dwai

Advaita nevers claims to "Merge" with The Brahman. I was never separate from Brahman. I am Brahman. I am non-phenomenon. Everything else that is phenomenal is unreal and empty. Again, slowly this time... If phenomena are empty, and Buddhist Ultimate Reality is Emptiness, then Buddhist Ultimate Reality is also a phenomenon. Dzogchen's "oneness" is the identification with Brahman. Rinpoche Sogyal Trungpa's book "The Tibetan book of Living and Dying" clearly expresses this (see you wanted citations, etc). The Nirguna Brahman. That which doesn't have any properties. That which is bereft of any characteristics that would make it a phenomenon. When the realization that all phenomena are empty arises, and the awareness of that which is there always shines forth (as the dust settles literally), that is identification with the Nirguna Brahman. Since I was never really separate from the Brahman, where does the question of merging arise?

You should read the previous Non-duality thread first dear Rex. Also if you notice, the thread was posted as "Are Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism really that different"? That doesn't mean that there are no differences. The intention was to show that Buddhism is not exclusive in it's findings and concepts and claims that "Buddhist" Non-duality is superior to "Hindu Advaita" is a bunch of baloney by overzealous upstarts. For Pero: Remember, I didn't go down the path of Dependent Origination, etc initially. If by Applying Dependent Origination and Two-truths it can inferred that Buddhist emptiness is a lower truth, is that my fault? I am at work right now and cannot spend adequate time to respond. I will do so in detail and address Mikaelz in greater detail later this evening.

Along with meditation one has to apply viveka (appropriate discernment and intellect) to remove delusion from truth. The Buddhist in me might agree with you, but the rational being in me would say: "Wait a minute! The theory of Two-truths seems kinda right...as does the principle of dependent origination. May be there is something to this Brahman thing... ...because phenomenon (this arising that arises, this ceasing, that ceases) are empty and my teachings tell me that ultimately there is Only Emptiness. But if it empty, it surely must be a phenomenon. In which case it has to be a lower reality. Therefore there must be a higher reality, which is non-phenomenon." There seems to be some confusion about the chronology of Advaita...see my previous post. Glad to clarify... Dear friends, my intention here is not to sound/seem smug and/or trite. If you get that impression, my apologies. This is my idea of fun and I am glad I have two places I can have such fun in (Ananda for now, in search of the Sat Chit)...

my reasons for doing this (debate) has two motivations -- 1) Challenge my understanding vis-a-vis the two systems, and confirm my intellectual understanding that Buddhists too are talking about the same thing as the Vedantins and Taoists. 2) Challenge those commentators (here) who were misleading seekers of Non-duality about the "superiority" of Buddhist philosophy over Vedanta. Like it was proven (and will become clear to serious seekers with unconditioned minds), Buddhist emptiness is a subset/a milestone in the path to Brahman/Tao.

that's the funniest thing I've heard. Advaita Vedanta is based on the Classical and Ancient (waaaay older than Buddha) school of Indian Darshana called Uttara Mimamsa. And no, Advaita Vedanta was not derived off Nagarjuna's Buddhist treatises by Adi Shankaracharya. In course of debate, Adi Shankaracharya had to understand what the other is saying (ie Buddhist POV). It is known as Purva Paksha. He then posited his arguments, and not just defeated several top Buddhist scholars in such debates, but also made them his students (because losing in a scholarly debate in Ancient India implied you become the victor's student in many cases). Buddha didn't misunderstand Vedanta. He simply made his own derivations from Vedantic teachings. The Vedas and Vedanta predate the Buddha by several millenia. I saw at least two people claim that "Vedanta" didn't exist in approx 600-500BCE (roughly the time of Buddha). That is simply untrue. Rg Veda was composed at least before 3100 BCE. Astronomical code in the Rg Veda dates it to around 6500 BCE. The subsequent Vedic texts, the Upanishads (Vedanta) developed way before 1900 BCE (when the Sarasvati River dried up due to tectonic changes in North-Western India).

What does the principle of Dependent Origination (a bedrock of Buddhism say/show)? What does the Concept of Two-truths show?

