Advaita Vedanta vs Buddhism

[Vajrahridaya]

One could also say that because dependent origination is the ultimate truth, that there is no ultimate truth. That's what unbinds, uncompounds, and reveals that nothing truly arises, nor is there any place that anything arises from. This is ultimate happiness and total freedom!

[dwai]

One could also say that because dependent origination is the ultimate truth, that there is no ultimate truth. That's what unbinds, uncompounds, and reveals that nothing truly arises, nor is there any place that anything arises from. This is ultimate happiness and total freedom!

 

That seems to be quite a departure from Nagarjuna. Because all Dependent Origination does is show that Phenomena are interdependent and that they are as a result empty. If Buddhism accepts Paramartha Satya, then all phenomena (in their emptiness) become Samvritti/vyavaharik satya.

 

Advaita doesn't claim that Brahman is not emptiness. In fact, Brahman is Sunyata, by virtue of being empty of all phenomena (since Brahman is non-phenomenal). And when objectless consciousness remains, it IS Brahman and Sunyata.

 

The Vedantic concepts of Atman and Brahman are the Same as Sunyata. Atman is objectless consciousness, which is nonphenomenal and therefore emptiness. So Atman and Brahman are one and the same.

 

I don't understand why this concept is so difficult for Buddhists to accept? The syntax is different, the import is the same.

Edited May 27, 2009 by dwai

[Sunya]

Dwai,

 

I posted this earlier in this thread, but I guess you never read it.

 

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/gaudapada.html

 

very good objective look at Nagarjuna's Middle way in comparison to Vedanta

 

Sunyata is not Brahman because Sunyata is not Absolute, the whole point of Nagarjuna's middle way (which only elucidates what Buddha taught) is to avoid the extreme of an Absolute, so how can you even compare them?

 

and Emptiness does not mean non-phenomenal. you are positing that phenomena does not exist simply because its empty. empty does not mean non existant. this is another extreme. phenomena neither exists nor non-exists.

 

all you're doing is taking Nagarjuna's philosophy and putting it into a Vedantic context, which is what Gaudapada did, but that won't work because Buddhism will never say that something exists behind phenomena, like a background screen which is the source of everything.

 

Buddhism stops where Hinduism keeps going, positing a position that Buddhists deny. it's as simple as that. Hindus are idealistic in assuming that something exists while Buddhists just look at reality more honestly, in my opinion.

 

"For Nāgārjuna, who provided the most important philosophical formulation of śūnyatā, emptiness as the mark of all phenomena is a natural consequence of dependent origination; indeed, he identifies the two. In his analysis, any enduring essential nature (i.e., fullness) would prevent the process of dependent origination, would prevent any kind of origination at all, for things would simply always have been and always continue to be.

 

This enables Nāgārjuna to put forth a bold argument regarding the relation of nirvāna and samsāra. If all phenomenal events (i.e., the events that constitute samsāra) are empty, then they are empty of any compelling ability to cause suffering. For Nāgārjuna, nirvāna is neither something added to samsāra nor any process of taking away from it (i.e., removing the enlightened being from it). In other words, nirvāna is simply samsāra rightly experienced in light of a proper understanding of the emptiness of all things."

Edited May 27, 2009 by mikaelz

[Vajrahridaya]

That seems to be quite a departure from Nagarjuna. Because all Dependent Origination does is show that Phenomena are interdependent and that they are as a result empty. If Buddhism accepts Paramartha Satya, then all phenomena (in their emptiness) become Samvritti/vyavaharik satya.

 

Advaita doesn't claim that Brahman is not emptiness. In fact, Brahman is Sunyata, by virtue of being empty of all phenomena (since Brahman is non-phenomenal). And when objectless consciousness remains, it IS Brahman and Sunyata.

 

The Vedantic concepts of Atman and Brahman are the Same as Sunyata. Atman is objectless consciousness, which is nonphenomenal and therefore emptiness. So Atman and Brahman are one and the same.

 

I don't understand why this concept is so difficult for Buddhists to accept? The syntax is different, the import is the same.

 

No it is not a departure from Nagarjuna because he both shows the two truths and subverts them. An example of the resultant being the Prajnaparamita Hridaya Sutra, composed around the 200's, with it's, no ear consciousness, etc. no consciousness period, etc. no emptiness, etc. no liberation, no bondage, nothing to attain, no one to attain it, etc.

 

Also no, the syntax is not different. The handling of Brahman in Hindu cosmology is totally different from the handling of emptiness in Buddhist cosmology. Both Advaita and Kashmir Shaivism show that Brahman is ultimately real, the true identity of things, the one consciousness that is the all, the one in the many. That which is the final common denominator of all things. That which things spring from and return too, and all the while are, thus maya does not exist. This is not the same as the Buddhist Shunyata. If you understood dependent origination, you would understand that different systems lead to different places, because result originates dependent upon view. Even in Buddhism there are different ways that enlightenment manifests dependent upon the system, but they all revolve around dependent origination so all lead eventually to final emancipation regardless of how it appears.

 

You have not yet understood dependent origination, it is not just how phenomena are empty, it is also how consciousness, from form to formless is also empty of inherent existence and it reveals infinite regress, no primordial source of things, no cosmic "all is one" will. Emptiness is empty as well, there is no emptiness, emptiness does not inherently exist. Hindu's find it hard to accept that Buddhism is in fact different and has been different since the Buddha declared that it was different, and it seems that only Buddhists know this because only Buddhists understand intuitively what dependent origination actually means. Because if you actually did, you would become Buddhist. Buddhism has always been elitist. The Buddha was an elitist, arguing with all other forms of spirituality of the time and every Buddhist master from then on has been elitist. The Dalai Lama is elitist, but compassionate with the understanding that not everyone is going to get it, so that people need their own rate of evolution so is not a person that goes out to conquer the world with Buddhism. The Buddha was the same way and taught some beings a kind of worldly dharma that would help them build enough merit and lead to higher rebirths to understand dependent origination in the future.

 

Dzogchen on the surface seems to be somewhat like Kashmir Shaivism or Advaita Vedanta, but really since Dzogchen is earlier, it's more that these paths are trying to be like Dzogchen. But the mis-understanding is that, when Dzogchen was taught in secret, it was taught to those that already understood dependent origination. Rigpa is merely the recognition of the Buddhas 6 realm model and the 31 planes of existence as all elaborations of one's own consciousness which is "The Supreme Source" for the experience of liberation, or bondage and is inherently free from such distinctions because as I stated before, things don't really arise, including consciousness. There is no consciousness as final and true, no awareness that is final or true in Buddhism period. There is only the realization or constant awareness of dependent origination, that is dependent upon realization of dependent origination and not on itself, and thus there is also no emptiness and no brahman.

