Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Advaita is about inherent freedom
emptybill: As usual, you are really only interested in spouting off what you have read. However, what you have read is not deep and comprehensive and it shows in your amateurish identifications of the influences between separate traditions. Get back to us when you get some time for reading and research. You don't get historical knowledge from gazing at your navel. According to many Indian scholars, Shankara and Gaudapada were crypto-Buddhists. Gaudapada incorporated aspects of Buddhism into Advaita in order to reinterpret the Upanishads and the Brahma Sutras. According to Sharma, the early commentators on the Brahma Sutras were all realists and/or pantheist realists, NOT monist idealism. In fact, many of the statements in Brahma Sutras can be taken to be dualist or quasi-dualist thinking. Nowhere in the Brahma Sutras of Badarayanya do we find any statement extolling Pure Consciousness as the one ultimate reality; nor any statement about non-origination; or any references to the four-corned negation; or any statement about maya's illusory markers; nor any reference to two truths of Nagarajuna. According to Raju, the fourth chapter of Gaudapada's Mandukya Karika — Alatasanti Prakarana — is very differnet from the other chapters - it shows direct a Mahayana Buddhist style of dialectic. Gaudapada shows the deepest respect for the Buddha whom he salutes repeatedly, and quotes freely from Vaasubandhu and Nagarjuna. Raju says that it was who bridged Buddhism and Vedanta. He took over the Buddhist doctrines that ultimate reality is pure consciousness and that the nature of the world is the four-cornered negation. That is why Shankara was severely criticized by Ramanuja, Madhva, and Nimbarka, because Shankara had become a closet-Buddhist, to the point of taking up the ochre robe and instituting a monastic system modeled after the Buddhist Sangha. Go figure. Excerpt from Mahayana Sutra Lankara by Asanga Maitreyanatha: Pure consciousness is the only Reality. By its nature, it is Self-luminous. (XIII, 13). Thus shaking off duality, he directly percieves the Absolute which is the unity underlying phenomena (dharmadatu) (VI, 7 - Sharma). Works cited: 'The Philosophical Traditions of India' by P.T. Raju University of Pittsburgh Press, 1972 p. 177. 'A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy' by Chandrahar Sharma, M.A., D. Phil., D. Litt., LL.B., Shastri, Dept. of Phil., Benares Hindu U. Rider, 1960 pp. 112-113 On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 9:39 PM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: As usual, you are really only interested in spouting off what you have read. However, what you have read is not deep and comprehensive and it shows in your amateurish identifications of the influences between separate traditions. You read about these influences from the common arena of discourse in India and then conclude that x causes y because of similar concerns in two traditions. Advaita means not-two. However, that does not mean that because the use the term advaita or advaya is used in multiple traditions that one of these traditions has caused, created or even influenced the view of the others. Kashmiri Trika is not and never has been influenced by Shankara's Kevela Advaita. What they share is a common Indian basis for philosophizing. You also know nothing about the pivitol question of causation in the development of Hinayana dharma-pluralism, Vijñanavada Ideationism and HwaYen's Tathata-Causation. This is a topic that was later very important in the refinement and development of Chan/Zen/Sön - both Linji and Caodong traditions. But then you must already know this because you are the professor who discourses upon everything you've read. You must be the ultimate embodiment of mutual-identity and interpenetration between absolute and relative. Hail to Professor P.Dog Willy ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: Thanks for posting the information,but you failed to point out the similarities: Shankara's Advaita claims to be based on the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita and the Brahma Sutras, but many scholars such as Sharma and Raju have noted that Shankara shows many signs of influence from Mahayana Buddhism, Madhyamaka, founded by Nagarjuna, the Yogacara, founded by Vasubandhu and Asanga. Gaudapada incorporated aspects of Buddhism into Hindusim in order to reinterpret the Upanishads and the Brahma Sutras. 1. Gaudapada adapted the Buddhist concept of ajata, the doctrine of non-origination or non-creation, from Nagarjuna's Madhyamika. Ajata is the fundamental philosophical doctrine of Gaudapada. 2. Advaita Vedanta also adopted from the Madhyamika the idea of two levels of reality - two truths - absolute and relative. 3. Gaudapada and Shankara adopted almost all of the Buddhist dialectic, methodology, arguments and analysis, their concepts, their terminologies and even their philosophy of the Absolute. 4. Gaudapada embraced the Buddhist idea that the nature of the
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Advaita is about inherent freedom
Kashmiri Trika is not and never has been influenced by Shankara's Kevela Advaita. Kashmere Trika was incorporated into the Madukya Upanishad, Gaudapada and Shankara. In fact, many of the terms used in Kashmere Shaivism mean the very same thing as in the Gaudapada's karika and in Mandukya Upanaishad. In addition, with the exception of the concept of 'Maya', many of the terms used in Kashmere Shaivism mean the very same thing in the Adwaita Vedanta espoused by the Adi Shankaracharya. Kashmere Shaivism is a form of transcendental, realistic idealism; a form of absolute monism. According to Kashmere Shaivism, 'Cit' is pure consciousness - the One Reality, just like in Shankara's Advaita and in Vasubhandu's Vijnanavada. So, the question is: How did three different Indian systems all get the idealistic notion that consciousness was the one reality, at the same time? [image: Inline image 1] MMY with Laksmanjoo - Master of Kashmere Trika (TTC Kashmere) My theory is that the Buddhist Yogacara tradition was established up in Kashmere and was adopted by the Kasmere Tantrics. Then, whan Shankara was on pilgrimage to Kashmere he came under the influence of the Yogacara and took that knowledge back to India and established the Sri Vidya. Not for nothing is the Shankara math Sringeri named after Srinagar! Somehow the symbol Sri Yantra went from Kashmere to India. Now I ask you - who is famous for painting yantras and mandalas on silk to hang on the wall? Go figure. Kashmere Shaivism is called 'Trika' based on the three fundamental states of consciousness: 1. ja-grat - waking state 2. svapna - dreaming 3. sus.upti - dreamless sleep And, turiya - pure consciousness, is the fourth state of consciousness, 'turiya' which is pure consciousness. These are the three cities mentioned in the Sri Vidya Soundarya Lahari. According to Bernard, the Vedanta doctrine contends that there is only one ultimate reality which never changes; therefore the manifest world is an 'appearance' only. Kashmere Saivism contends that there is only one reality, but it has two aspects; therefore the manifestation is real. This is based on the argument that the effect cannot be different from its cause. The world of matter is only another form of consciousness. Swami Rama on the Mandukhya Upanishad: 2) Sarvam hyetad brahmayam-atma brahma