Advaita and Buddhism are the Same After All

[Vajrahridaya]

You assume much Vajraji! What gives you the impression that I don't meditate? Also you implied this reality is a Buddha realm. I wish you would learn how to communicate. In other words,stop making sweeping generalizations.

 

Seems as though you are desperately trying to convince yourself that you are above it all and furthermore, that you possess some absolute fundamentalist truth.

 

ralis

 

It's you who misinterprets. I've said that this reality is influenced by a Buddha, but not specifically a Buddha realm.

 

I think it's your own mind that sees what's not there.

[ralis]

It's you who misinterprets. I've said that this reality is influenced by a Buddha, but not specifically a Buddha realm.

 

I think it's your own mind that sees what's not there.

 

Exactly how does your Buddha influence this realm?

 

 

ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

Exactly how does your Buddha influence this realm?

 

 

ralis

 

By bringing Buddhism to it.

[ralis]

By bringing Buddhism to it.

 

No different than Christianity, Islam etc. All religions are belief systems and different points of view.

 

This thread is about sectarianism being a stupid ideology. What have you contributed to this thread besides preaching your own brand of sectarianism?

 

Can you discuss out of your narrow world view?

 

 

ralis

Edited May 14, 2010 by ralis

[dwai]

No different than Christianity, Islam etc. All religions are belief systems and different points of view.

 

This thread is about sectarianism being a stupid ideology. What have you contributed to this thread besides preaching your own brand of sectarianism?

 

Can you discuss out of your narrow world view?

 

 

ralis

 

Well said...but you must be aware that dogmatists are invariably shackled in the chains of their belief system...so for them, their world view (however narrow it might be) is absolute. In order to have a wider world-view, the world-view itself has to be eliminated. How? By remaining always aware of the fact that in the face of Absolute Truth (as a noumenal experience), no world-view has any absolute relevance. Each world-view has it's own place and things that work within it and things that don't...but they are of practical importance only (Samvritti or Vyavaharika Satya). The Absolute (Paramarthika) is that Noumenal experience that can only be realized but not spoken!

 

[Vajrahridaya]

No different than Christianity, Islam etc. All religions are belief systems and different points of view.

 

This thread is about sectarianism being a stupid ideology. What have you contributed to this thread besides preaching your own brand of sectarianism?

 

Can you discuss out of your narrow world view?

 

 

ralis

 

Can you interpret me outside of yours?

 

Buddhism doesn't think Christianity or Islam is wrong all the way, just incomplete and at best leads to higher rebirth. Unless it's a secret branch of the path influenced by a Bodhisattva that teaches all the way to the Jalus... which might still exist. Basically... Buddhism isn't merely the dressing of what is popularly considered Buddhism.

 

Islam and Christianity on a traditional level preach that all other paths are evil and will lead to hell. They think Buddhism is merely icon worship and Hinduism is too and Taoism is a path of the devil. Buddhism never preaches this. So is very, very different of a cosmic view from the traditions of Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Buddhism is different from Hinduism in the sense that it doesn't equate everything with an all encompassing transcendent reality.

 

I've said this many times in many ways. If the realization comes to the realization of a non-staticness, of complete malleability, and complete realization of the nature of the self not to be equated with an all encompassing Self of all, which Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche has said many times. Then, it's Buddhism, no matter what language, it's awake-ism.

 

As far as a clear lineage that is available to the masses and that is clearly accessible, Buddhism as it's traditionally known to be is the clearest and integratabtle with any living tradition, but not all traditional concepts, including the concept of a universal Overlord. Though the Buddhas Bodhisattvas have taken rebirth into other traditions in order to bring them closer to the truth of the nature of things. I'm far less dogmatic than you ralis. You keep equating what I'm saying with your hate for Christian dogmatists or Islamic extremists. My message is deeply different.

 

Do you get it ralis? You don't actually read the meaning of my posts, you just read your projection. Plenty of others get the meaning of my posts... but you don't.

Edited May 15, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Well said...but you must be aware that dogmatists are invariably shackled in the chains of their belief system...so for them, their world view (however narrow it might be) is absolute. In order to have a wider world-view, the world-view itself has to be eliminated. How? By remaining always aware of the fact that in the face of Absolute Truth (as a noumenal experience), no world-view has any absolute relevance. Each world-view has it's own place and things that work within it and things that don't...but they are of practical importance only (Samvritti or Vyavaharika Satya). The Absolute (Paramarthika) is that Noumenal experience that can only be realized but not spoken!