 

In Hindu cosmology, Brahman is the re-absorber at the end of the cosmic eon, there is no eternal liberation for hindus because they think that they are all part of this one mass of consciousness that they all came from and realize through yoga, then re-absorb into at the end of the cosmic eon. Even Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva all arise and subside in Brahman and Brahman is this vast and mysterious will. Read Vasistha's Yoga, read any Hindu cosmology, all the God's of Hinduism that teach Hinduism, including Shiva are dated, were born and die.

 

Well actually not Shiva because Chakrasamvara liberated Shiva before the Kali Yuga, but he still manifests as a worldly deity until his time to manifest as a Buddha sometime in the future where he will teach the 4 noble truths, the 8 fold noble path and dependent origination. These are Dharma seals, and these seals are what separates Buddhism from all other spiritual traditions. Buddhism is the first tradition to use the term Sanatana Dharma, but Hindu's took that too. Even all this talk about Brahman being emptiness is just an expression of Hindus trying to keep an identity, while really Hinduism is a whole bunch of different traditions, there's the Vedic, the Shamkya, the South Indian Shaivites who countered the Vedic culture, the forrest dwellers who wrote some of the very early Upanishads, the best of which were written after the coming of the Buddha. Advaita Vedanta is based on the teachings of Gaudapada, who's teaching of Ajativada (non-origination) is obviously from the teachings of Nagarjuna. Advaita Vedanta also seems heavily influenced a lot by Asangas Yogacara as well, which is a highly misunderstood system, because its only to be treated as a meditative system and only Buddhist if coupled with Nagarjunas Madhyamaka. Also Trika Shaivism is most likely influenced by Dzogchen due to proximity in Oddiyana, but in a mis-understood and incomplete way, thus no Jalus or body of light as fruit in Trika (though there is talk of Shaivite masters attaining something like it, but the result is different since the view is different). The result originates dependent upon the view, if no "Right View" from the 8 fold noble path, no true liberation. Buddhism is the only system that is completely seamless from the first turning to the fourth turning, though of course not all systems accept later turnings, but all systems accept the Pali Suttas as the first definer of all the systems. But, not all the Hindus used to refer to the Vedas as supreme, though most do now due to the proliferation of Advaita Vedanta which kind of brought many types of Hinduisms together, after the Muslims destroyed Buddhism in India. Anyway, your Advaita Vedanta is really kind of a crypto Buddhism, without Buddha anymore, because you've reified emptiness as a catch all supreme entity that holds everything as a singular being calling it Brahman, thus Advaita Vedanta is Monism, essentially eternalism and not at all a vehicle that leads to Buddhahood, simply because it misunderstands Dependent Origination.

 

All the best!

[Sunya]

 

Dzogchen on the surface seems to be somewhat like Kashmir Shaivism or Advaita Vedanta, but really since Dzogchen is earlier, it's more that these paths are trying to be like Dzogchen.

 

is there actual proof that Dzogchen existed before the 8th century AD ?

[Vajrahridaya]

Edited May 27, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Sunya]

Hi Mikaelz, nice argument!

 

 

well I did have many arguments with you months ago that left me quite annoyed, so I had to figure things out for myself! annoyances can become great blessings.

[Vajrahridaya]

well I did have many arguments with you months ago that left me quite annoyed, so I had to figure things out for myself! annoyances can become great blessings.

 

Oh yes, most definitely! The same thing happened with me when I argued as a Trika Advaita Shaivite with Namdrol some 7 or more years ago and we argued for like a whole year or more in so many threads at E-Sangha. He obviously finally won. I had to concede as I started to experience directly the truths he was granting me access to. He also was a way better historian than I.

[Sunya]

for me, the hardest part is giving up the notion that a reality exists, i think out of all religions besides Buddhism, Advaita has the subtlest form of God, it's like.. you're almost there on giving it up but still holding on incase things go wrong.

[Vajrahridaya]

for me, the hardest part is giving up the notion that a reality exists, i think out of all religions besides Buddhism, Advaita has the subtlest form of God, it's like.. you're almost there on giving it up but still holding on incase things go wrong.

 

Oh, I can dig it! I still have hard wired into my system that attachment due to a lifetime of study and practice under the view of Advaita Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism. I just know very consciously that my subconscious is wrong, lol!

[evZENy]

Oh, I can dig it!

 

Risking to be kicked through my monitor in my e-face, I am wondering where would you put the Tao in this discussion. Simple and ignorant as I am, I accept its presence in everything - material, phenomenal or not. Don't see any form of God in it (don't see Godness in anything).

Yet I accept that Tao exists without borders and beyond time. Constantly changing it manifests as Reality with all its forms and their phenomena, which just transition into each other. Nothingness and Emptiness are Tao in its One-ness.

 

I also enjoy tea. Sometime go for the green, often for the black, but recently even some puerh makes me purr.

They all come from the same plant. Different people work it, brew it and drink it differently. Then taste is different.

But the plant brings pleasure and joy to all the million different palates longing for it, despite its numerous forms.

Or because of them? :-)

Edited May 27, 2009 by evZENy

[Vajrahridaya]

Risking to be kicked through my monitor in my e-face, I am wondering where would you put the Tao in this discussion. Simple and ignorant as I am, I accept its presence in everything - material, phenomenal or not. Don't see any form of God in it (don't see Godness in anything).

Yet I accept that Tao exists without borders and beyond time. Constantly changing it manifests as Reality with all its forms and their phenomena, which just transition into each other. Nothingness and Emptiness are Tao in its One-ness.

 

I also enjoy tea. Sometime go for the green, often for the black, but recently even some puerh makes me purr.

They all come from the same plant. Different people work it, brew it and drink it differently. Then taste is different.

But the plant brings pleasure and joy to all the million different palates longing for it, despite its numerous forms.

Or because of them? :-)

 

I'll try to refrain from kicking dear evZENy.