soyamatma catushpat. Atman has Four Aspects: All of this, everywhere, is in truth Brahman, the Absolute Reality. This very Self itself, Atman, is also Brahman, the Absolute Reality. This Atman or Self has four aspects through which it operates. Work cited: 'Hindu Philosophy' The definitive sourcebook, in English, of the Six Systems of Indian Philosophy, by the author of Hatha Yoga, Penthouse of the Gods, and Heaven Lies Within Us. Comprehensive, erudite, scholarly. by Theos Bernard, Ph.D. Philosophical Publishing House 1947 'Enlightenment Without God' Mandukya Upanishad By Swami Rama Himalayan Institute Press, 1982 Other titles of interst: 'The Secret of the Three Cities' An Introduction to Hindu Sakta Tantrism By Douglas Renfrew Brooks University Of Chicago Press, 1998 'The Triadic Heart of Siva' Kaula Tantricism of Abhinavagupta in the Non-Dual Shaivism of Kashmir By Paul Eduardo Muller-Ortega State University of New York Press, 1989 Notes: 1. Kashmir Shaivism resembles Hindu tantra, and both have as their key symbol the Shri Yantra, as I previously posted, which was established by the Adi Shankara in Kashmere and at the four principle mathas - Sringeri, Puri, Jyotir, Dwarka, and at Kanchi. In Kashmere Shaivism, the 'aham' bija mantra is considered to be a non-dual interior space of Lord Shiva, which supports the entire manifestation. 'Aham' in Kashmere Shaivism is the 'Supreme' bija mantra and is identical to Shakti. It's the very same thing in the Hindu Tantras. 2. Samyama is activated subconsciously in non-structured form by any thinking activity and experiencing deep levels of trance induction or meditation. 'Samyama' is the combined, simultaneous practice of dharana, dhyana, and samadhi. That's TM! On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 9:39 PM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: As usual, you are really only interested in spouting off what you have read. However, what you have read is not deep and comprehensive and it shows in your amateurish identifications of the influences between separate traditions. You read about these influences from the common arena of discourse in India and then conclude that x causes y because of similar concerns in two traditions. Advaita means not-two. However, that does not mean that because the use the term advaita or advaya is used in multiple traditions that one of these traditions has caused, created or even influenced the view of the others. Kashmiri Trika is not and never has been influenced by Shankara's Kevela Advaita. What they share is a common Indian basis for philosophizing. You also know nothing about the pivitol question of causation in
[FairfieldLife] RE: Advaita is about inherent freedom
Apparently you can't understand what you read. Gaudapada in Mandukya Karika, 4.99; “naitad buddhena bhasitam” (this was not expressed by Buddha). Shankara comments: The nature of the supreme reality is free from the differences of knowledge, known and knower, and is without a second, etat, the fact: na bhâsitam, was not expressed; buddhena, by Buddha; though a near approach to non-dualism was implied in his negation of outer objects and his imagination of everything as mere consciousness. But this non-duality, the essence of the ultimate Reality, is to be known from the Upanishads only. This is the purport.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Advaita is about inherent freedom
Thanks for posting the information,but you failed to point out the similarities: Shankara's Advaita claims to be based on the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita and the Brahma Sutras, but many scholars such as Sharma and Raju have noted that Shankara shows many signs of influence from Mahayana Buddhism, Madhyamaka, founded by Nagarjuna, the Yogacara, founded by Vasubandhu and Asanga. Gaudapada incorporated aspects of Buddhism into Hindusim in order to reinterpret the Upanishads and the Brahma Sutras. 1. Gaudapada adapted the Buddhist concept of ajata, the doctrine of non-origination or non-creation, from Nagarjuna's Madhyamika. Ajata is the fundamental philosophical doctrine of Gaudapada. 2. Advaita Vedanta also adopted from the Madhyamika the idea of two levels of reality - two truths - absolute and relative. 3. Gaudapada and Shankara adopted almost all of the Buddhist dialectic, methodology, arguments and analysis, their concepts, their terminologies and even their philosophy of the Absolute. 4. Gaudapada embraced the Buddhist idea that the nature of the world is the four-cornered negation. 5. Gaudapada adopted the Buddhist doctrines that ultimate reality is pure consciousness. P.S. You also did not explain the connection between the non-dualism of Advaita Vedanta and the non-dualism of Kashmere Tantrsim. On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:28 PM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: In Tibetan Buddhism, Nagarjuna is the most important philosophical figure. It is like Thomas Aquinas for Roman Catholics. Madhyamaka is the basis for understanding Buddhism and Vijñanavada is a close correlate. Contrary to the Tibetans, Madhyamaka is not given the same exalted status in the history of Chinese Buddhism. Their conclusion was that the eight-fold negation of Nagarjuna set the framework for a final negation of all elements (dharmas) of experience, whether material, psychological, or celestial. However, according to them, this very conclusion cannot be final. That is because any negation (no matter how subtle or all encompassing) is by definition the opposite of an affirmation - not merely logically but in final meaning and result. It is therefore merely relative and is neither final nor absolute. Consequently, Madhyamaka was superseded by various other Buddhist schools until Hwa-Yen became the view that encompassed all other schools and all other elements of experience. That view about Madhyamaka was echoed by Shankara who characterized Madhyamaka as shunyavada and dismissed it rather swiftly. Shankara in fact saved some of his most pointed criticisms for the Buddhists of his day, particularly Vijnanavada. In spite of this, there are parallels between some of Gaudapada's statements and the views of Vijnanavada because they both draw from the same milieu of philosophic discourse. This is one reason that assertions that Advaita was a secret Buddhism demonstrate ignorance of the issues and shallow scholarship. As pointed out by K. A. Krishnaswamy Aiyer, Buddhism and Advaita are fundamentally opposed in five key points: 1. Both say that the world is unreal, but Buddhists mean that it is only a conceptual construct (vikalpa), while Shankara does not think that the world is merely conceptual. 2. Momentariness is a cardinal principal of Buddhism - consciousness is fundamentally momentary for them. However, in Advaita, consciousness is pure (shuddha), without beginning or end (anadi) and is thoroughly continuous. The momentariness of empirical states of consciousness overlies this continuity. 3. In Buddhism, the self is the ego (the I) - a conceptual construct that is quite unreal. In Advaita, the Self is the only really Real and is the basis of all concepts. 4. In Buddhism, avidya causes us to construct continuities (such as the self) where there are none. In Advaita, avidya causes us instead to take what is unreal to be real and what is real to be unreal. 5. Removal of avidya leads to nirvana/blowning out for Buddhists but for Shankara it leads to perfect knowledge (vidya).
