Causal versus Nondual Nonduality

[kela]

But I am definitely fed-up and tired of you, word.

Quit trying to lure me into a jack-ass discussion concerning your crack-pot theories of Buddhism.

[kela]

fat ass.

[Gadfly]

Loser boy here is the smartest guy on the Forum.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha..............

[kela]

so, now that theos is gone, you're trying make yourself into my tar-baby?

some time before that, you played that game with neo for almost a year, did you not?

and before that it was blue-glue, right?

you clearly have some serious personality problems that you need to address, jim.

well, i'm not going to foster your problem anything longer.

consider our interaction cut-off until you get some help and deal with your issue. when you chose to grow up and decide to interact with me as an adult, then we can resume communicating.

[kela]

below

[kela]

the vedanta tradition actually distinguishes two aspects of ignorance, which may be analogous with what you call the active and the passive.

one has an "occluding" or "veiling" property, the other a "distracting" or "scattering" property. the second is associated with the subtle self, with the mind, while the first is "deeper" and is associated with the causal self. according to tradition, the second can be attenuated through the practice of yoga, while the first can only be overcome through "knowledge" or "realization."

[kela]

what is its cause? is avidya its own reality? is it co-terminous with brahman?

the problem here for the advaitin is that if he admits that avidya is coterminous with brahman, then he admits a second reality alongside brahman and non-dualism is forfeited.

avidya must then either have its source in brahman or the self.

[kela]

above

[kela]

This is the distinction that I had in mind in my comments, though I give the distinction a spin that may not correspond exactly to Tibetan Buddhist accounts.

Traditionally, Buddhism in general considers itself Rangtong while heretical schools such as Advaita Vedanta and Samkhya are considered Shentong.

However, there is a sub-school of the Kalachakra Tantra "school" in Tibet, the Jonang-pa, that consider themselves Shentong. They are the only Buddhists that understand themselves as Shentong (as far as I know; this is a burgeoning field).

I think we need to be careful with the Wikipedia article. Occasionally, the polemical charge is made that some school of Buddhism, or some text, is Shentong. This is tantamount to calling someone a heretic, a turncoat, an atma-vadin, a Vedantin (horror of horrors).

There were two sub-schools of Yogachara. One, the less mainstream one in India, was associated with the doctrine of the "tathagata-garbha," the "matrix of the buddha," as well as with the doctrine that consciousness (vijnana) "creates" the world. For some Buddhists, the "buddha-matrix" doctrine sounded very much the Vedantins' doctrine of the absolute brahman, and they occasionally made the charge of "heresy," of "atma-vada," against those that held the teaching of the "buddha-matrix." So, saying that the Yogachara was occasionally called a "Shentong" school is tantamount to saying that some Yogacharins were occasionally considered heretical. Though this interpretation of Yogachara died out in India, it was strong in China, where ideas of the "inherent buddha-nature" caught on more easily, due to the presence of theories concerning the "innate human goodness" among Confucians and of the "naturalness" (tzu-jan) of the Tao among Taoists.

The debate between the Madhyamika and Yogachara did not involve the above charge explicitly as much as it served as a kind of limiting condition for the debate; this is to say that the Yogachara insisted that they were not Shentong, while the Madhyamika suggested that they were in danger of compromising with this position.

We need to also be careful concerning the how we understand the "neti-neti" in Advaita Vedanta. According to Shankara, the neti neti negates everything except the formless brahman and pure self. Here is an extract from the same essay at my site on the subject:

[kela]

is this a spurious attribution to nagarjuna? or is it authentic?

unfortunately, while it is relatively easy to judge Shankara's authentic works, Nagarjuna's are not so easy.

some have suggested that the Mahayana needs to be seen in a dual light, as embracing both 'shentong' and rangtong.

if that's the case, then perennialists will have a field day.

[kela]

what Ken says in Integral Spirituality about the necessity of a view or drsthi.

The fact is that there was a strain of Buddhism, running from the Suttanipata to the Prasangika Madhyamika, that denied drshti.

As the above article states, Buddhism itself was heterogenous.

[kela]

nice to meet you, edward.

[Gadfly]

[Gadfly]

Can we all have another lecture ? We are all dying for a lecture. Can we be your students ? Obviously you don't get enough of that during the day. Is that why you drink ? Just a lowly assistant ?

Gaddy hahahahahahaha

P.S. Now what is it. In order to lecture everybody and prove you're the smartest guy in the world, you go back and read old Da books in your spare time. But why would anybody want to listen to you on this subject ? If I wanted to know about Da I would ask Broken Yogi. Why ? Because he was an insider and actually practiced. You are the book read expert. Like I said, one who reads the books, off line, and then gets back to all the posters with the I know everything jive. Please spare us your great knowledge.

[Gadfly]

Have you got an insecurity complex or something ? Here, you can have the trophy, "you are the smartest man who every lived".

Love Gaddy

P.S. Those Vodka hangovers are making you rude.