 

 

Your world view has to do with identifying with a prevailing self existing Absolute Truth. It's very Hindu... thus limited by the cryteria that the Buddha subverted when he said that there is no substratum reality that transcends all things and is simultaneously eminent as them.

 

Buddha (awake) cosmology discusses deeper. Not all concepts about the universe are compatible with the liberated view. Though the liberated transcends all concepts, including the experience of nirvikalpa samadhi or sahaja samadhi that identifies with a concept-less abstract overlord.

 

The traditional Vedantin view is still slightly dualistic on a very subtle level.

[ralis]

Can you interpret me outside of yours?

 

Buddhism doesn't think Christianity or Islam is wrong all the way, just incomplete and at best leads to higher rebirth. Unless it's a secret branch of the path influenced by a Bodhisattva that teaches all the way to the Jalus... which might still exist. Basically... Buddhism isn't merely the dressing of what is popularly considered Buddhism.

 

Islam and Christianity on a traditional level preach that all other paths are evil and will lead to hell. They think Buddhism is merely icon worship and Hinduism is too and Taoism is a path of the devil. Buddhism never preaches this. So is very, very different of a cosmic view from the traditions of Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Buddhism is different from Hinduism in the sense that it doesn't equate everything with an all encompassing transcendent reality.

 

I've said this many times in many ways. If the realization comes to the realization of a non-staticness, of complete malleability, and complete realization of the nature of the self not to be equated with an all encompassing Self of all, which Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche has said many times. Then, it's Buddhism, no matter what language, it's awake-ism.

 

As far as a clear lineage that is available to the masses and that is clearly accessible, Buddhism as it's traditionally known to be is the clearest and integratabtle with any living tradition, but not all traditional concepts, including the concept of a universal Overlord. Though the Buddhas Bodhisattvas have taken rebirth into other traditions in order to bring them closer to the truth of the nature of things. I'm far less dogmatic than you ralis. You keep equating what I'm saying with your hate for Christian dogmatists or Islamic extremists. My message is deeply different.

 

Do you get it ralis? You don't actually read the meaning of my posts, you just read your projection. Plenty of others get the meaning of my posts... but you don't.

 

You are still promoting a sectarian world view i.e, Buddhism. Exactly where have I indicated any hatred? Please provide quotes.

 

Since you don't understand sectarianism, here is a very clear definition.

 

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=sectarianism

 

 

ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

You are still promoting a sectarian world view i.e, Buddhism. Exactly where have I indicated any hatred? Please provide quotes.

 

Since you don't understand sectarianism, here is a very clear definition.

 

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=sectarianism

 

 

ralis

 

Nah... you still don't understand the meaning of my words. The cosmos does only work a particular way... as more chaotic than other traditions propose. My simplicity involves more information...

 

Try again ralis. I only promote Buddhism on a traditional level as a strong living tradition that has working methodology in many different ways of approach that work succinctly. Buddhism non-traditionally as available to anyone who questions and explores deeply enough. But, I use a language that is traditionally Buddhist because it's a clear approach.

 

You ralis keep projecting limiting interpretations onto me and sometimes it feels like dark knotted energy.

 

Traditional Taoist cosmology sees the universe differently, as Christian does, and Islam does, and Hindus do... Buddhist sees these cosmologies as not all together wrong, just not complete because they end at a primal cause. Buddhist Cosmology within the tradition of the spoken and written does not end at a primal source of all things. Even the concept of Samantabhadra is treated with an entirely different subtlety in Vajrayana and Dzogchen.

 

It's quite clear that even though you reject Buddhist cosmology, you do it for ignorant reasons.

[Birch]

http://integrallife.com/member/federico-parra/blog/world-not-dream

 

THIS!

[ralis]

Nah... you still don't understand the meaning of my words. The cosmos does only work a particular way... as more chaotic than other traditions propose. My simplicity involves more information...

 

Try again ralis. I only promote Buddhism on a traditional level as a strong living tradition that has working methodology in many different ways of approach that work succinctly. Buddhism non-traditionally as available to anyone who questions and explores deeply enough. But, I use a language that is traditionally Buddhist because it's a clear approach.