[FairfieldLife] RE: Advaita is about inherent freedom
As usual, you are really only interested in spouting off what you have read. However, what you have read is not deep and comprehensive and it shows in your amateurish identifications of the influences between separate traditions. You read about these influences from the common arena of discourse in India and then conclude that x causes y because of similar concerns in two traditions. Advaita means not-two. However, that does not mean that because the use the term advaita or advaya is used in multiple traditions that one of these traditions has caused, created or even influenced the view of the others. Kashmiri Trika is not and never has been influenced by Shankara's Kevela Advaita. What they share is a common Indian basis for philosophizing. You also know nothing about the pivitol question of causation in the development of Hinayana dharma-pluralism, Vijñanavada Ideationism and HwaYen's Tathata-Causation. This is a topic that was later very important in the refinement and development of Chan/Zen/Sön - both Linji and Caodong traditions. But then you must already know this because you are the professor who discourses upon everything you've read. You must be the ultimate embodiment of mutual-identity and interpenetration between absolute and relative. Hail to Professor P.Dog Willy ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: Thanks for posting the information,but you failed to point out the similarities: Shankara's Advaita claims to be based on the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita and the Brahma Sutras, but many scholars such as Sharma and Raju have noted that Shankara shows many signs of influence from Mahayana Buddhism, Madhyamaka, founded by Nagarjuna, the Yogacara, founded by Vasubandhu and Asanga. Gaudapada incorporated aspects of Buddhism into Hindusim in order to reinterpret the Upanishads and the Brahma Sutras. 1. Gaudapada adapted the Buddhist concept of ajata, the doctrine of non-origination or non-creation, from Nagarjuna's Madhyamika. Ajata is the fundamental philosophical doctrine of Gaudapada. 2. Advaita Vedanta also adopted from the Madhyamika the idea of two levels of reality - two truths - absolute and relative. 3. Gaudapada and Shankara adopted almost all of the Buddhist dialectic, methodology, arguments and analysis, their concepts, their terminologies and even their philosophy of the Absolute. 4. Gaudapada embraced the Buddhist idea that the nature of the world is the four-cornered negation. 5. Gaudapada adopted the Buddhist doctrines that ultimate reality is pure consciousness. P.S. You also did not explain the connection between the non-dualism of Advaita Vedanta and the non-dualism of Kashmere Tantrsim. On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:28 PM, emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@... wrote: In Tibetan Buddhism, Nagarjuna is the most important philosophical figure. It is like Thomas Aquinas for Roman Catholics. Madhyamaka is the basis for understanding Buddhism and Vijñanavada is a close correlate. Contrary to the Tibetans, Madhyamaka is not given the same exalted status in the history of Chinese Buddhism. Their conclusion was that the eight-fold negation of Nagarjuna set the framework for a final negation of all elements (dharmas) of experience, whether material, psychological, or celestial. However, according to them, this very conclusion cannot be final. That is because any negation (no matter how subtle or all encompassing) is by definition the opposite of an affirmation - not merely logically but in final meaning and result. It is therefore merely relative and is neither final nor absolute. Consequently, Madhyamaka was superseded by various other Buddhist schools until Hwa-Yen became the view that encompassed all other schools and all other elements of experience. That view about Madhyamaka was echoed by Shankara who characterized Madhyamaka as shunyavada and dismissed it rather swiftly. Shankara in fact saved some of his most pointed criticisms for the Buddhists of his day, particularly Vijnanavada. In spite of this, there are parallels between some of Gaudapada’s statements and the views of Vijnanavada because they both draw from the same milieu of philosophic discourse. This is one reason that assertions that Advaita was a secret Buddhism demonstrate ignorance of the issues and shallow scholarship. As pointed out by K. A. Krishnaswamy Aiyer, Buddhism and Advaita are fundamentally opposed in five key points: 1. Both say that the world is “unreal”, but Buddhists mean that it is only a conceptual construct (vikalpa), while Shankara does not think that the world is merely conceptual. 2. Momentariness is a cardinal principal of Buddhism – consciousness is fundamentally momentary for them. However, in Advaita, consciousness is pure (shuddha), without beginning or end (anadi) and is thoroughly continuous. The momentariness of
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Advaita is about inherent freedom
Jason: there was a two way, crossflow of influence between Hinduism and Buddhism, for thousands of years. Thus there are some similarities... According to Vaj, the Advaita Vedanta of Shankara is largely a Vedic purist reaction to the teaching of Nagarjuna. In fact, Shankara was accused of being a crypto-Buddhist for taking up the Buddhist mayavada notion. Go figure. Arya Asanga puts forth the schools basic doctrines in his Mahaayaana Sutralamkaara: 1. Reality is non-dual pure consciousness. 2. The phenomenal world is momentary - shunya. But shunya doesn't mean total negation. It is the negation of something in something. It is the negation of the illusory phenomenal world in its underlying support - pure consciousness. 3. The individual ego - the I - doesn't really exist. It is neither real nor unreal, nor both, nor neither - it is an illusion. 4. All suffering is due to clinging to the notions of I and mine. 5. Liberation is only the destruction of the illusion or ignorance. Individual existence is transcended on grasping the true meaning of nairaatmaya and shunyataa. 6. The real is non-dual. It's neither existence nor non-existence, neither affirmation nor negation, neither identity nor difference, neither one nor many, neither pure nor impure, neither production nor destruction. On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Jason jedi_sp...