On Mar 11, 2011, at 2:51 PM, yifuxero wrote:

> thx....the Shankaracharya's commenting on MMY - Obviously a case of sour 
> grapes. MMY got where he did through cleverness; a trait lacking in the 
> phoney Shankaracharya's.
> ...
> However, I do appreciate (though don't agree with); your speculative 
> conjectures on Vedanta.  You haven't provide any (a) rationale, (b) evidence 
> (c) corroboration; but on the whole, the assertion (I assume you are 
> comparing Vedanta to Buddhism) deserves further investigation and I thank you 
> for bringing it up. 


It wasn't my intention to go into a lengthy dissertation. There are those who 
appreciate the an-atman and interdependent origination and those who are soul 
(atman) clingers or believe in it's universalized version (the vritti of 
brahman).

One of the unfortunate consequences of Brahmanism and Shankara is that some 
yogic paths and samkhya were denigrated or destroyed (thus some sects consider 
Shankara a demon). The ironic thing is the Shankaracharya's all rely on yogic 
paths as so few are able to meditate on brahman and brahman alone without some 
approach to the nondual.

It's also not helpful that one of the few nondual tantrics paths left, 
Kashmirian Shaivism, was practically destroyed by radicalized Muslims. But much 
of that came from Dzogchen and Vajrayana (which is still preserved).

Reply via email to