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. > > >