Like I said, Vedanta takes what Buddhism stops at a level further. Buddhism's claim that everything is empty is valid only in the phenomenal world. Effectively it is a vyavaharika satya (or lower truth). Take a page off Nagarjuna, apply Dependent Origination, the two-truths and see where that takes you

Yes...the Buddhist view stops at everything is Empty. Vedanta says everything that is phenomenal is empty. Brahman is non-phenomenal. The two are simply different milestones of the same view.

At the end of the day, you still need words to describe experience. If experience does not fall in the realm of the phenomenal, you will have to use words that can best describe it. That is why Shankara said "Brahman is Silence". And Lao Tzu said "The Tao that can be named is not the real Tao". I think our proclivity is to start intellectualizing and analyzing things. But then again, that IS the essence of Jnana Yoga. Inquiry <--> Experience <--> Analysis <--> Inquiry The paradox of duality. You cannot learn without thinking, if you think too much, you don't learn. You have to try to be relaxed, without trying too hard. You have to become empty and let the emptiness fill you up.

non-phenomenon is something that is not a phenomenon. A phenomenon (as you will find out by applying the principle of Dependent Origination) is something that has a beginning and an end. Also, a Phenomenon is something that does not have own-nature and own-existent (ie one phenomenon is dependent on others), or in another sense, phenomena are empty (like Xabir pointed out). All phenomena fall in the category of Lower Truths. That which is not a phenomenon, that which has own-nature and own-existence, that does not have any beginning or end is the non-phenomenon. That is Tao, that is Brahman, according to Advaita Vedanta. That is why you have Shankara talk about reality being illusory. Because Phenomena are empty and therefore have no "substance". And that's why he refers to Brahman as the Only Reality/Truth/Existent.

That's where your understanding of Advaita misses it's target. Advaita Vedanta considers phenomenon, things that have beginnings and endings, those that are objects of consciousness to be vyavaharika satya (or lower reality/truth/existence). Brahman exists and has properties or no properties based on who is seeing (at which level of realization). Dependent Origination is needed to establish the difference between phenomena and non-phenomena. Brahman is non-phenomenon (noumenon I believe is the word?)

Hi xabir, Advaita Vedanta is built on the pillars of DO and Superimposition, along with the Theory of Two truths. DO doesn't do anything beyond prove that phenomena are interdependent. Therefore, no phenomenon cannot have own-existence or own-nature. BTW, the "Satta" that your buddhists refer to as "truth" find their roots in the Sanskrit word "Sat" which means existent. Paramartha Satya (or Satta) is that which is beyond the phenomenal world. That is Brahman. The Ultimate Reality (or Truth).

Explain Nirguna Brahman

Is thinking bad for the brain? Is eating bad for the body? Is breathing bad for life? The answer my friend is blowing in the wind... Not too much, not too little (as my teacher says)

Why opt for "Neo" anything if the original thing is already perfect?

You can feel the Chi in your dan tiens after even a short period of serious cultivation. Why would someone who does real cultivation be inclined to think that Dan Tiens don't exist? Is that indicative of the lack of proper training on their part or is it that the majority of practitioners who actually work with Dan tiens actively all the time delusional?

Indeed Matt, It is usually the case. Are you still doing Tai chi?

Indeed...that still doesn't make Dan Tien unreal. Whether you choose to practice a system that uses Dan Tiens or not, they still exist. As do the meridians, the chakras and Chi and Jing and Shen. If you follow a system that works on those levels, you will feel them and control them (or be controlled by them). If someone wants to work with Don Juan's assemblage point, all power to them. Incidentally I find almost a one-to-one parallel between Vedantic and Yogic teachings, Taoism and Nagualism (as presented by Carlos Castaneda). I had missed this part. From my teacher's perspective and mine via experience, Dan Tiens keep shifting. The position is not static per se, it is usually localized to a certain region. Everyone doesn't have the lower dan tien x-fingers below the navel and y-fingers deep into the body. It varies... Also, No we don't accumulate enough. In fact we are constantly spending the natural reserve that we have. Cultivation is done so we can replenish what we have spent first, then stock up and use that to start fueling our Spiritual activities.

