Debunking a Creator

[gatito]

"I" is just a concept.

 

That's not my experience

[RongzomFan]

 

Irrelevant (and untrue - unless you are time-bound )

That's called Neovedanta, not to be confused with Neoadvaita.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Vedanta

[RongzomFan]

 

That's not my experience

So basically you got no reasoning.

[gatito]

That's called Neovedanta, not to be confused with Neoadvaita.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Vedanta

 

I really don't care what label you want to use

 

So basically you got no reasoning.

 

None that you're able to follow

[RongzomFan]

 

None that you're able to follow

Yes, we all know every NeoAdvaitin thinks they are the second coming of Jesus.

 

I've been saying it for years.

[gatito]

Yes, we all know every NeoAdvaitin thinks they are the second coming of Jesus.

 

I've been saying it for years.

 

You're entitled to hold whatever belief you choose - right or wrong

[RongzomFan]

 

You're entitled to hold whatever belief you choose - right or wrong

You are the bear on the right.

 

Edited December 19, 2013 by RongzomFan

[gatito]

You are the bear on the right.

 

 

LOL

[gatito]

On a serious note, the only benchmark is happiness.

 

That's what everyone wants but they look towards the apparent objects (the 10,000 things ) instead of what they already have eternally, the Subject - Consciousness, the Self, Atman (the Tao )

[RongzomFan]

Every Neoadvaitin, like James Swartz, Jeff Foster, Anadi etc., think all the other Neoadvaitins and Buddhists don't "get it".

[RongzomFan]

Self is not the aggregates, because the aggregates are plural, yet self is singular.

 

Also we say "my body" which indicates possession of the aggregates by self.

 

But if the self is something other than the aggregates, you should be able to observe that the self and aggregates are completely distinct and have no relationship. But in actuality they occur together.

 

In the end, self is not established.

Edited December 19, 2013 by RongzomFan

[yabyum24]

1. But in actuality they occur together.

 

2. In the end, self is not established.

Fully agree with number 1. but number 2. is an oxymoron.

[gatito]

Every Neoadvaitin, like James Swartz, Jeff Foster, Anadi etc., think all the other Neoadvaitins and Buddhists don't "get it".

 

Irrelevant - even if I were a neoadvaitin

 

Self is not the aggregates, because the aggregates are plural, yet self is singular.

 

Also we say "my body" which indicates possession of the aggregates by self.

 

But if the self is something other than the aggregates, you should be able to observe that the self and aggregates are completely distinct and have no relationship. But in actuality they occur together.

 

In the end, self is not established.

 

Where you're going wrong here is in the assumption that the Self is singular when it is actually non-dual and all the apparent objects are also the Self.

 

It is not completely wrong to say that All is Empty (although, ultimately, any statement about non-duality is wrong )

[RongzomFan]

If everything is self, hop into my body right now

[RongzomFan]

Lmao gatito.

 

you are just like james schwartz, anadi, jeff foster etc.

[amoyaan]

Every Neoadvaitin, like James Swartz, Jeff Foster, Anadi etc., think all the other Neoadvaitins and Buddhists don't "get it".

 

James Swartz teaches traditional vedanta in the lineage of Swami Chinmayanada and Dayananda, it's certainly not neo advaita.

 

Anyway, I'll butt out again

[RongzomFan]

 

James Swartz teaches traditional vedanta in the lineage of Swami Chinmayanada and Dayananda, it's certainly not neo advaita.

 

Anyway, I'll butt out again

Are the writings of James Swartz higher than translations of medieval Advaita Vedanta?

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Essential-Vedanta-Treasures-Religions/dp/0941532526

[RongzomFan]

but number 2. is an oxymoron.

 

????

[amoyaan]

Are the writings of James Swartz higher than translations of medieval Advaita Vedanta?

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Essential-Vedanta-Treasures-Religions/dp/0941532526

 

Not higher, but same sampradaya. When he teaches he teaches directly from the Bhagavad Gita, Shankara, etc, unfolding them sentence by sentence as was taught him.

 

Thanks for the link, that book looks cool

[RongzomFan]

Shankara has a commentary on the Bhagavad Gita.

[gatito]

James Swartz teaches traditional vedanta in the lineage of Swami Chinmayanada and Dayananda, it's certainly not neo advaita.

 

Anyway, I'll butt out again

 

RongzomFan chooses to employ "neoadvaitin" as a term of abuse.

 

I've pointed his error out to him on several occasions but it doesn't accord with his predjuces, as he's also asserted that only Hindu priests are "advaitins" and that all others are "neoadvaitins".

 

I've also posted this link: -

 

http://www.advaita.org.uk/teachers/teachers.htm

www.advaita.org.uk/teachers/teachers.htm)

 

several times - for others - as RongzomFan is completely unable to grasp the fact that there are several different, albeit overlapping, camps

 

Feel free to butt-in - it's nice to have an intelligent contribution

[gatito]

If everything is self, hop into my body right now

 

Another logical fallacy, here are a few things for you to consider:-

 

Firstly, if everything is Self, that's already the case.

 

Secondly, if, as you attempt to assert, Self don't exist, there would be nothing that could hop.

 

Thirdly, I find the view from here infinitely preferable to the view from there .

 

Fourthly, this Path is clearly not for you

[Simple_Jack]

Fourthly, this Path is clearly not for you

 

The reverse can be said by RongzomFan.

[gatito]

The reverse can be said by RongzomFan.

 

LOL

 

Let's see how my Buddhism 101 pans out

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/33043-buddhism-101/?p=507729

(thetaobums.com/topic/33043-buddhism-101/?p=507729)

[Simple_Jack]

Gatito, I'm not surprised that your obsessed with Brahman - the real question is why do you want to try to impose your Brahman on everyone else?