or that matter and mind do not exist the way that adi Shankara thought they were positing? if nothing arises then matter and mind or mind in the madhyamika yogachara synthesis schools of Tibet wich Dzogchenpas adhere to (and I had Malcolm tell me that in dzogchen that mind creates appearances of matter as it’s a synthesis school )is a self.maybe not as it is not static but it does have a enduring existance and inherent existance thus.thats all I’m arguing for.
  10. Why I believe in atman over anatman

    The Reason I say that Shunyata is based on production out of nothing is because if it is based on Khshanabhangavada as Abhdidharma holds,then the cause perishes before the effect arises.this is production out of nothing.the other alternative is that the cause endures until the effect arises,but in case of this you would have confused experience especially in regards to Citta.but still this is still production out nothing as the cause creates the effect ex nihilo. it is not clear wich view Nagarjuna holds as true,but both are the only alternatives compatible with dependant origination wich he held as true(EVERY cause is an effect)
  11. Why I believe in atman over anatman

    BTW,when I say Shunyata I just mean as ment by the rangtong schools.Dzogchen is incompatible with shentong,yet half of nyingma lamas are shentongpas.
  12. Why I believe in atman over anatman

    Hello dear companion.I have read all of my Dzogchen from Dzogchen Acharya malcolm loppon.As far as I know based on his posts, the base is just shunyata and it is shunyata wich I am disregarding in my OP for a few reasons.Shunyata is based on infinite regression of actual produced things.but infinite regression would be impossible because a true infinite without a starting point is impossible,and if it were possible then nothing would exist in the chain as every condition cannot be met by its former condition in the chain as there is no starting point and you can keep going back.furthermore production of actual things is impossible as in production out of nothing(commonly known as without a cause or other,wich is still creation out of nothing unless other is simply the effect and thus cause and effect are the same and there is really only one constant existant thing wich is against shunyata). Shunyata is based on infinite regression and dependant origination and an actual production out of nothing(otherwise you have the View expressed in the brahma sutra bhasya that there is one substance that merely changes its condition or form).I reject both for a few in my opinion airtight reasons.thats just my opinion! Blessings!
  13. Why I believe in atman over anatman

    I think that many hindus are trying to mix oil and water when they write things like this article https://medium.com/@dramartyakumar/the-shunyata-of-the-atman-of-hinduism-and-the-atman-in-the-shunyata-of-madhyamika-buddhism-b09fe3fafe71 that said shunyata and brahman were the same because buddhas are aware.when in actuality,a buddha has no awareness at all! Shunyata is based on infinite regression of actual causes and actual effects i.e dependant origination.it is hard for many hindus to understand that the Buddhists really are positing this,because in hinduism as Jagadguru adi shankara wrote in his brahma sutra bhasya;there is one cause and one substance that changes its form. it also seems so counterintuitive to asset infinite regression and baselessness.but that is what the (Rangtong and theravada)buddhists are asserting.they are asserting what they are saying they assert as counterintuitive as it may sound to most people. ultimately if true production cannot be established of concrete things and neither an infinite regress of causes and conditions,then Shunyata would be false as most buddhists outside some shentongpa's schools understand it.
  14. Why I believe in atman over anatman