@yahoo.com wrote: Emptybill, there was a two way, crossflow of influence between Hinduism and Buddhism, for thousands of years. Thus there are some similarities. According to Nagarjuna of the Mahayana school, Nothing can arise independently on its own. Everything arose co-dependently along with you. Therefore, the phenomenal world around has no independent existence of it's own. So they are empty (sunyata), not real. Nagarjuna in Mulamadhyamaka karika, understands the world's transient and impermanent nature to mean that nothing has its own essence or independent existence. Everything is 'empty' (sunyata), in so far as it depends on other things in order to exist. For example, a table can only be said to exist in so far as four pieces of wood are connected to a base. If the legs are taken off, it is no longer a table. Therefore, it has no independent existence. A candle is burning because it is lit. It's not that lighting the candle caused it to burn, but rather that the candle's burning is the result of the condition of it being lit. Likewise, the candle is burning because it is made out of wax. The candle is burning because of a number of different conditions which together allow us to understand it in this way. In the Mandukya Karika, Gaudapada's commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad, Brahman cannot undergo any alteration. The Brahman is unchanging, (changeless). If no change can happen in the Brahman, nothing can arise from Brahman. Thus, the phenomenal world around has no underlying cause. Therefore it is not real, it's maya. There is no real origination or destruction, only apparent origination or destruction. From the level of ultimate truth (paramarthata) the phenomenal world is Maya. Ajatavada is proved by the reasoning that anything that has a beginning must have an end. Anything that has no beginning, has no end either. The consciousness therefore, is only reality, but appears as objects like a burning stick swung about appears to be continuous. --- emptybill@... wrote: I have already provided a scholarly synopsis of the real differences between Shankara's Advaita and Vijñanavada Buddhism. Many times I have also explained how and why Shankara refuted the same. You answer has always been the same - Yeah, but ... and then you continue onward without considering it at all. You only want to appear as Mr. Professor so you continue to repeat stuff you read that was written 10-20 years ago. You simply waste my time. Therefore I don't want to waste more with your b.s. and your it is all about Prof..Willy P-Dog. This is apparently how you understand both Advaita and Trika: I am the Universe. It's all about Me. It's my Maya. --- punditster@ wrote: There is nothing absurd about any of my citations and they have not been refuted by any scholars that I know of. If you have any sources you'd like to cite, please list them so we can read them for ourselves. mAyA - illusion , unreality , deception , fraud , trick , sorcery , witchcraft magic RV; an unreal or illusory image, phantom , apparition ib. (esp. ibc= false, unreal, illusory; duplicity (with Buddhists one of the 24 minor evil passions) Dharmas. Illusion (identified in the Samkhya with Prakriti or Pradha1na and in that system, as well as in the Vedanta, regarded as the source of the visible universe. Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon: http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/cgi-bin/tamil/recherche http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/cgi-bin/tamil/recherche On
[FairfieldLife] RE: Advaita is about inherent freedom
In Tibetan Buddhism, Nagarjuna is the most important philosophical figure. It is like Thomas Aquinas for Roman Catholics. Madhyamaka is the basis for understanding Buddhism and Vijñanavada is a close correlate. Contrary to the Tibetans, Madhyamaka is not given the same exalted status in the history of Chinese Buddhism. Their conclusion was that the eight-fold negation of Nagarjuna set the framework for a final negation of all elements (dharmas) of experience, whether material, psychological, or celestial. However, according to them, this very conclusion cannot be final. That is because any negation (no matter how subtle or all encompassing) is by definition the opposite of an affirmation - not merely logically but in final meaning and result. It is therefore merely relative and is neither final nor absolute. Consequently, Madhyamaka was superseded by various other Buddhist schools until Hwa-Yen became the view that encompassed all other schools and all other elements of experience. That view about Madhyamaka was echoed by Shankara who characterized Madhyamaka as shunyavada and dismissed it rather swiftly. Shankara in fact saved some of his most pointed criticisms for the Buddhists of his day, particularly Vijnanavada. In spite of this, there are parallels between some of Gaudapada’s statements and the views of Vijnanavada because they both draw from the same milieu of philosophic discourse. This is one reason that assertions that Advaita was a secret Buddhism demonstrate ignorance of the issues and shallow scholarship. As pointed out by K. A. Krishnaswamy Aiyer, Buddhism and Advaita are fundamentally opposed in five key points: 1. Both say that the world is “unreal”, but Buddhists mean that it is only a conceptual construct (vikalpa), while Shankara does not think that the world is merely conceptual. 2. Momentariness is a cardinal principal of Buddhism – consciousness is fundamentally momentary for them. However, in Advaita, consciousness is pure (shuddha), without beginning or end (anadi) and is thoroughly continuous. The momentariness of empirical states of consciousness overlies this continuity. 3. In Buddhism, the “self” is the ego (the “I”) – a conceptual construct that is quite unreal. In Advaita, the Self is the only “really Real” and is the basis of all concepts. 4. In Buddhism, avidya causes us to construct continuities (such as the self) where there are none. In Advaita, avidya causes us instead to take what is unreal to be real and what is real to be unreal. 5. Removal of avidya leads to nirvana/blowning out for Buddhists but for Shankara it leads to perfect knowledge (vidya).
