Non-duality AND Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism

[Ceisiwr]

We can simply put it this way.
Samsara (correctly perceived) is Nirvana.

And without qualification,
Samsara is Nirvana.

Only in Mahayana

[tiltbillings]

We can simply put it this way.
Samsara (correctly perceived) is Nirvana.

As usual, .e., you ignore much and you do not really address any points raised. It is not so much that samsara is correctly perceived is nirvana, it is that there is correct perception of the "all" free of the conditioning of greed, hatred, and delusion, seeing all dhammas are empty of any self-ness. And there is no "illusion" here.

Also, what Nagarjuna actually says is:

There is not the slightest difference
Between cyclic existence and nirvana.
There is not the slightest difference
Between nirvana and cyclic existence.

So, why is this? And this not really quite the same as saying samsara is nirvana.

And without qualification,
Samsara is Nirvana.

Which is, of course, sadly and laughably wrong. By the time Nagarjuna got to the above statement there were 24 dense chapters of qualification. Samsara is nirvana as a bald statement is meaninglessly absurd. It is only in the context - the qualification - that Nagarjuma puts his statement that it has any real meaning, and you really have not addressed any of this.

[.e.]

We can simply put it this way.
Samsara (correctly perceived) is Nirvana.

And without qualification,
Samsara is Nirvana.

Only in Mahayana

Was Buddha a Theravadan?

[.e.]

We can simply put it this way.
Samsara (correctly perceived) is Nirvana.

Also, what Nagarjuna actually says is:

There is not the slightest difference
Between cyclic existence and nirvana.
There is not the slightest difference
Between nirvana and cyclic existence.

So, why is this? And this not really quite the same as saying samsara is nirvana.

ALL words are interpreted thru a filter. Do you think you are privy to the one and only correct interpretation? If so, this is hubris. I understand my interpretation is not strictly within the confines of Theravada or Mahayana. Need it be in order for us to understand each other? The title of the thread is Non-duality and Advaita Vedanta AND Buddhism. Not Non-duality and Advaita Vedanta VERSUS Buddhism. I have simply been trying to stress the AND, you have been stressing the VERSUS….and so it goes. I tried to find overlapping common ground in my last post using your own understanding and you refuse to acknowledge it. What more need be said?

Take good care tilt.

[tiltbillings]

We can simply put it this way. Samsara (correctly perceived) is Nirvana.

Also, what Nagarjuna actually says is: There is not the slightest difference Between cyclic existence and nirvana. There is not the slightest difference Between nirvana and cyclic existence. So, why is this? And this not really quite the same as saying samsara is nirvana.

ALL words are interpreted thru a filter. Do you think you are privy to the one and only correct interpretation? If so, this is hubris.

Following that line of thinking, where you have attacked me for not seeing thing the way you do, your earlier comments are put into an interesting light:

Forgive me Tilt but you have offered no sense in your writing that you have penetrated the dhamma beyond the scripture you go round and round. You seem to have made the raft into a turtle shell to preserve your personal ontology as a very good diehard Buddhist. You come out of your shell to snap at others and debate like there is actually something to defend. You are a fierce Mahakala defender of the Dharma yet to realize the mythological nature of the fabricated character that is Tilt.

. . .

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.

PS 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.[/i]

As for “There is not the slightest difference Between cyclic existence and nirvana. There is not the slightest difference Between nirvana and cyclic existence” Nagarjuna in his presentation is clear enough to show that your response is eisegesis, not exegesis.

I understand my interpretation is not strictly within the confines of Theravada or Mahayana.

Your interpretaion is not within the confines of Nagarjuna, whose text you are eisegetically quoting, nor is it within the Theravada whose texts you have refused to discuss. You are, however, honest here in that you are admitting to not presenting a recognizable Buddhist point of view, but rather, it is a personal point of view not grounded in any recognizable Buddhist tradition or grounded in a careful study of the texts.

Need it be in order for us to understand each other?

I understand what you are saying. It is just that it is not Buddhist. You have not presented a reasoned argument to support your position, nor have you responded with reasoned argument to the responses and objections to your position.

The title of the thread is Non-duality and Advaita Vedanta AND Buddhism. Not Non-duality and Advaita Vedanta VERSUS Buddhism. I have simply been trying to stress the AND, you have been stressing the VERSUS….and so it goes. I tried to find overlapping common ground in my last post using your own understanding and you refuse to acknowledge it. What more need be said? Take good care tilt.

What more need be said? This: You have pulled a few quotes out their context; you refused to answer repeated questions and objections raised to what you have said. If there is common ground, you have not shown it.