 

You ralis keep projecting limiting interpretations onto me and sometimes it feels like dark knotted energy.

 

Traditional Taoist cosmology sees the universe differently, as Christian does, and Islam does, and Hindus do... Buddhist sees these cosmologies as not all together wrong, just not complete because they end at a primal cause. Buddhist Cosmology within the tradition of the spoken and written does not end at a primal source of all things. Even the concept of Samantabhadra is treated with an entirely different subtlety in Vajrayana and Dzogchen.

 

It's quite clear that even though you reject Buddhist cosmology, you do it for ignorant reasons.

 

You still place Buddhism at the top of a hierarchy, with other religions being lesser than i.e, secondary, tertiary etc. Or you would say Buddhism is complete and the other belief systems are not. That is sectarianism.

 

BTW, your calling me "dear" on another post is inappropriate. Saying I am ignorant is also inappropriate.

 

 

ralis

Edited May 15, 2010 by ralis

[dwai]

Your world view has to do with identifying with a prevailing self existing Absolute Truth. It's very Hindu... thus limited by the cryteria that the Buddha subverted when he said that there is no substratum reality that transcends all things and is simultaneously eminent as them.

 

Buddha (awake) cosmology discusses deeper. Not all concepts about the universe are compatible with the liberated view. Though the liberated transcends all concepts, including the experience of nirvikalpa samadhi or sahaja samadhi that identifies with a concept-less abstract overlord.

 

The traditional Vedantin view is still slightly dualistic on a very subtle level.

 

Actually you haven't quite understood what Buddha taught...so you are trapped within your own "categorical framework". No language can describe the Non-Dual experience...so by creating so much jargon about something that cannot be possibly described, Buddhism can be confusing to the novice. This is not a very complex subject really...being Non-Dual. It is the non-selves who make such a mess of it, thinking they can evangelize, preach, teach Dharma. Dharma is simply being The Non-Dual Consciousness...and nothing else matters!

 

You see, Buddhism started off as a Non-philosophy, in that The Buddha taught the practical path to be free of dukkha. Then after he passed away, his followers started intellectualizing what he had tried to show. It happens differently in different systems...in case of the Abrahamics, with dogmatic adherence to allegorical texts (scriptures) and in case of Buddhism via extreme attachment to not being attached, to not-being-ness. Those who know don't tell...those who tell don't know...

 

In reality, Buddhism, Advaita, Taoism all are different fingers pointing towards the same moon. I see many others have started seeing that for a fact since our last interaction...

 

Best,

 

Dwai

[RongzomFan]

No language can describe the Non-Dual experience

 

 

There is a clarity that is self-discerning. It is distinguished from the conceptual mind. However this clarity does not really have an intrinsic existence.

 

It is also different than being "present", if you are present at the level of the conceptual mind.

[Vajrahridaya]

Actually you haven't quite understood what Buddha taught...so you are trapped within your own "categorical framework". No language can describe the Non-Dual experience...

 

Actually Dzogchen disagrees which is why both conceptualizing and non-conceptualizing is non-dual. There is not a non-conceptual ground of being, this is a mistaken cognition and interpretation of the various formless samadhi's which Hinduism does as a basis for it's explanations.

 

so by creating so much jargon about something that cannot be possibly described, Buddhism can be confusing to the novice. This is not a very complex subject really...being Non-Dual. It is the non-selves who make such a mess of it, thinking they can evangelize, preach, teach Dharma. Dharma is simply being The Non-Dual Consciousness...and nothing else matters!

 

So, non-dual is dual to duality? Only non-duality is real and duality is not? Sounds like the idea that Brahman is real and maya is illusion. There is a subtle duality in your interpretation of non-duality because it's a substantialist version of interpretation.

 

You see, Buddhism started off as a Non-philosophy, in that The Buddha taught the practical path to be free of dukkha. Then after he passed away, his followers started intellectualizing what he had tried to show. It happens differently in different systems...in case of the Abrahamics, with dogmatic adherence to allegorical texts (scriptures) and in case of Buddhism via extreme attachment to not being attached, to not-being-ness. Those who know don't tell...those who tell don't know...

 

Nah... his explanation was more clear than your interpretation here, there is no attachment to non-being or being. It's easily discernible if Nagarjuna is understood as well as the huge amount of Buddhas that come after the Buddha. Including the Buddhas that headed up the written version of his words some years after his death. Even of different types of Buddhist paths like the Theravada and Mahayana.