 

If one looks at Taoism as it stands now, it is heavily influenced by Chan Buddhism when Bodhidharma brought the Dharma to China. As Buddhism was expressed through Taoist language in it's dissemination across China, they are quite merged through that way. Taoism before Buddhism was kind of a counter culture hedonist movement led by Chuang Tzu, about spontaneous acceptance, non-renunciation, worshiping nature, and skepticism but it eventually kind of merged with Confucianism, and there are all sorts of branches of Taoism, not really a seamless spiritual tradition with a single core, though they kind of grew together I suppose over time and with Buddhist influence.

 

Though yes, the I-Ching (book of changes, which I grew up using and still do to this day and find much wisdom and guidance through it) and Tao De Ching (kind of a vague book of nice fortune cookie platitudes commented on and expanded upon over thousands of years, though nice and good is not a system to liberation) all pre-exist the coming of Bodhidharma. There was seemingly a pretty cool fragmented system going on with the astrology, Confucianism and these early guys Chuang Tzu and Laozi. I suppose there were very secret sects who practiced certain things like revealed in "Opening the Dragons Gate" and "Chronicles of Tao" which are more than likely romanticized versions of history to a certain extent because it's all mostly at this point so influenced by Buddhism over the last 2,300 years that Taoism before Buddhism, like Hinduism before the Buddha was quite different and not at all systemized. The Buddha was clear about the total truth and the system to realization from the very beginning of his 40 year carrier as a preacher, unlike anywhere and anyone else, and the Buddha wasn't skeptical, he just knew and saw through all other systems of philosophy and practice. Thus his system is vehemently clear from the very beginning.

 

So, though Chinese history is complicated as hell and the folklore seems to be influenced by all sorts of things, including some Hindu Puranas with the Monkey God, or maybe the Hindus got that from them, there doesn't seem to be as nearly a complete cosmology and agreement on what exactly and specifically enlightenment or liberation from the cycle of re-birth or what re-birth is and how it's all done. Mostly there's a focus on immortality and yes compassion, spontaneity and what not and with the coming of Chan, there's meditation now but not necessarily with "The View" that unbinds. But Taoism as a whole seems to be kind of like Hinduism was before Buddhism, a whole bunch of scattered traditions loosely based on each other through various ways. In all my studies of it, I don't find it a complete system to real liberation from proliferation. It is a substantialist path deeming everything to be of a singular kind of impersonal organism named "The Tao", a kind of constant flow that one should let go of one's ridged self ideas and merge into, which is good but the revelation doesn't seem to be complete. Though, I'm sure it's practice leads to higher re-birth and accumulation of merit, focus and power, in and of itself, it doesn't seem to offer the omniscience of Buddhahood.

 

It's a cool system though with some nice reads.

 

These days Taoism is a whole lot of things together, with Kung Fu and Tai Chi, bringing together the Indian Chakra system and meridian points, could very well have been found on their own through deep meditation of course and not just scripted from external sources. At this point, it's a system that carries a whole lot of influences that were not at all what the first teachings on the Tao were. Unlike Buddhism which had a very clear system always.

 

One could write a huge book on this... I find myself just rambling. You did ask my opinion.

[evZENy]

One could write a huge book on this... I find myself just rambling. You did ask my opinion.

 

Thanks for it, dear :-)

Yes, you were rambling (nothing wrong with it of course :-).

But I didn't ask about Taoism. I asked about Tao :-)

 

 

You guys talk about Buddhism and Hinduism and not about Buddha and the Vedic rishis.

Which is OK, because you are not them. Can't be. We can only read what's in their books and the books about them, and use our logic to create an explanation that hums well with us.

 

And I guess that's OK too. I happen to believe one has to be a mystic, search for his own experience and realization. I know the energy meridians work, since I've worked with them and have seen the effects myself. Worked on others and they felt it too. Don't care where the system comes from. Today I may see them as nadis, tomorrow - as jingluo and next week - as keiraku. Does it matter? Does it make one of Ayurveda, TCM or TJM better than the others if I pick the word? Should I prefer to do Tai Chi, Yoga or Makko-Ho? Isn't my body the same independent of the system ? :-)

 

All the wise guys who realized had to share their knowledge using words. And we are stuck to the latter, as this thread shows. Their best intentions turned into religions, philosophies and teachings. Every time. Unavoidable. But by following the latter we won't become any of the masters who started them. Because we are not.

 

Even the cup of tea made in the same pot, using leaves from the same jar and the water from the same well is not the same as the previous cup :-)!

 

I still enjoy the thread, as it tries at points to compare two Nothingnesses, which by definition of Nothing should be the same, but the mental concepts build around them don't agree with it :-)

 

Keep on rambling! I mean - writing! :-)

Edited May 27, 2009 by evZENy

[Vajrahridaya]

Thanks for it, dear :-)

Yes, you were rambling (nothing wrong with it of course :-).

But I didn't ask about Taoism. I asked about Tao :-)

You guys talk about Buddhism and Hinduism and not about Buddha and the Vedic rishis.

Which is OK, because you are not them. Can't be. We can only read what's in their books and the books about them, and use our logic to create an explanation that hums well with us.

 

And I guess that's OK too. I happen to believe one has to be a mystic, search for his own experience and realization. I know the energy meridians work, since I've worked with them and have seen the effects myself. Worked on others and they felt it too. Don't care where the system comes from. Today I may see them as nadis, tomorrow - as jingluo and next week - as keiraku. Does it matter? Does it make one of Ayurveda, TCM or TJM better than the others if I pick the word? Should I prefer to do Tai Chi, Yoga or Makko-Ho? Isn't my body the same independent of the system ? :-)

 

 

I still enjoy the thread, as it tries at points to compare two Nothingnesses, which by definition of Nothing should be the same, but the mental concepts build around them don't agree with it :-)

 

Keep on rambling! I mean - writing! :-)

 

Yes, move within... my lucid dream states and meditative states have revealed a lot. The trip is going to be personal, but the view is very specific when it comes to Buddhism and interpersonal. It's not a all is one type of interpretation, though the cosmos does work in one way and one way only, interdependently. Also, the way one works with the energy specifically reveals different fruits. The energy systems of the different paths don't always agree because we are working with subtler than body energy and formating that as karmic receptacles for specific results which are different dependent upon the spiritual view. Buddhism reveals just how complex it all is and dependent origination does NOT point to nothingness and emptiness does NOT mean nothingness. This is a meditative and mystical revelation that is quite specific in Buddhism. One could call the flow of dependent origination as Tao (as in "The Way)... but one would have to scrutinize to the point of emptiness, which does not mean nothing, but rather no inherent, static beingness. Calling any substratum inherently real and true, Tao, God or whatever, saying we are all one with this... does lead to future recycling. See you didn't see my main point was that Buddhism actually describes WHAT liberation from Samsaric experience is through many ways yes, the final way being called Dzogchen, Ati Yoga, or Mahamudra because it goes right into the expression of the fruit of practice and focuses on that fruit as practice rather than in lower vehicles in Buddhism that mostly just talk about practice and philosophy and not so much the actual experience as Vajrayana gets into. In Dzogchen you engage directly with the experience of what it is to be liberated through transmission from a master and have a liberated outlook throughout the entire cycle of practice that one undergoes to make that glimpse of direct perception of liberation a permanent state of constant cognition. I know other traditions talk about this too, but the view is off so the outcome is going to be different.