    Hello dear Friend!Nagarjuna's Shunyata empty of itself is based on impermanence and dependant origination.If every cause is not an effect,then there is no emptiness of self only other!Dependant origination asserts that absolutely EVERY cause is an effect of a previous cause,ad infinitum.But as I have shown earlier,if there is a infinity of causes and effects no condition can be met for any existing thing and there would be nothing in manifestation of existance.Furthermore,Infinity is just a concept in people's minds,it cannot exist for actual things.Infinity is actually Absurd and I think Hilbert's hotel shows this.Set theory may use infinities,but they are not applicable to actual things. A regression of infinite causes cannot be,and production too cannot be established really so even if it could be the case that an actual infinite of causes and effects could exist,in reality it still wouldn't. BTW,this is not exclusive to Buddhism.Jonang and Karma Kagyu Believe in a unconditioned ultimate reality that is the source or backround for conditioned relative realities.its really the old shentong vs rangtong debate in Tibet. So if infinite regression and production cannot be established,there is no Shunyata as Nagarjuna is commonly believed to have posited(I believe he held Bodhi as an ultimate reality based on my rerading of chandradhar sharma's books,and Shentong is based on a understanding madhyamika not cittamatra) What arguments would nagarjuna give for rejecting a absolute? Sorry for the late Replies guys and I hope you guys had a auspicious set of navratri and diwali.
  15. Hi.I'm not really a buddhist or a hindu yet,I'm still searching wich one is true and wether other religions could possibly be true or maybe all of them are true.I don't know yet.but I have reasons to believe that Shunyata as expounded by nagarjuna is not true.I don't mean to offend with that,I know that nagarjuna is held in very high esteem by those in the Madhyamika schools and Yogachara-madhyamaka Synthesis schools like the Svatantrika Yogacharas.But I think that he was wrong,frankly put. the Reason I'm making this thread is because I want Answers to these objections.so that if I'm wrong,I can maybe correct my views and follow the right view.I am not attacking any beliefs,though I do write with the premise that they are not true because from my logical analysis I have seen them to be so. 1.Anatman:Anatman is the idea that nothing has inherent existance.thus there is no Self or Supersoul or anything like that.No God.nothing of the sort. the theravadans Believe in the existance of matter and Cittas wich are substantial but momentary while the Svatantrika Yogacara and their synthesis schools believe a flux of momentary Cittas or consciousnesses are all that exist. the person is made up of five aggregates in Buddhism. form (or material image, impression) (rupa), sensations (or feelings, received from form) (vedana), perceptions (samjna), mental activity or formations (sankhara), and consciousness (vijnana).all of these Aggregates form a cohesive whole to form the conventional Self. Vijnana is also known as Citta or Alayavijnana.in Buddhism there is not one enduring Vijnana Skandha but a constant flux of Vijnanas with intervals so small you don't percieve them. but this can easily be refuted.why?Because to believe in this means to believe in creation out of nothing.when one Citta perishes,the other cannot arise.from where and what does the next Citta arise when the former already perishes as the Buddhist doctrine of radical momentariness (Kshanabhangavada)states? if they exist already dormant somewhere,then there must be a receptacle wich is permanent and this would refute Sarva dharma anatman or all dharmas are no self.but Nagarjuna the biggest mahayana Philosopher says that Cittas are not substantial anyway.So they couldn't have a physical receptacle. furthermore this would mean that fate exists and that subjective agreement would be next to impossible.karma would lose its value.as there is no choice in what you do,feel or think.and it must be asked also how something existant can go into nonexistance.Mipham the greatest Tibetan philosopher refutes Cessation .again,this is not what any Buddhist would believe in but the alternative being creation or arising out of nothing also makes no sence.this is not a Tirthika view but the view of Mipham Rinpoche in his 'four logical arguments for the middle way''but when you apply these arguments to the subtle mind,it means the subtle mind is permanent! the Vijnana aggregate rules over the other aggregates and gives them a unitary unity and experience. but if its momentary it cannot do so and also karma cannot be stored.the buddhists will say one Citta conditions the next Citta so Karma doesn't need to be stored.but this is impossible as the former Citta perishes before the other comes into existance.it cannot condition anything. it cannot be that the one citta endurs until the next arises being created by the former citta either because this would confer confused experience and this is still one of the arisings wich Mipham refuted. 