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Advaita is about inherent freedom
There is nothing absurd about any of my citations and they have not been refuted by any scholars that I know of. If you have any sources you'd like to cite, please list them so we can read them for ourselves. mAyA - illusion , unreality , deception , fraud , trick , sorcery , witchcraft magic RV; an unreal or illusory image, phantom , apparition ib. (esp. ibc= false, unreal, illusory; duplicity (with Buddhists one of the 24 minor evil passions) Dharmas. Illusion (identified in the Samkhya with Prakriti or Pradha1na and in that system, as well as in the Vedanta, regarded as the source of the visible universe. Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon: http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/cgi-bin/tamil/recherche On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 8:46 PM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: All of these absurd assertions have long ago been refuted by excellent scholars. You simply don't know what you are talking about - to put it quite plainly.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Advaita is about inherent freedom
I have already provided a scholarly synopsis of the real differences between Shankara's Advaita and Vijñanavada Buddhism. Many times I have also explained how and why Shankara refuted the same. You answer has always been the same - Yeah, but ... and then you continue onward without considering it at all. You only want to appear as Mr. Professor so you continue to repeat stuff you read that was written 10-20 years ago. You simply waste my time. Therefore I don't want to waste more with your b.s. and your it is all about Prof..Willy P-Dog. This is apparently how you understand both Advaita and Trika: I am the Universe. It's all about Me. It's my Maya. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: There is nothing absurd about any of my citations and they have not been refuted by any scholars that I know of. If you have any sources you'd like to cite, please list them so we can read them for ourselves. mAyA - illusion , unreality , deception , fraud , trick , sorcery , witchcraft magic RV; an unreal or illusory image, phantom , apparition ib. (esp. ibc= false, unreal, illusory; duplicity (with Buddhists one of the 24 minor evil passions) Dharmas. Illusion (identified in the Samkhya with Prakriti or Pradha1na and in that system, as well as in the Vedanta, regarded as the source of the visible universe. Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon: http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/cgi-bin/tamil/recherche http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/cgi-bin/tamil/recherche On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 8:46 PM, emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@... wrote: All of these absurd assertions have long ago been refuted by excellent scholars. You simply don't know what you are talking about - to put it quite plainly.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Advaita is about inherent freedom
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: I have already provided a scholarly synopsis of the real differences between Shankara's Advaita and Vijñanavada Buddhism. Many times I have also explained how and why Shankara refuted the same. You answer has always been the same - Yeah, but ... and then you continue onward without considering it at all. You only want to appear as Mr. Professor so you continue to repeat stuff you read that was written 10-20 years ago. You simply waste my time. I know the feeling. :-) We've all heard people repeating stuff they were told about Advaita, or stuff they've thought up about it in their heads. If we spent any time around the TM movement, we're pretty much sick to death of people parroting dogma and repeating stuff they've read. It doesn't matter *who* said it; where is the value if *you* didn't say it, from the platform of personal experience, describing your *own* personal experience? So what does Advaita *feel* like? What's it like to experience it personally? How does it manifest itself in your daily life? We'll wait...
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Advaita is about inherent freedom
I have already provided a scholarly synopsis of the real differences between Shankara's Advaita and Vijñanavada Buddhism... You cited zero Vedantic scholars in the synopsis in this thread. And, you failed to cite any common ideas between Shankara's Advaita and Vijñanavada Buddhism. And, you even failed to define the Sanskrit term maya. Everyone knows that the term maya means different things when used in the Vedas, the Upanishads, in the Bhagavad Gita, in the Mahayana and in Shankara;s Advaita. Judging by the number of comments posted to this thread it looks like nobody is very interested in the classical Advaita Vedanta's meaning of the term maya or it's relationship to Mahayana Buddhism. Go figure. That's probably because TM practice is based on the tantras and on yoga and not on the meaning of the term maya used in Shankara's Advaita Vedanta. SBS was a Sri Vidya proponent - that's the interesting point I'm trying to make. TMers want to know tantra, about what works for daily living, not read about some dry metaphysical explanations of why Brahman created maya - the latter is the business of monks, not common householders. Even the illusory nature of maya is an is itself an illusion. Go figure. The question is, why did the sannyasins of the Shankara Tradition go over to the worship of Shakti as the Supreme Transcendental absolute? Apparently you are not very familiar with Bhaskara, the famous Sri Vidya scholar who wrote the commentary on Shankara's Soundaryalahari. According to Dasgupta, He [Bhaskara] speaks in very strong terms against the commentator [Shankara] who holds the maya doctrine and is a Buddhist in his views. But, though he was opposed to Shankara, it was only so far as Shankara had introduced the maya doctrine, and only so far as he thought the world had sprung forth not as a real modification of Brahman, but only through maya. And, you don't seem to be very familiar with Swami Laksmanjoo's comments on Kashmere Tantrism. The term maya and it's meaning in Advaita Vedanta is not the same as the meaning in Sri Vidya and in Kashmere Trika. Kashmere Tantrism is idealistic non-dualism. The question is, how did the Shankara tradition come to include the Kashmere tantras? The idea of maya or illusion is in fact of Buddhist Mahayana origin. In the Tibetan Dzogchen tradition the perceived reality is considered literally unreal, in that objects which make-up perceived reality are known as objects within ones mind, and that, as we conceive them, there is no pre-determined object, or assembly of objects in isolation from experience that may be considered the true object, or objects. Works cited: 'A History of Indian Philosophy' by Surendranath Dasgupta Cambridge University Press, 1955 p. 1 Maya (illusion): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_%28illusion%29#Mahayana On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 8:25 AM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: I have already provided a scholarly synopsis of the real differences between Shankara's Advaita and Vijñanavada Buddhism. Many times I have also explained how and why Shankara refuted the same. You answer has always been the same - Yeah, but ... and then you continue onward without considering it at all. You only want to appear as Mr. Professor so you continue to repeat stuff you read that was written 10-20 years ago. You simply waste my time. Therefore I don't want to waste more with your b.s. and your it is all about Prof..Willy P-Dog. This is apparently how you understand both Advaita and Trika: I am the Universe. It's all about Me. It's my Maya. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: There is nothing absurd about any of my citations and they have not been refuted by any scholars that I know of. If you have any sources you'd like to cite, please list them so we can read them for ourselves. mAyA - illusion , unreality , deception , fraud , trick , sorcery , witchcraft magic RV; an unreal or illusory image, phantom , apparition ib. (esp. ibc= false, unreal, illusory; duplicity (with Buddhists one of the 24 minor evil passions) Dharmas. Illusion (identified in the Samkhya with Prakriti or Pradha1na and in that system, as well as in the Vedanta, regarded as the source of the visible universe. Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon: http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/cgi-bin/tamil/recherche On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 8:46 PM, emptybill@... wrote: All of these absurd assertions have long ago been refuted by excellent scholars. You simply don't know what you are talking about - to put it quite plainly.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Advaita is about inherent freedom
Richard, I am interested. And admit that the Vedic aphorism: Brahman says, My indestructible maya completely resonates with me and acts as a koan for me, letting my whatever settle to deeper fathoms. But sometimes I enjoy your back and forth with emptybill about it. Otherwise, I don't have much to say about it. On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:30 AM, Richard Williams pundits...@gmail.com wrote: I have already provided a scholarly synopsis of the real differences between Shankara's Advaita and Vijñanavada Buddhism... You cited zero Vedantic scholars in the synopsis in this thread. And, you failed to cite any common ideas between Shankara's Advaita and Vijñanavada Buddhism. And, you even failed to define the Sanskrit term maya. Everyone knows that the term maya means different things when used in the Vedas, the Upanishads, in the Bhagavad Gita, in the Mahayana and in Shankara;s Advaita. Judging by the number of comments posted to this thread it looks like nobody is very interested in the classical Advaita Vedanta's meaning of the term maya or it's relationship to Mahayana Buddhism. Go figure. That's probably because TM practice is based on the tantras and on yoga and not on the meaning of the term maya used in Shankara's Advaita Vedanta. SBS was a Sri Vidya proponent - that's the interesting point I'm trying to make. TMers want to know tantra, about what works for daily living, not read about some dry metaphysical explanations of why Brahman created maya - the latter is the business of monks, not common householders. Even the illusory nature of maya is an is itself an illusion. Go figure. The question is, why did the sannyasins of the Shankara Tradition go over to the worship of Shakti as the Supreme Transcendental absolute? Apparently you are not very familiar with Bhaskara, the famous Sri Vidya scholar who wrote the commentary on Shankara's Soundaryalahari. According to Dasgupta, He [Bhaskara] speaks in very strong terms against the commentator [Shankara] who holds the maya doctrine and is a Buddhist in his views. But, though he was opposed to Shankara, it was only so far as Shankara had introduced the maya doctrine, and only so far as he thought the world had sprung forth not as a real modification of Brahman, but only through maya. And, you don't seem to be very familiar with Swami Laksmanjoo's comments on Kashmere Tantrism. The term maya and it's meaning in Advaita Vedanta is not the same as the meaning in Sri Vidya and in Kashmere Trika. Kashmere Tantrism is idealistic non-dualism. The question is, how did the Shankara tradition come to include the Kashmere tantras? The idea of maya or illusion is in fact of Buddhist Mahayana origin. In the Tibetan Dzogchen tradition the perceived reality is considered literally unreal, in that objects which make-up perceived reality are known as objects within ones mind, and that, as we conceive them, there is no pre-determined object, or assembly of objects in isolation from experience that may be considered the true object, or objects. Works cited: 'A History of Indian Philosophy' by Surendranath Dasgupta Cambridge University Press, 1955 p. 1 Maya (illusion): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_%28illusion%29#Mahayana On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 8:25 AM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: I have already provided a scholarly synopsis of the real differences between Shankara's Advaita and Vijñanavada Buddhism. Many times I have also explained how and why Shankara refuted the same. You answer has always been the same - Yeah, but ... and then you continue onward without considering it at all. You only want to appear as Mr. Professor so you continue to repeat stuff you read that was written 10-20 years ago. You simply waste my time. Therefore I don't want to waste more with your b.s. and your it is all about Prof..Willy P-Dog. This is apparently how you understand both Advaita and Trika: I am the Universe. It's all about Me. It's my Maya. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: There is nothing absurd about any of my citations and they have not been refuted by any scholars that I know of. If you have any sources you'd like to cite, please list them so we can read them for ourselves. mAyA - illusion , unreality , deception , fraud , trick , sorcery , witchcraft magic RV; an unreal or illusory image, phantom , apparition ib. (esp. ibc= false, unreal, illusory; duplicity (with Buddhists one of the 24 minor evil passions) Dharmas. Illusion (identified in the Samkhya with Prakriti or Pradha1na and in that system, as well as in the Vedanta, regarded as the source of the visible universe. Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon: http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/cgi-bin/tamil/recherche On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 8:46 PM, emptybill@... wrote: All of these absurd assertions have long ago been refuted by excellent scholars. You simply don't know what you are talking
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Advaita is about inherent freedom
On 1/22/2014 8:43 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: */We've all heard people repeating stuff they were told about Advaita, or stuff they've thought up about it in their heads. If we spent any time around the TM movement, we're pretty much sick to death of people parroting dogma and repeating stuff they've read. /* So, the question is: in what TM Center or MMY lecture did you hear anyone talking about Advaita? In fact, Shankara's Advaita wasn't even mentioned in my TM intro lecture. There are only two informants on this list that have even discussed at any length anything about Shankara's Advaita Vedanta: Edg, Richard and emptybill, in the past ten years. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Advaita is about inherent freedom
On 1/22/2014 8:43 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: */So what does Advaita *feel* like? What's it like to experience it personally? How does it manifest itself in your daily life? We'll wait.../* We are anxiously awaiting your post telling us what it *felt* like personally composing your little treatise on Advaita posted today. We are waiting...