 

You asked about Tao, but how can one talk about Tao without talking about those that talked about Tao? How liberated were they, and how omniscient were they before they came up with a term to describe some sort of ultimate nature of things? Other paths are religions. Buddhism is a clear system that offers many different ways to experience directly dependent origination... Emptiness is more of a philosophical term that points to nothing other than the flow that is dependent origination, or interdependent co-origination. Emptiness is not nothingness, but just the fact that I as a perceiver and part of the whole flow have no inherent self, that my self is a coagulation of experiences and interpretations all linked in a chain of causation leading beginning-less in origin. So, according to the Buddhas teachings, the interpretation of a mystical experience as a substantial and self existing substratum that is all and nothing, which is the same descriptions we find about Brahman (the impersonal featureless consciousness that is the mirror that all reflects upon) is all a mis-interpretation of meditative experience. The cycle of Samsara is so deep and tenacious that just because one meditates deeply and has deep mystical experiences does not mean that one knows liberation, just maybe subtler forms of samsara, which was the Buddhas point in setting up the 6 realm system of interpretation with the 31-planes of existence. link to 31 planes of existence.

 

I also grew up getting acupuncture as my mom would trade her art for free sessions and yes I've experienced the benefits. It's not that this stuff is not beneficial, it's just that the Buddha was specific about what liberation from samsara or the emancipation from recycling and unconscious rebirth of one's mind stream and exactly how the entire cosmos works. He's very specific when he say's that, This is the view that liberates and these other views do not, even though they do lead to benefit, they don't lead to final emancipation from unconscious re-birth.

 

When I was a practicing Advaita Shaivite, I saw directly the truths that Shaivism talked of and saw them as absolute and shared by all religions, the one God that expressed as it all and all the religions were just ways that this God in all compassion brought beings back to him/herself. I didn't understand dependent origination and that my experience, though supposedly highly evolved, blissful, merged with the cosmos, powerful, meditative experiences of going to different realms and dimensions, talking with and seeing great Gods of my lineage. I meditated for years in an Ashram for 4 to 6 hours daily also chanting 4 to 6 hours and offering selfless service the rest of the time, sleeping little, eating little and healthy, writing in my journal and reading sacred texts from all traditions from coptic christians, bibles, nag hammadi library, dead sea scrolls, st. john of the cross, st. francis of assisi, miester eckhart, theresa of avila and lisieux, st. hildigard van bingen, etc., Taoist material, tons of Hindu stuff and saints, Jnaneshwar, Tukaram, Mirabai, Janabai, etc., Sufi mystics, Rumi, Hafiz, Mansur Mastana, Rabia, Kabbalah stuff, on and on... Even Buddhist stuff, but translated wrong with misunderstandings of emptiness/dependent origination plastered all over them due to heavy christian influence or hindu influence, mis-contextualizing the teachings of these Buddhist Masters and glazing them over with Hindu substantialist sensibilities. The whole idea of a tea coming from one pot is a very Theistic interpretation, or Monist where everything is a singular substance expressed in different ways. Buddhism does not believe in this but see's this as an interpretation of mystical experience that limits and eventually rebinds, even if it seems blissful for some time, at the end of the cosmic eon it only leads to recycling, even if one enters into a high bliss realm after death, without direct perception of dependent origination, no liberation. These types of interpretations listed above all lead to long lived god realms in refined forms or even as formless pervasive beings of love and power, but not final liberation, and the so called immortals of Taoism don't base their realm on the right understanding of dependent origination, which is a product of direct perception and not merely an expression of logic. So, they are not really immortal, they might just live in a refined realm for trillions of years.

 

Because of the clarity of Buddhism there is a great seamlessness between direct experience and the clarity of explanation that is not paralleled anywhere that I have found.

[goldisheavy]

No it is not a departure from Nagarjuna because he both shows the two truths and subverts them. An example of the resultant being the Prajnaparamita Hridaya Sutra, composed around the 200's, with it's, no ear consciousness, etc. no consciousness period, etc. no emptiness, etc. no liberation, no bondage, nothing to attain, no one to attain it, etc.

 

Well said.

 

Also no, the syntax is not different. The handling of Brahman in Hindu cosmology is totally different from the handling of emptiness in Buddhist cosmology. Both Advaita and Kashmir Shaivism show that Brahman is ultimately real, the true identity of things, the one consciousness that is the all, the one in the many.

 

And when this is said, what is said? Don't say you know what it means. But if you say you don't know what it means, then I know you're a liar.

 

For example, what does "true identity" mean? Ever thought of it? If identities don't have stable meanings, as Buddhist philosophers so aptly demonstrate, one outcome of that, is that you can use seemingly conflicting identities to demonstrate the same meaning. For example, you can use self to demonstrate the same thing as "not self". Or you can use "not self" to demonstrate precisely the same meaning as "self". You see how, right? That's because meanings are not nailed to some stone. Meanings are very fluid. Contemplate! ACTUALLY DEEPLY ENCOUNTER the meanings within your own field of awareness. Don't just talk about it. After you encounter your own meanings authentically, and by authentically I mean you are interested on your own, you're not doing it to follow someone else, you're not doing it to please some grand pappy in the sky or any other bogus reason. It means you don't follow formulas, and the result is a contemplation that is utterly alive. Then you will see that all meanings are mysterious, ordinary, a continuum, flow from one another, flow from one whole, don't flow from one whole, are the same as the absence of meaning, and are not the same as absence of meaning. When you actually encounter this, you won't be so quick and sure to say you know what Advaita means. Then you'll be like a real yogi, or if you're lucky, you'll be like me.

