.e. wrote: 19. Samsara does not have the slightest distinction from Nirvana. Nirvana does not have the slightest distinction from Samsara.
Simply...Samsara is Nirvana.
Simply? Is it so “simply?” The Buddha clearly defined nibbana as: That which is the destruction of greed, hatred and delusion is nibbana.
-- S.N. IV 251 and IV 321, which is say that there is no nibbana outside the person who has been cooled, nibbuti
, freed of from the conditioning of greed, hatred, and delusion. There is no nibbana thingie out there, and neither is there any nibbana thingie inside. And samsara is not the destruction of greed, hatred and delusion."Monks, I will teach you the all. And what is the all? The eye and forms, the ear and sounds the nose and odors, the tongue and tastes, the body and touch, the mind and mental phenomena. This is called the all. If anyone, monks, should speak thus: ' Having rejected this all, I shall make known another all' - that would be a mere empty boast."
SN IV 15.
All MMK 29.19 is really saying, and saying no more than this, is that nibbana is to see the “all” as no more than empty of any self-thingness, impermanent, interdependent. It is a shift in perception, no longer colored by grasping after what reinforces the sense of self, no longer colored by pushing away what threatens the sense of self, no longer colored by the delusion that there is some sort of essence that we really are. From the standpoint of knowing, one sees the “all” as empty of any sort of thingness. MMK 25.19 is talking about a shift in perception, not an equation of a this and a that. No Tat tvam asi,
no Om tat sat,
no Om chit ananda.
Investigation of the Tathagata 22.16
16. Whatever is the own-nature of the tathagata, that is the own-nature of this world. The tathagata has no own-nature. This world has no own-nature.
own-nature of the tathagata = own-nature of the world
(The tathagata has no own-nature. This world has no own-nature.)
(-own-nature of the) tathagata = (-own-nature of the) world
tathagata = the world
(Buddha said it this way. When the conditions of the world are right, a tathagatha arises. So where do the conditions of the world end and the tathagata begin?)
[and here is a grossly unwarranted jump]
which is identical to
Brahma = the world
You complain about reification, but in this quote, you are reifying everything. Twenty-two sixteen is saying “tathagata = the world” only in terms that they share the same ultimate quality of having no ultimate thingness as their ultimate nature. That is not saying that the tathagata is
Now what is the world, Brahma or Buddha? They are illusion or dependently originated or empty. Choose your favorite word to represent your highest or deepest understanding.
Interestingly, here is the problem neatly spelled out. Being dependently originated or empty is not the same as being an illusion. MMK 7.34 state: “Like a dream. like an illusion . . . .” “Like,” not “is.” There is a significant difference between saying something is “like an illusion” and something “is an illusion.” Missing that distinction is a fatal flaw; it is to reify supposed illusion and the supposed ultimate reality.
So is there any ontology for either? Who here believes there was a Buddha who walked the earth and taught? Who believes Brahma is real in heaven? If you reify either human convention, you are ultimately in error.
In missing the difference between “like an illusion” and “is an illusion,” it would seem that the reification is coming from thee, not me.
if you have penetrated either system to the point of realizing what I loosely call,
Reality (the highest "thing" in a tradition) = Illusion (the "problem" to be overcome),
then the argument along with fixed positions dissolves.
This does not seem to work here very well given that you cannot accurately portray the Buddhist position, which, as we see, is not quite what you are saying it is.
So anyone that says "I am" a Buddhist or an Advaitan and the other side is "wrong" or has a lower realization or lower understanding, etc. is operating from a reifed delusion that there actually is some fixed position called the Truth that can be encapsulated within a scripture.
You are certainly trying to present a fixed position with all your “this=that” stuff, as if “this does in fact equal that.”
Scripture (reading) after all will only get you to the edge…on a great day… of (dualistic) knowing.
He said dualistically.
So what did Nargarjuna feel was the truth of this matter?
[25.]18. Even when the Bhagavan is alive, one cannot perceive [him? it?] as “existing,” likewise as “not existing,” nor can one percieve [him? it?] as “both” or “neither”.
There was no Buddha (or Brahma) from the get go to live forever or be annihilated.
Again, reifying the contents of 25.18. You might want to try to put this into its proper context.
What after all is the import of tathagata? So it is rather ironic and yes rather telling (despite everyone who chimed in claiming you cannot see the depth of a person’s understanding from what they write) that someone would actually even argue for some sort of reified Buddhist truth!
But that is exactly what you have done here in your distortion of what Nagarjuna is saying.
You are living in a fairy tale of your own making and don’t even know it i.e. you have not yet realized nor understood to any meaningful degree, Reality = Illusion.
Not that you have shown.
I am in now way personally attacking anyone’s character they are currently indentified with in the dream of separation btw! It would be like hurling insults at cartoon characters.
An ad hominem par excellence.