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Advaita is about inherent freedom
Share: Otherwise, I don't have much to say about it. According to Barry, Advaita is all you people talk about up there at the TM center. But, I don't think Jerry Jarvis would approve of talking about Advaita in any TM introductory lecture. From what I've read, MMY didn't even mention Advaita very much in his lectures, especially concerning the illusory aspect of maya. Go figure. In Indian philosophy Mahamaya is the direct cause of the experience of the world. To reiterate: In Advaita Vedanta maya is the cause of the appearance of the material world - it is true in the relative sense, but untrue in the absolute sense. Thus maya is real, not unreal, an appearance only, not the transcendental Brahman itself. The goal of TM spiritual practice is the *isolation* of the Purusha from the prakriti and the knowledge and ability to distinguish between them by the experience of Pure Consciousness. According to the Adi Shankara, maya is just like the metaphor of the wet dream, where one dreams of copulating with a tantric sexual partner. Although one may perceive the ejaculate on bedclothes as real, upon waking everyone knows that the lovemaking was not true and that the conjugation was illusory. For those well versed in the Vedaanta the world is like a city of Gaandharvas - an illusion. - Gaudapadacharya Work cited: 'Gaudapada' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudapada On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com wrote: Richard, I am interested. And admit that the Vedic aphorism: Brahman says, My indestructible maya completely resonates with me and acts as a koan for me, letting my whatever settle to deeper fathoms. But sometimes I enjoy your back and forth with emptybill about it. Otherwise, I don't have much to say about it. On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:30 AM, Richard Williams pundits...@gmail.com wrote: I have already provided a scholarly synopsis of the real differences between Shankara's Advaita and Vijñanavada Buddhism... You cited zero Vedantic scholars in the synopsis in this thread. And, you failed to cite any common ideas between Shankara's Advaita and Vijñanavada Buddhism. And, you even failed to define the Sanskrit term maya. Everyone knows that the term maya means different things when used in the Vedas, the Upanishads, in the Bhagavad Gita, in the Mahayana and in Shankara;s Advaita. Judging by the number of comments posted to this thread it looks like nobody is very interested in the classical Advaita Vedanta's meaning of the term maya or it's relationship to Mahayana Buddhism. Go figure. That's probably because TM practice is based on the tantras and on yoga and not on the meaning of the term maya used in Shankara's Advaita Vedanta. SBS was a Sri Vidya proponent - that's the interesting point I'm trying to make. TMers want to know tantra, about what works for daily living, not read about some dry metaphysical explanations of why Brahman created maya - the latter is the business of monks, not common householders. Even the illusory nature of maya is an is itself an illusion. Go figure. The question is, why did the sannyasins of the Shankara Tradition go over to the worship of Shakti as the Supreme Transcendental absolute? Apparently you are not very familiar with Bhaskara, the famous Sri Vidya scholar who wrote the commentary on Shankara's Soundaryalahari. According to Dasgupta, He [Bhaskara] speaks in very strong terms against the commentator [Shankara] who holds the maya doctrine and is a Buddhist in his views. But, though he was opposed to Shankara, it was only so far as Shankara had introduced the maya doctrine, and only so far as he thought the world had sprung forth not as a real modification of Brahman, but only through maya. And, you don't seem to be very familiar with Swami Laksmanjoo's comments on Kashmere Tantrism. The term maya and it's meaning in Advaita Vedanta is not the same as the meaning in Sri Vidya and in Kashmere Trika. Kashmere Tantrism is idealistic non-dualism. The question is, how did the Shankara tradition come to include the Kashmere tantras? The idea of maya or illusion is in fact of Buddhist Mahayana origin. In the Tibetan Dzogchen tradition the perceived reality is considered literally unreal, in that objects which make-up perceived reality are known as objects within ones mind, and that, as we conceive them, there is no pre-determined object, or assembly of objects in isolation from experience that may be considered the true object, or objects. Works cited: 'A History of Indian Philosophy' by Surendranath Dasgupta Cambridge University Press, 1955 p. 1 Maya (illusion): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_%28illusion%29#Mahayana On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 8:25 AM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: I have already provided a scholarly synopsis of the real differences between Shankara's Advaita and Vijñanavada Buddhism. Many times I have also explained how and why Shankara
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Advaita is about inherent freedom
Richard, you say: The goal of TM spiritual practice is the *isolation* of the Purusha from the prakriti and the knowledge and ability to distinguish between them by the experience of Pure Consciousness. I agree with this. However, I think the TMSP has a very different goal, the goal of retaining that discernment and at the same time, experiencing the simultaneity of Purusha and Prakriti. In this I'm extrapolating from my own experience and my memory of what Maharishi has explained, explanations I heard a very long time ago! On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 11:01 AM, Richard Williams pundits...@gmail.com wrote: Share: Otherwise, I don't have much to say about it. According to Barry, Advaita is all you people talk about up there at the TM center. But, I don't think Jerry Jarvis would approve of talking about Advaita in any TM introductory lecture. From what I've read, MMY didn't even mention Advaita very much in his lectures, especially concerning the illusory aspect of maya. Go figure. In Indian philosophy Mahamaya is the direct cause of the experience of the world. To reiterate: In Advaita Vedanta maya is the cause of the appearance of the material world - it is true in the relative sense, but untrue in the absolute sense. Thus maya is real, not unreal, an appearance only, not the transcendental Brahman itself. The goal of TM spiritual practice is the *isolation* of the Purusha from the prakriti and the knowledge and ability to distinguish between them by the experience of Pure Consciousness. According to the Adi Shankara, maya is just like the metaphor of the wet dream, where one dreams of copulating with a tantric sexual partner. Although one may perceive the ejaculate on bedclothes as real, upon waking everyone knows that the lovemaking was not true and that the conjugation was illusory. For those well versed in the Vedaanta the world is like a city of Gaandharvas - an illusion. - Gaudapadacharya Work cited: 'Gaudapada' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudapada On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com wrote: Richard, I am interested. And admit that the Vedic aphorism: Brahman says, My indestructible maya completely resonates with me and acts as a koan for me, letting my whatever settle to deeper fathoms. But sometimes I enjoy your back and forth with emptybill about it. Otherwise, I don't have much to say about it. On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:30 AM, Richard Williams pundits...