"Rangtong generally refers to the Madhyamaka view which holds that all phenomena are empty of self (Atman), i.e., no-self (Anattā), and inherent nature (Svabhava) and that this emptiness is not an absolute reality, but a mere nominal designation."

"for Kongtrül...non-dual primordial wisdom is truly established, otherwise the ultimate reality would be a kind of nothingness."

I agree with him even though madhyamaka says that emptiness itself is empty and not the foundation, if there is no svabhava, then emptiness is the svabhava.

shentong buddhism: hold my chhaang

I also learned that this shunyavadi thinking dominates vajrayana buddhism... why??? its so cool in other ways like tummo...

@genmaicha that describes a semantic cavil, lots of practices aim to get certain results from the universe/God, like many kinds of prayer, and supernatural things arise from meditation and sadhana, like siddhis. the world is inherently supernatural/"magical", but when you seek results without properly "paying" for them (understanding and respecting their origin in a beneficent God) you just rapidly drain good karma and often gain bad karma.

reading about prajñaparamita/madhyamika buddhism makes me lowkey mad, no wonder people call buddhists nihilists. I'll just call those buddhists shunyavadis (after advaitins being called mayavadis). lmao I looked up the term and vaishnavites have already used it to refer to all followers of the buddha. this is the same anger which led vaishnavites to call the buddha an avatar with the purpose of leading asuras astray through non-observance of vedic dharma. i get it now!

simply put magick without a religious basis is fuel for solipsism and ego-worship

@sarvo in the past I'd have many to recommend, but now I recommend kaballah and kundalini yoga for the magically inclined

SO SPICY

the editors disdain is barely contained

don't know why I'm reading so much about mahayana buddhism, picking apart where they believe in God while allegedly not believing in God

@apollo it seems like an interesting story to me, he used to be a prince and nearly died of starvation thats cool. not that many miracles attributed to him because buddhists historically downplayed miracles unlike abrahamics though.

honestly its funny how there was a historical buddha and yet so many buddhas east asians revere and even prefer are mythological

@graf I was up shittin and rubbing my tummy last night but today I'm much better

@apollo I'm a big believer in doing sadharmya over svadharma, I consider this to be the ultimate teaching of the Bhagavad Gita while the rest of the mahabharata is very much about svadharma. but the rest of your post I would agree with. I pretty much consider vajrayana to be its own thing. often superior but not always, for instance theres a lot of superstitious "do this puja X times to be liberated by the vajrayogini/some color of tara" which is contrary to the teachings of the Buddha.

@genmaicha expanded consciousness is wack, bro. I love it!

@genmaicha yeah westerners aren't used to the iconography of wrathful Gods

@apollo its definitely eclectic

@genmaicha I can only speak of hinduism not being creepy. however I might know what youre getting at pretty much all esoteric thought can be creepy by its secrecy or severity

tibetan buddhism is the best buddhism and rigpa and tummo are the best things to emerge from it in my humble opinion

emptiness of all dharmas (here meaning phenomena) (sarva dharma shunyata)

all this indeed is Brahman (sarvam khalvidam brahma)


imagine seeing that everything you can think of is a chain of dependent and transitory things and thus is "empty", while neglecting the one permanent independent thing: God. many mahayana buddhists say that bodhichitta (mind striving to buddha-hood), buddha-hood and even nibanna itself are ultimately empty and experienced by the wise as emptiness--devoid of substance like foam, dew, a shadow, or lightning. other (slightly later I believe) mahayana buddhists claim that there is a permanent primordial buddha-nature (tathagatagarbha) at the essential core of every living being, defined as the mind/potential mind of perfect self-luminous knowledge (often said to be knowledge of emptiness, or knowledge of non-self)--said to be pure, infinite, unchanging and also as a kind of self(!). when talking about buddha-nature/buddha-mind/buddha-womb, of course, its so easy to stray into talking about God and the soul, which is/are said not to exist. even the same word used for Brahman-essence in Advaita Vedanta, svabhava (own-being), a concept totally denied by the aforementioned buddhist nihilists, is used for these buddhists for the buddha-nature!

while many, including the bhagavatism-influenced bhaktas and zen buddhists, claim their form of liberation or bliss is different and superior, I believe that all forms of highest samadhi are experienced equally, both because there is no ego or mind or intellect or senses to produce difference, and because it is a pure essential state equivalent to knowing Brahman which is the singular non-dual and partless substrate of all things including the mind. however, I tentatively believe that once the mind and intellect return after samadhi, even though the mind of a yogi/buddha is small p perfect (totally purified of imperfections and unfathomably wise), differences in interpreting the previously experienced state of highest samadhi/nibanna arise, owed not due to differences in purified minds per se but due to the sheer limitedness of the mind as a faculty in perceiving God (God doesnt have a mind, being indiscrete and without limiting adjuncts) who is all-encompassing. therefore someone who worships God devoutly might experience more bliss upon reckoning that they were unified with God (or close to God if they are not monist), and someone who doesnt believe in God or in any phenomena would be prone to cognizing the experience of samadhi as shunyata (emptiness), which is just an aspect of Brahman. (whether its saguna or nirguna Brahman depends on your interpretation, is the absence of qualities a quality?)