 

In Hindu cosmology, Brahman is the re-absorber at the end of the cosmic eon, there is no eternal liberation for hindus because they think that they are all part of this one mass of consciousness that they all came from and realize through yoga, then re-absorb into at the end of the cosmic eon.

 

This just shows your shallow understanding. Don't embarrass yourself like this. In Hinduism you'll encounter plenty of teachers and teachings that will tell you there is nothing bonded, thus nothing to free from bondage. Conversely, in Buddhism there are some truly retarded moronic teachers who teach things like women have to be reborn as men to be enlightened and so on. Buddhism, in other words, is not as "pure" as you think. It's a stinking pile of dog shit -- so don't fall in love with it. Hinduism is not as rotten as you think either. Your mind has highs and lows in it -- do not impute those into Hinduism and Buddhism in an ignorant manner. Buddhism produces some truly hard-headed and unenlightened individuals many times. Don't think Buddhism is the bee's knees. Buddhism is very useful, but if you fall in love with it, it is poison, like anything else. This is why religion is so dangerous.

 

Even Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva all arise and subside in Brahman and Brahman is this vast and mysterious will. Read Vasistha's Yoga, read any Hindu cosmology, all the God's of Hinduism that teach Hinduism, including Shiva are dated, were born and die.

 

LOL. Hinduism is not straightforward in the way you think it is. In Hinduism one can die and not die at the same time. Buddhists hate that kind of thinking, because it's not logically parceled out. But good contemplatives recognize that phenomena can have aspects. For example, life has a death aspect. Death has a life aspect. So life is not entirely alive. Death is not entirely dead. And so on. This probably goes over your head though, seeing that you're not really a contemplative, but a bible thumper of the Buddhist variety.

 

In Hinduism Absolute is not Absolute, because all the smart Hindus understand that Absolute is only said to be "absolute" relative to what's said to be "relative".

 

There have been plenty of examples of sages who have followed doctrines that seemed less than perfect, and who have attained the blessed life. Let that be a lesson to you. I say -- enjoy your doctrine. It is good. But don't get hung up on it! Don't turn something that was meant to free you from fixations into a fixation.

[Vajrahridaya]

'goldisheavy'

Well said.

And when this is said, what is said? Don't say you know what it means. But if you say you don't know what it means, then I know you're a liar.

 

For example, what does "true identity" mean? Ever thought of it? If identities don't have stable meanings, as Buddhist philosophers so aptly demonstrate, one outcome of that, is that you can use seemingly conflicting identities to demonstrate the same meaning. For example, you can use self to demonstrate the same thing as "not self". Or you can use "not self" to demonstrate precisely the same meaning as "self". You see how, right? That's because meanings are not nailed to some stone. Meanings are very fluid. Contemplate! ACTUALLY DEEPLY ENCOUNTER the meanings within your own field of awareness. Don't just talk about it. After you encounter your own meanings authentically, and by authentically I mean you are interested on your own, you're not doing it to follow someone else, you're not doing it to please some grand pappy in the sky or any other bogus reason. It means you don't follow formulas, and the result is a contemplation that is utterly alive. Then you will see that all meanings are mysterious, ordinary, a continuum, flow from one another, flow from one whole, don't flow from one whole, are the same as the absence of meaning, and are not the same as absence of meaning. When you actually encounter this, you won't be so quick and sure to say you know what Advaita means. Then you'll be like a real yogi, or if you're lucky, you'll be like me.

 

I've already gone through this line of contemplation, encountering and realization. There's deeper. Your just talking about paradox and it's experience. Buddhist revelation IS deeper as I have deeply encountered.

 

This just shows your shallow understanding. Don't embarrass yourself like this. In Hinduism you'll encounter plenty of teachers and teachings that will tell you there is nothing bonded, thus nothing to free from bondage.

 

No, my understanding isn't shallow, it's very specific. I've come across these teachers and there teachings. I've meditated deeply on them, I've traversed the different Jhanas from form to formless first experiencing form jhanas at the age of 5 and formless jhanas by the age of 14 and been to many of the realms spoken about in scriptures directly. Thank you for your clear lack of humility though, your ego seems as heavy as gold.

 

Conversely, in Buddhism there are some truly retarded moronic teachers who teach things like women have to be reborn as men to be enlightened and so on. Buddhism, in other words, is not as "pure" as you think.

 

Some women might, and some men might have to be reborn as women. Besides, I don't follow these sexist teachers and I understand that there are plenty who pervert any teaching. You have very little about me to go on to even think you know who you are talking to or what I may know. But please continue to assume as it pleases you. Wow, what a stance you take? If I'm lucky I'll be like you?? WOW...

 

It's a stinking pile of dog shit -- so don't fall in love with it. Hinduism is not as rotten as you think either. Your mind has highs and lows in it -- do not impute those into Hinduism and Buddhism in an ignorant manner. Buddhism produces some truly hard-headed and unenlightened individuals many times. Don't think Buddhism is the bee's knees. Buddhism is very useful, but if you fall in love with it, it is poison, like anything else. This is why religion is so dangerous.

 

Your interpretation is dangerous, that's all.

 

LOL. Hinduism is not straightforward in the way you think it is. In Hinduism one can die and not die at the same time. Buddhists hate that kind of thinking, because it's not logically parceled out.

 

Ah, more Paradox. I grew up with Hindu concepts and direct experiencing since I was a little kid in a great lineage of highly evolved and disciplined masters, not Buddhas, but very powerful and compassionate yogi's. Sorry, Hinduism misses the mark, and all it's good stuff is taken from Buddhism. Buddhism has plenty of paradox and non-linear perspectives. I guess you haven't studied much Vajrayana, or received transmission from a genuine lineage master of Vajrayana? I wouldn't pretend to assume...

 

But good contemplatives recognize that phenomena can have aspects. For example, life has a death aspect. Death has a life aspect. So life is not entirely alive. Death is not entirely dead. And so on. This probably goes over your head though, seeing that you're not really a contemplative, but a bible thumper of the Buddhist variety.

 

You haven't even begun to understand a single thing I've said, your identity is so threatened that you take the stance of a great yogi, but you are revealing that you have a flawed source of perception that didn't even contemplate anything I said thus making many assumptions based upon this flawed interpretation of my words. It's quite absurd really.

 

In Hinduism Absolute is not Absolute, because all the smart Hindus understand that Absolute is only said to be "absolute" relative to what's said to be "relative".