 

In reality, Buddhism, Advaita, Taoism all are different fingers pointing towards the same moon. I see many others have started seeing that for a fact since our last interaction...

 

Best,

 

Dwai

 

We are in a Buddhadharma destroying age. Indeed. Since everything is relative though, it could go either way.

[Vajrahridaya]

There is a clarity that is self-discerning. It is distinguished from the conceptual mind. However this clarity does not really have an intrinsic existence.

 

It is also different than being "present", if you are present at the level of the conceptual mind.

 

Indeed.

 

This self is relative to every arising from previous arisings endlessly, but when aware of it's empty interconnectivity, the space originating dependent upon this realization is filled with the illuminated consciousness that originates relative to the experiential cognition of inter-dependent origination/emptiness which consciousness is a dependent arising of as well.

 

Here's some empty circular logic for ya!

 

p.s. Samsara rightly understood is Nirvana

 

HAHA!

Edited May 16, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[ralis]

Actually you haven't quite understood what Buddha taught...so you are trapped within your own "categorical framework". No language can describe the Non-Dual experience...so by creating so much jargon about something that cannot be possibly described, Buddhism can be confusing to the novice. This is not a very complex subject really...being Non-Dual. It is the non-selves who make such a mess of it, thinking they can evangelize, preach, teach Dharma. Dharma is simply being The Non-Dual Consciousness...and nothing else matters!

 

You see, Buddhism started off as a Non-philosophy, in that The Buddha taught the practical path to be free of dukkha. Then after he passed away, his followers started intellectualizing what he had tried to show. It happens differently in different systems...in case of the Abrahamics, with dogmatic adherence to allegorical texts (scriptures) and in case of Buddhism via extreme attachment to not being attached, to not-being-ness. Those who know don't tell...those who tell don't know...

 

In reality, Buddhism, Advaita, Taoism all are different fingers pointing towards the same moon. I see many others have started seeing that for a fact since our last interaction...

 

Best,

 

Dwai

 

Well said! I just don't know what Vajraji's agenda is. This thread is about getting rid of sectarianism and all he does is promote it.

 

He begs his audience to somehow read between the lines to understand the meaning of his words and the intent of his writing. The problem is, he incorrectly uses words by skewing their meaning, positing untenable arguments, and proceeds from incorrect conclusions. Semantically, his arguments are vague, offer no supporting evidence and never from his own experience. Actually his past life experience as a dinosaur was irrelevant to any conversation about one's true nature. There seems to be a certain self importance to his writing.

 

Yes, non-dualism is never transmitted semantically (impossible).

 

ralis

Edited May 16, 2010 by ralis

[ralis]

Indeed.

 

This self is relative to every arising from previous arisings endlessly, but when aware of it's empty interconnectivity, the space originating dependent upon this realization is filled with the illuminated consciousness that originates relative to the experiential cognition of inter-dependent origination/emptiness which consciousness is a dependent arising of as well.

 

Here's some empty circular logic for ya!

 

p.s. Samsara rightly understood is Nirvana

 

HAHA!

 

I suppose if one can understand the above, one will be saved? In the name of Vajraji the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ralis

Edited May 16, 2010 by ralis

[Capital]

This thread is about getting rid of sectarianism and all he does is promote it.

 

The thread title is not 'Getting rid of Sectarianism'.

 

It instead is quite directed towards Advaita and Buddhism specifically, and I personally expected any Buddhists on the board to speak up if they disagree.

 

Btw, Ralis, nothing you've ever said has helped me on my path.

[ralis]

The thread title is not 'Getting rid of Sectarianism'.

 

It instead is quite directed towards Advaita and Buddhism specifically, and I personally expected any Buddhists on the board to speak up if they disagree.

 

Btw, Ralis, nothing you've ever said has helped me on my path.

 

 

Subtitled "sectarianism is stupid". I guess the thread is playing itself to that subtitle and the Buddhists are showing their true colors.

 

All I am doing is pointing out that language is inadequate to quantify or define any belief system. If one understand the limitations of language, then one will have more autonomy (freedom).

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Yes, non-dualism is never transmitted semantically (impossible).