2.why shunyata as expounded by nagarjuna is false:nagarjuna was a bright thinker,but he blindly followed the Buddha's 1st and 2nd turnings of the wheel of dharma ingoring the 3rd so he strays away from his logic at certain places like saying that all(absolutely all)dharmas are dependant upon other dharmas.this is illogical as shall be shown below 2.An Unconditioned Reality(Dharma,but I don't refer to abstract concepts but concrete things) must exist. There Can Only Be Two Types of Realities(Dharmas): 1.Conditioned Reality: Any reality that depends on something for its existence. For example, a Cow depends on its organs, the organs depend on cells, the cells depend on molecules, which depend on atoms,wich depend on electrons,wich depend on Quarks and so forth. This dependence is simultaneous at every moment the conditioned reality exists. 2.Unconditioned Reality: Any reality that is self-sufficient, i.e. does not depend on anything else for its existence. This is what is called “Brahman''(The one Spirit ''or ''Ishwara''(God). any conditioned reality depends upon another reality in order to exist by definition. Any conditioned Dharma, must depend upon: a finite number of conditioned Dharmas alone or an infinite number of conditioned Dharmas alone or a finite number of conditioned Dharmas and at least one unconditioned Dharma A conditioned Dharma cannot be caused by a finite series of conditioned Dharma: If there is a linear series of conditioned Dharma, what would the first one depend on? Since it must depend on something, and there is nothing before it, the whole chain ceases to exist. Thus a linear chain of conditioned realities cannot exist. Additionally, a circular finite chain of conditioned Dharmas could not exist either. This would simply result in each conditioned reality fulfilling their own conditions, which is against the definition of a conditioned Dharma. Conditioned realities cannot exist in an infinite Series either. A very large unlimited of number conditioned realities cannot exist,. As the number of conditioned realities in a series increases, the result continues to be non-existence. Continuously adding to the end of the chain would never allow for the conditions of existence to be satisfied, thus the entire infinite chain of conditioned Dharmas would never have its conditions fulfilled. If an infinite (I am granting Buddhists the notion that a actual Infinite can exist in quantity of concrete things for the sake of argument,I do not Believe this.Set theory does not help because its applicable only to asbtractions)series of conditioned Dharmas could exist on its own, the complete set of infinite conditioned Dharma would be an unconditioned Dharma. However, this is impossible because an unconditioned dharma cannot depend upon an aggregate of conditioned dharmas . if this were the case, it would be conditioned. Therefore, a set of infinite conditioned realities is itself a conditioned reality, and fails to exist on its own. Since any model made up entirely of conditioned Dharmas can never have their conditions fulfilled, every conditioned Dharma must be caused by a series of realities that ends (or begins its ontological Series) with an unconditioned Dharma. if the series of conditioned realities regresses ad infinitum without an unconditioned reality the series itself would be equivalent to nothing. if the series regresses infinitely to more and more fundamental conditions that have the same existential status as the aforementioned conditions, then the search for the fulfillment of conditions would go on endlessly. But if the search for the fulfillment of conditions would go on endlessly, then every hypothetical conditioned reality in the series would never have its conditions fulfilled and thus would never come into existence. No matter where we’re at in the series we’ll always come to a conditioned reality that is nonexistent because it is existentially dependent upon other nonexistent conditioned realities. As Fr. Robert Spitzer who created this argument writes, "Since every hypothetical conditioned reality is dependent upon other nonexistent conditioned realities for its existence, it will never come into existence. It does not matter whether one posits an infinite number of them; for each one in the series of dependence is still equal to nothing without the reality of the others. But if the “others” are nothing without others, and those “others” are nothing without still others, it does not matter if one postulates an infinite number of others (or arranges the infinite number of others in a circle). They are all still nothing in their dependence upon nonexistent conditions." there are also Reasons that a circular number of conditioned dharmas cannot alone exist but I'm not going to go into that because thats not what Buddhism believes.So there must exist atleast one unconditioned reality.this reality also must be absolutely simple and unique for other reasons I won't get into here.it must be immaterial as all matter is conditioned and made up of parts. if Shunyata was something concrete and something that had intelligence,then shunyata would be true.as the origin of all things.but all dharmas are dependant on other dharmas is false in my view. corrections are welcome!