 

Just like it takes two to conceive of a one. More paradox... I already went through that humdrum and transcended it.

 

Yeah yeah yeah... No where in Hinduism and no where does a Hindu teach infinite regression and endless mindstreams, conscious offering of merit, and dependent origination, etc. Your sloppy Hindu based abstract thinking misses the specific points of view that Buddha expressed as the 8 fold noble path. All Hindus teach an alpha, and an omega. I'm familiar with all the great Hindu scriptures, creation stories, Maharamayana, Ramayana, Bhagavad Gita, Shankara, Abhinavagupta... blah, blah, blah. I've attended official fire ceremonies of different import of great power with great beings and highly evolved brahmans doing the offerings and seen the deities. Good stuff, holy stuff, deep stuff, but Buddhahood IS deeper. Your just protecting your threatened identity of the all is one camp and don't at all understand dependent origination as of yet. I was there when Brahma opened his eyes and saw the cosmos unfold with incredible bliss and power looking through his eyes, I then turned to see infinite Brahmas and realized I had created nothing. I've experienced Shiva and realized that even Shiva knows that he created nothing, but that his followers need a substance to hold onto so he plays as a God, but knows he's just a part of a vast flow without origin. Only Buddhism explains this clearly and has an incredible amount of methods and techniques for direct realization, many of which Hindu's stole. Anyway... I don't want to talk experience, because bloated ego's like yours get carried away.

 

There have been plenty of examples of sages who have followed doctrines that seemed less than perfect, and who have attained the blessed life. Let that be a lesson to you. I say -- enjoy your doctrine. It is good. But don't get hung up on it! Don't turn something that was meant to free you from fixations into a fixation.

 

A blessed and happy life is not the same as full and total liberation from the cycle of Samsara, not by a long shot. No matter how blissed you are and giving and kind, etc. These are blessed and great, but not necessarily the revelation of liberation. The Buddha was very specific, not abstract, but specific, he was not sloppy, but clear, he was stern about the meaning of things, not hokey pokey airy fairy.

 

Go meditate deep enough to see more than 100 past lives directly, and even past lives that pre-date this solar system, then come back and talk to me about how much better you are than me.

 

Sheesh...

 

A person can't talk scripture and specifics without getting bashed by a self proclaimed great being anymore?

[Seth Ananda]

Ok I have a question. Kashmir Shavism says that Consciousness is absolute as it is what experiences everything.

Abhiniva Gupta never lost an argument with the different schools of Buddhism in Kashmir partly with this point.

No matter what you say about emptyness or lack of an absolute, the Shavite simply asks "how do you know?" and the answer is Because you are conscious of it.

So even if you fully realise emptiness it is still realised within Consciousness. Same with Lack of self. Same with Dependent origination. Same with any argument or philosophy anywhere.

 

How do you know?

 

Doesn't this Make Consciousness the Absolute structure you are trying to say does not exist?

 

How do you Know?

[goldisheavy]

[Vajrahridaya]

Ok I have a question. Kashmir Shavism says that Consciousness is absolute as it is what experiences everything.

Abhiniva Gupta never lost an argument with the different schools of Buddhism in Kashmir partly with this point.

No matter what you say about emptyness or lack of an absolute, the Shavite simply asks "how do you know?" and the answer is Because you are conscious of it.

So even if you fully realise emptiness it is still realised within Consciousness. Same with Lack of self. Same with Dependent origination. Same with any argument or philosophy anywhere.

 

How do you know?

 

Doesn't this Make Consciousness the Absolute structure you are trying to say does not exist?

 

How do you Know?

 

That idea that he won against every school in his area is based on the fact that most schools were destroyed by the Muslim invasion and he didn't really have that many people to argue against. Besides the idea that he won them all is also a Hindu biased approach to history. He never argued against some Dzogchenpas just north of him. I know the schools that he argued and they were pretty lack luster. I know because I was introduced to these schools of Buddhism when I was a student of his form of Shaivism.

 

Anyway... it's not that Consciousness does not exist, it's that it's dependently originated. Your still thinking that Buddhists take emptiness as an absolute ground, that non-existence is the absolute nature of things. That's not what the Buddha was teaching. What Kashmir Shaivism teaches, as I was raised with this tradition and have experienced much of it and have read many of it's texts and I even have some rare translations of Abhinavaguptas chapters from his Tantraloka. Anyway, what Kaula Shaivism teaches is that all is of one consciousness and that consciousness is absolute and everything is an expression of this one consciousness.

 

Dzogchen teaches that a persons individual consciousness is the source of his own bondage or liberation and that liberation is found through seeing consciousness directly empty of inherent nature and part of the infinite and endless web of dependent origination, this transcends cause and effect, because everything is an elaboration of one's own consciousness, this is beyond paradox, but still, each mind-stream is individually beginning-less through endless interdependency. Kaula Shaivism still posits an absolute source of all things collectively, that there is nothing that exists that is not shiva, or true and total consciousness.

 

For an individual, in Dzogchen, yes you are the source of your own bondage or liberation, thus your consciousness is the supreme source, but it is not the supreme source of everyones bondage or liberation. There is no primal cause, everything is looped endlessly interconnected like this...

 

When this is, that is.

From the arising of this comes the arising of that.

When this isn't, that isn't.

From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.[

 

also...

 

With Ignorance as condition, Mental Formations arise

With Mental Formations as condition, Consciousness arises

With Consciousness as condition, Name and Form arise

With Name & Form as condition, Sense Gates arise

With Sense Gates as condition, Contact arises

With Contact as condition, Feeling arises

With Feeling as condition, Craving arises

With Craving as condition, Clinging arises

With Clinging as condition, Becoming arises

With Becoming as a condition, Birth arises

With Birth as condition, Aging and Dying arise

 

Yes, this all happens within one's consciousness, but one was not always a conscious being if one looks at the complexity of Buddhist cosmology which transcends a singular source of all, one see's that one was in a latent and dormant state of potentiality at the beginning of the universe which was churned by the light of the first born from this potentiality. The Gods of this universe are the one's who had lots of merit from the previous universe, while Buddhas ascend to Buddha realms. The first borns occupy their dimension of experience and their light, lights up this potentiality and thus beings manifest in subtle energy forms, thus that God thinks he created these beings out of his will, and the process goes into more and more densities through various complexities into lower god realms, human realms, ghost realms, demon realms, then back up to the end of this universal cycle and that first born is the last to dissolve into the formless potentiality that they believe is the featureless blissful Self. Buddhas transcend this...