 

ralis

 

Have you read "old man basking in the sun"? Anyway... generally it takes having had direct transmission and experience to even read between the lines of any sort.

 

Your left side of the brain eats your right side potential. You could use some balancing in the abstract thinking of your right side.

 

Oh well...

[Vajrahridaya]

I suppose if one can understand the above, one will be saved? In the name of Vajraji the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha.

 

ralis

 

Ah... more venomous sarcasm from Silar.... the Joker! If you could look into yourself a bit deeper and find a soft and open heart, maybe the right side of your brain will open?

[Vajrahridaya]

Subtitled "sectarianism is stupid". I guess the thread is playing itself to that subtitle and the Buddhists are showing their true colors.

 

All I am doing is pointing out that language is inadequate to quantify or define any belief system. If one understand the limitations of language, then one will have more autonomy (freedom).

 

Language is only as limited as your mind is about it. I can read one line from a well placed and maybe abstract seeming poetic interlude by a realized being and get a meaning that speaks volumes more than what "appears" to be on the page. The beauty of language is that it is self transcendent through meaning. It seems mostly poets see this...

[Sunya]

You still place Buddhism at the top of a hierarchy, with other religions being lesser than i.e, secondary, tertiary etc. Or you would say Buddhism is complete and the other belief systems are not. That is sectarianism.

 

Ralis, is it sectarian to view modern physics as more complete compared to pre-Einstein physics? Why not?

 

You have this believe that all religions are the same, a flatland view. What is the basis for this belief? Why should we look at all methods as the same? Is it really that outlandish to view a particular method as more complete and aiming for a different goal than other methods? If so, why is it so negative to view that method as better?

 

If we look at the valuation systems, "better" and "worse", in terms of how pragmatic a method is in awakening wisdom and compassion within an individual... then aren't Buddhism, Taoism, and Advaita "better" than traditional Islam, Christianity, and Judaism which, though emphasizing compassion to a degree, do nothing in terms of actual wisdom? Of course there are exceptions but you can't argue that generally speaking Eastern paths are "better" than traditional Western traditions for gaining wisdom. Is it sectarian to say that? Or is just realistic given the facts?

 

All I am doing is pointing out that language is inadequate to quantify or define any belief system. If one understand the limitations of language, then one will have more autonomy (freedom).

 

You are pointing out a belief that you have. The belief is that language is the essence of thought so one must transcend language and thus thought which then leads to some non-conceptual wisdom. Unfortunately that is not realistic. Language is not the essence of thought. There are much deeper levels to mind than language. There are deeper states of mind where thoughts exist which are more symbolic, more abstract. It's hard to explain, but freedom does not come from transcending language. Language and all forms of thought must be in-sync with non-dual realization for true freedom to arise. You cannot ignore thoughts, you cannot ignore language.

Edited May 16, 2010 by mikaelz

[C T]

Subtitled "sectarianism is stupid". I guess the thread is playing itself to that subtitle and the Buddhists are showing their true colors.

 

All I am doing is pointing out that language is inadequate to quantify or define any belief system. If one understand the limitations of language, then one will have more autonomy (freedom).

If you are beginning to see the true rainbow colors of the Buddhists, it means the dust is settling. That is wonderful Ralis! Your perceptions may be starting to purify.. its never too late eh?

 

Language IS the quantitative tool that defines any belief system. It is more than adequate, in fact. Above and beyond beliefs, language has no purpose. Perhaps that is the more sensible route to freedom.

[Cueball]

Language is only as limited as your mind is about it. I can read one line from a well placed and maybe abstract seeming poetic interlude by a realized being and get a meaning that speaks volumes more than what "appears" to be on the page. The beauty of language is that it is self transcendent through meaning.

 

Me too. In the western tradition you have an anagogical understanding of texts in addition to the other literal or allegorical interpretations. I'm not sure what the Buddhist term for this would be? But to see thought and its expression as liberating as well as limiting is important.

 

There are much deeper levels to mind than language. There are deeper states of mind where thoughts exist which are more symbolic, more abstract. It's hard to explain, but freedom does not come from transcending language. Language and all forms of thought must be in-sync with non-dual realization for true freedom to arise. You cannot ignore thoughts, you cannot ignore language.

 

In Vajrayana, in Tantra - do you have a continual process of refining and expansion of tulpas/thoughtforms?

 

Is that about right?