Then who is the observer observing? The Subject the object or the observer itself? One doesn't have to be enlightened to know this. Those who have gone before us already charted the map. One has to know how to use it (the map) that's all. That is, in effect your are saying that you will make the fish aware of your categorical framework. Just by throwing it in the sky you cannot make it know the sky for itself. You also have to teach the fish how is it that you call the sky the sky. You have to use your intellect to KNOW that Thinking obscures the Truth. That is using the mind. Mind is another faculty, a sensory mechanism like the other external five senses. One you have to understand that I did not say that...that is just your assumption that something like that was implied. But since you brought it up, I think that when it comes to spiritual practices and growth, it helps to belong to a culture that makes the pursuit easier. I don't think our modern, materialistic culture makes such a pursuit easy. When you are asleep, are you aware that you are you? If you are not you, who are you? What happens? The Seers of the Vedas and Upanishads (Vedanta) said that in deep sleep, all thoughts cease to exist. The objective of meditation and advaita is to get to a state where there are no differentiations between the self and Brahman. So, therefore Aham Brahmasmi. Now what this Brahman is, we will only truly know when we get to such a state of union. To do that, you chose Buddhism, I chose Vedanta. That doesn't necessarily mean that either you or I really know this state of Brahman or Tao (or as you Buddhists like to call it, Nirvana). Perfect! let me also add here that (with apologies to Squatting monkey if I was in part responsible for running away with his/her thread) all these systems are means to an end. It is really foolish to try and compare categorical frameworks and what they state to be Universal Truths and make claims of superiority on it's behalf. The Truth only works if you use the Framework, are familiar with it, etc. The real deal (Tao, Brahman, whatever) is beyond frameworks, beyond Nama Rupa. You have to transcend the framework to get to it.

Precisely what I was getting at dear Goldisheavy! Depending on the "thing", it can be either conformant with Name and Form (Conception and Perception), or only Name or only Form or neither name nor form. See the discussion on the Non Duality thread to get a better feel of what I am trying to say here. Certain things have to be "felt" as opposed to categorically qualified via name and form. Dan Tiens, Chi, Shen, Tao are fall in various degrees on the a road from "With Name and Form", travelling through "No Name only Form" or "Only form no name" to "No name and no form". I hope I was able to articulate what I'm trying to say here successfully... To be more precise, the ephemeral state of the Dan Tien doesn't negate it's existence. It merely implies that it might not fall into the category of "both perceivable and conceivable" or be able to be discerned via a mechanism that employs such a framework.

When subject and object merge, where is the first place and where is third place? In a meditation, is there truly a subject and an object? Is it not merely a "mental construct" we use to help break through the barrier of differentiation between the two? Sky is a relative truth only within the framework of those who live on the surface. If you went and talked to a fish (go with me on this one for the sake of argument) about the Sky, it would not be able comprehend what you say, since it might not have the ability to perceive and if it does, have the ability to conceive of this phenomenon called the Sky. Likewise with Space. The truth is Universal when all the observers adhere to the categorical framework that enables it's discernment. Outside the categorical framework, the truth doesn't remain a Universal truth anymore, it becomes a relative truth. Darsana categorizes truth/knowledge into two buckets. The lower or vyavaharika Satya (Truth) and the higher or Paramartha Satya. The lower truth works on the foundations of name and form. The Higher truth transcends name and form. So there you go -- everything doesn't depend on name and form, only lower knowledge does. What is any reality without the mental constructs? If there is no mind, what then? You have to use the mind (intellect, buddhi) to access this Higher Truth. How do you get there -- by using and then transcending a categorical framework. Which categorical framework -- now that is a million dollar question.... I agree that there is no scope for exclusivity of truth-claims by any specific religion or system. It is only that certain systems are better suited to delve into the matters of Higher truth than others, by virtue of not being fixated on the categorical framework (seer not looking at the moon but at the finger pointing to the moon).