 

Kaula or Kashmir Shaivism still states that even though you are one with Shiva, you do not have the power of cosmic creation and only shiva does. In Buddhism, when you become a Buddha you can manifest a pure realm and emanate bodies of enlightenment from there to help beings that are trapped in this substantive attachment to a Self, or mutable identity Self and continue to cycle between formless and form realms of differing densities. There is no primal cause in Buddhism, just endless chains of causation interconnected. You break free, only you break free and you don't break the person next to you free. From this freedom you can influence, but you can't liberate.

 

In Kashmir Shaivism, consciousness is independent, real and true, it's one and many, everything is it's expression. Why would this blissful consciousness become lower hell realms? Even out of shear potential because the excuse made in Kashmir Shaivism is that, "Infinite Consciousness is infinitely creative" so then it chooses to suffer unimaginable pains in lower realms as an expression of it's freedom while all the while not being that suffering and pain?

 

Sorry...

 

I find the 36 tattvas of Kashmir Shaivism to be limited and don't answer all my questions.

 

Buddhist cosmology makes more sense. No divine will behind this play of experience... just a vast and infinite process that produces infinite variables of experiences through conscious and evolving experiencers and each experiencer is the cause of his or her own experience through his or her consciousness, though influenced by other experiencers simultaneously. Buddhism is more complex, but more complete of a view and truly is unbinding in it's outcome. Dependent origination and emptiness is not found in any other tradition but Buddhism.

[evZENy]

Vajrahridaya,

You still use too many words. And too many quotes.

You also take the position that A is better than B, which I also take sometime, just to remind myself that it's wrong later.

 

All the people after Buddha who wrote about (and hence created) Buddhism had done the same what the church has done for Jesus - distort and kill his teaching (hence called correctly Paulinism by many scholars).

At least Buddha predicted his teaching will die (in the original way) soon after his dead.

Jesus probably didn't even expect there will be a teching on his name, especially since he realized his followers don't really get it :-)

 

I guess we'll settle on Zen with you, which I like to say is good extraction of Buddha and Tao in one :-)

 

evZENy (blink, blink :-)

Edited May 28, 2009 by evZENy

[Vajrahridaya]

Oh yea, sure. Like this:

Taken from http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an...4.024.than.html.

mikaelz is asking if a proof exists for the age of the Dzogchen lineage and instead you give him this garbage. A simple "NO, THERE IS NO PROOF" would have sufficed, as well as it would be more straightforward and honest and not at all contradicting or disrespecting Dzogchen in any way.

 

From this one might gather that there does seem to be proof. I'm not a Dzogchen scholar. But, there is proof that it pre-exists it's entrance into Tibet. Lots of proofs get destroyed by the Muslim invasion of the 600's. Anyway, there does seem to be texts that were preserved, as they are listed in order in the book, Kunjed Gyalpo.

 

Why are you so disparaging? "This garbage"! What sort of talk is that?

 

Vajrahridaya,

You still use too many words. And too many quotes.

You also take the position that A is better than B, which I also take sometime, just to remind myself that it's wrong later.

 

All the people after Buddha who wrote about (and hence created) Buddhism had done the same what the church has done for Jesus - distort and kill his teaching (hence called correctly Paulinism by many scholars).

At least Buddha predicted his teaching will die (in the original way) soon after his dead.

Jesus probably didn't even expect there will be a teching on his name, especially since he realized his followers don't really get it :-)

 

You also take the position that A is better than B, which I also take sometime, just to remind myself that it's wrong later.

I guess we'll settle on Zen with you, which I like to say is good extraction of Buddha and Tao in one :-)

 

evZENy (blink, blink :-)

 

Yes, sure, Zen is cool. Dzogchen form of Buddhism which I practice came onto earth only a few hundred years after the Buddha left. Anthropologists are also finding that Vajrayana in India has older and older roots. The whole idea that Buddhism will die is why another Buddha comes. The Mahayana came into effect at the same time that the Pali Suttas were really being produced as well. All these different lineages of Buddhism are pretty much quite connected to B.C. era. I find no pollution.

 

I do take the position of A is better than B, of course. So did the Buddha as stated in the Pali suttas.

 

Your welcome to your opinion, just try to base it on fact and direct experiencing more and more. Study, experience, find out!

 

You have endless time to do so... no worries.

 

Oh... another thing. Zen does not lead to the Body of light as Dzogchen does, so the approach is different, and the result is different. Dzogchen's whole basis is founded on the very first statement of the Buddha. That mind and it's phenomena are pure and uncompounded since beginning-less time.

 

But still, Zen seems cool. I've read about lots of their patriarchs. Also Chan seems cool too, the precursor to Zen. I like Tich Naht Hanh too! I used to read his writings some 15 years ago with much enthusiasm.

Edited May 28, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[evZENy]

Z(:N...

 

The concept of Metteyya Buddha is what gives me the flavor I don't like... Together with the many scriptures, philosophers, relics, remains, prayers etc...

Based on his own words he wouldn't like it much either :-)

 

My humble memory says that right after his dead the teaching split into the Early Schools, going all the way to 18-20 of them. Which is to be expected when humans are involved. And organized religion is born. Not sure what exactly was connected by B.C. - still lots of branches out there even today, no?

 

Which is the reason why this arguments flying around here on Buddhism vs. Hinduism are not really worth the time reading - many of the branches probably disagree in the same way as the other religion does on some of the points, no?

 

And Yes, the different approaches can lead to different outcomes.

Unless one has been "enlightened" in several traditions (somehow loosing it in between :-), who is to tell which one is the right? And for every and each of us !?

 

I am somewhat jealous of your experiences. And I work on mine. Would love to learn more - off line.

Edited May 28, 2009 by evZENy

[Vajrahridaya]

Z(:N...

 

The concept of Metteyya Buddha is what gives me the flavor I don't like... Together with the many scriptures, philosophers, relics, remains, prayers etc...

Based on his own words he wouldn't like it much either :-)

 

My humble memory says that right after his dead the teaching split into the Early Schools, going all the way to 18-20 of them. Which is to be expected when humans are involved. And organized religion is born. Not sure what exactly was connected by B.C. - still lots of branches out there even today, no?