@gmail.com wrote: I have already provided a scholarly synopsis of the real differences between Shankara's Advaita and Vijñanavada Buddhism... You cited zero Vedantic scholars in the synopsis in this thread. And, you failed to cite any common ideas between Shankara's Advaita and Vijñanavada Buddhism. And, you even failed to define the Sanskrit term maya. Everyone knows that the term maya means different things when used in the Vedas, the Upanishads, in the Bhagavad Gita, in the Mahayana and in Shankara;s Advaita. Judging by the number of comments posted to this thread it looks like nobody is very interested in the classical Advaita Vedanta's meaning of the term maya or it's relationship to Mahayana Buddhism. Go figure. That's probably because TM practice is based on the tantras and on yoga and not on the meaning of the term maya used in Shankara's Advaita Vedanta. SBS was a Sri Vidya proponent - that's the interesting point I'm trying to make. TMers want to know tantra, about what works for daily living, not read about some dry metaphysical explanations of why Brahman created maya - the latter is the business of monks, not common householders. Even the illusory nature of maya is an is itself an illusion. Go figure. The question is, why did the sannyasins of the Shankara Tradition go over to the worship of Shakti as the Supreme Transcendental absolute? Apparently you are not very familiar with Bhaskara, the famous Sri Vidya scholar who wrote the commentary on Shankara's Soundaryalahari. According to Dasgupta, He [Bhaskara] speaks in very strong terms against the commentator [Shankara] who holds the maya doctrine and is a Buddhist in his views. But, though he was opposed to Shankara, it was only so far as Shankara had introduced the maya doctrine, and only so far as he thought the world had sprung forth not as a real modification of Brahman, but only through maya. And, you don't seem to be very familiar with Swami Laksmanjoo's comments on Kashmere Tantrism. The term maya and it's meaning in Advaita Vedanta is not the same as the meaning in Sri Vidya and in Kashmere Trika. Kashmere Tantrism is idealistic non-dualism. The question is, how did the Shankara tradition come to include the Kashmere tantras? The idea of maya or illusion is in fact of Buddhist Mahayana origin. In the Tibetan Dzogchen tradition the perceived reality is considered literally unreal, in that objects which make-up perceived
[FairfieldLife] Re: Advaita is about inherent freedom
Emptybill, there was a two way, crossflow of influence between Hinduism and Buddhism, for thousands of years. Thus there are some similarities. According to Nagarjuna of the Mahayana school, Nothing can arise independently on its own. Everything arose co-dependently along with you. Therefore, the phenomenal world around has no independent existence of it's own. So they are empty (sunyata), not real. Nagarjuna in Mulamadhyamaka karika, understands the world's transient and impermanent nature to mean that nothing has its own essence or independent existence. Everything is 'empty' (sunyata), in so far as it depends on other things in order to exist. For example, a table can only be said to exist in so far as four pieces of wood are connected to a base. If the legs are taken off, it is no longer a table. Therefore, it has no independent existence. A candle is burning because it is lit. It's not that lighting the candle caused it to burn, but rather that the candle's burning is the result of the condition of it being lit. Likewise, the candle is burning because it is made out of wax. The candle is burning because of a number of different conditions which together allow us to understand it in this way. In the Mandukya Karika, Gaudapada's commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad, Brahman cannot undergo any alteration. The Brahman is unchanging, (changeless). If no change can happen in the Brahman, nothing can arise from Brahman. Thus, the phenomenal world around has no underlying cause. Therefore it is not real, it's maya. There is no real origination or destruction, only apparent origination or destruction. From the level of ultimate truth (paramarthata) the phenomenal world is Maya. Ajatavada is proved by the reasoning that anything that has a beginning must have an end. Anything that has no beginning, has no end either. The consciousness therefore, is only reality, but appears as objects like a burning stick swung about appears to be continuous. --- emptybill@... wrote: I have already provided a scholarly synopsis of the real differences between Shankara's Advaita and Vijñanavada Buddhism. Many times I have also explained how and why Shankara refuted the same. You answer has always been the same - Yeah, but ... and then you continue onward without considering it at all. You only want to appear as Mr. Professor so you continue to repeat stuff you read that was written 10-20 years ago. You simply waste my time. Therefore I don't want to waste more with your b.s. and your it is all about Prof..Willy P-Dog. This is apparently how you understand both Advaita and Trika: I am the Universe. It's all about Me. It's my Maya. --- punditster@ wrote: There is nothing absurd about any of my citations and they have not been refuted by any scholars that I know of. If you have any sources you'd like to cite, please list them so we can read them for ourselves. mAyA - illusion , unreality , deception , fraud , trick , sorcery , witchcraft magic RV; an unreal or illusory image, phantom , apparition ib. (esp. ibc= false, unreal, illusory; duplicity (with Buddhists one of the 24 minor evil passions) Dharmas. Illusion (identified in the Samkhya with Prakriti or Pradha1na and in that system, as well as in the Vedanta, regarded as the source of the visible universe. Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon: http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/cgi-bin/tamil/recherche http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/cgi-bin/tamil/recherche On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 8:46 PM, emptybill@... wrote: All of these absurd assertions have long ago been refuted by excellent scholars. You simply don't know what you are talking about - to put it quite plainly.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Advaita is about inherent freedom
All of these absurd assertions have long ago been refuted by excellent scholars. You simply don't know what you are talking about - to put it quite plainly.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Advaita is about inherent freedom
Can't find 'viyoga' in the YS. OTOH, there is the word viniyoga in III 6: tasya bhuumiSu viniyogaH. Taimni's translation: Its (of saMyama) use by stages. viniyoga m. apportionment , distribution , division Nir. ; appointment to (loc.) , commission , charge , duty , task , occupation MBh. R. c. [970,3] ; employment , use , application (esp. of a verse in ritual) TA1r. Hariv. c. ;