 

Which is the reason why this arguments flying around here on Buddhism vs. Hinduism are not really worth the time reading - many of the branches probably disagree in the same way as the other religion does on some of the points, no?

 

And Yes, the different approaches can lead to different outcomes.

Unless one has been "enlightened" in several traditions (somehow loosing it in between :-), who is to tell which one is the right? And for every and each of us !?

 

I am somewhat jealous of your experiences. And I work on mine. Would love to learn more - off line.

 

Yes, I read different things concerning when the authentic teachings would die, soon after could mean lots of things, there's numerology, blah, blah, blah. There seems to be unbroken lineages though with certain traditions. Who knows? Meditate and follow what seems right as you evolve.

 

My experiences are just because I practiced for many lives. No big deal. I went through a period of very, very intense study in this life as well...

 

My practice is not as intense, but I still have wonderful dreams and lucid meditations from time to time. I'm no Buddha though, in any sense of the meaning of the term, forgetting all the non-dualistic paradoxical arguments one can get into, I still experience psychological suffering from time to time, I'm just not as attached to it.

 

Your very welcome to contact me though! I'm always happy to have more Buddhist friends, to learn from and share with, is always good. We should always help influence each other in positive ways.

[Seth Ananda]

 

Anyway... it's not that Consciousness does not exist, it's that it's dependently originated. Your still thinking that Buddhists take emptiness as an absolute ground, that non-existence is the absolute nature of things. That's not what the Buddha was teaching. What Kashmir Shaivism teaches, as I was raised with this tradition and have experienced much of it and have read many of it's texts and I even have some rare translations of Abhinavaguptas chapters from his Tantraloka. Anyway, what Kaula Shaivism teaches is that all is of one consciousness and that consciousness is absolute and everything is an expression of this one consciousness.

 

 

Kaula or Kashmir Shaivism still states that even though you are one with Shiva, you do not have the power of cosmic creation and only shiva does. In Buddhism, when you become a Buddha you can manifest a pure realm and emanate bodies of enlightenment from there to help beings that are trapped in this substantive attachment to a Self, or mutable identity Self and continue to cycle between formless and form realms of differing densities. There is no primal cause in Buddhism, just endless chains of causation interconnected. You break free, only you break free and you don't break the person next to you free. From this freedom you can influence, but you can't liberate.

 

In Kashmir Shaivism, consciousness is independent, real and true, it's one and many, everything is it's expression. Why would this blissful consciousness become lower hell realms? Even out of shear potential because the excuse made in Kashmir Shaivism is that, "Infinite Consciousness is infinitely creative" so then it chooses to suffer unimaginable pains in lower realms as an expression of it's freedom while all the while not being that suffering and pain?

 

 

First, who was your teacher in Kashmir Shavism? were you raised in India? I am just looking for a background for understanding as there are many schools in the west with an Incomplete understanding of K.S.

Such as Siddah Yoga.

 

You experience Dependent origination within consciousness but Consciousness itself doesn't change.

 

You say we were not always conscious but are you talking about Consciousness itself or the present individual content within Consciousness?

Before you answer that too quickly, Have you ever had a dream that was amazing and that you wanted to hold but felt it slipping away as you woke up no matter how much you wanted to remember it?

Could this be a nightly microcosm of the experience at birth and death?

Consciousness Itself does not Change during this experience. Only its content.

 

Oneness which Buddhism seems to deny. Have you ever merged with a lover during Lovemaking, experiencing fully being them...? what about the universe? If there is no foundation of oneness for the unitive experience how can It be experienced?

 

And a bigger question for me again is about the experience of Personal relationship with Divinity.

Buddhism cant even come close to Answering this one but the Experience is real. In deep prayer, where does the guidance come from? where does the decent of Grace and the miracles it bring come from? when we listen enough to allow God to speak to us, who's voice do we hear - And we do hear a voice.

You cant easily write off these experiences had by millions of mystics within the Theistic traditions. Have you had any of these experiences?

 

For me Kashmir Shavism is still the only tradition I have found that can answer all these questions...

 

Funnily enough I love Buddhism and plan to spend the next 10 years or so studying Dependent Origination and trying to realise emptiness. To me it seems like the most brilliant and achievable system available. I actually have faith now that I can achieve Enlightenment in this life

My Kashmir Shavite teacher is too far away for real consistent guidance (in Delhi) even with regular Phone calls and Email. And there is no support of a Sangha here.

[dwai]

Z(:N...

 

The concept of Metteyya Buddha is what gives me the flavor I don't like... Together with the many scriptures, philosophers, relics, remains, prayers etc...

Based on his own words he wouldn't like it much either :-)

 

My humble memory says that right after his dead the teaching split into the Early Schools, going all the way to 18-20 of them. Which is to be expected when humans are involved. And organized religion is born. Not sure what exactly was connected by B.C. - still lots of branches out there even today, no?

 

Which is the reason why this arguments flying around here on Buddhism vs. Hinduism are not really worth the time reading - many of the branches probably disagree in the same way as the other religion does on some of the points, no?

 

And Yes, the different approaches can lead to different outcomes.

Unless one has been "enlightened" in several traditions (somehow loosing it in between :-), who is to tell which one is the right? And for every and each of us !?

 

I am somewhat jealous of your experiences. And I work on mine. Would love to learn more - off line.

 

Like I have said before...all Categorical frameworks are limited in their validity. And their validity is the framework. There is no absolute truth to be learned from frameworks.

 

Frameworks however must provide a pathway to transcend themselves. That is how one can access Higher Truths.

 

Vajrahridaya's pronouncements (somewhat contemptuous) about "Hinduism" rings of arrogance in one's categorical framework.

 

What I was trying to show with this thread was that they are all the same. Sunyata, Emptiness, Void, Tao, Brahman, Aatman. We can go on and on about it and not get anywhere...

 

I will hold onto, with the basis of my logic and my understanding of Dependent Origination, Two-truths and Superimposition the understanding that Buddhism, Vedanta and Taoism all refer to the same thing. There are no differences. Anyone who insinuates that their way is better are only doing so because they are trapped in their categorical framework.

 

Experiential understanding occurs at various levels, to different degrees. Some work off spontaneous intuition (called Prajna), while others work painstakingly, trying to cultivate prajna. We all hold a spark of this in us, so that's why we instinctively know the truth about something. My Prajna tells me that what I understand is correct. Perhaps my Sadhana will corroborate that. Or may be not...Who can say?

Edited May 28, 2009 by dwai