The purity of the cup, the space of purity is not equal to the cup that is being cleansed.
You made a logical fallacy equating cleanliness with a cup. The cup may be broken, but the space of purity remains forever.
sorry, what do you mean by space of purity here ?
âsorry, what do you mean by space of purity here ?â
This is the dhamma of cessation, the dhamma of nibbana, the dhamma of purity, the dhamma of peace. It is not the knower, but the known. It is known to the cittas of the path and the fruit of the supramundane mind (which is, however, conditioned). One must recognize the nature of purity in oneself by non-clinging to the conditioned. You deprive yourself of this opportunity by clinging to the mind, which is always by definition conditioned. The space of purity has a function - to purify. It has no cognitive function.
the ending of impurities of tea in the cup = the unconditioned
the ending of the impurities of tea in the cup = clean cup
thus the unconditioned = clean cup
I wanted to show you that the purity of a cup is not equal to the eternity of the cup. a cup may be pure in nature, polluted by impurities, but nevertheless impermanent. What is truly constant is the spaciousness of purity. You again make a logical error, saying that the eternity of purity is the eternity of a clean cup. Please go to the kitchen, wash the cup well, and then check whether it has become invincible and inflexible like Superman. Letâs say the world has run out of tea. from this point on, no more impurities come into the cups. Thus, the space of purity was exposed and established forever. But for everything to be guaranteed - break the cup, grind it into powder and purity will always remain.
1.the ending of impurities of tea in the cup = the unconditioned
2.the ending of the impurities of tea in the cup = clean cup
3.thus the unconditioned = clean cup
now which one among these 3 logical statements that you disagree with ?
just try to break a clean cup and you will see 
when Buddha said consciousness is impermanent he means that the defilements rooted consciousness are impermanent or ignorance rooted consciousness are impermanent thatâs how I understand it otherwise both knowledge and ignorance would be the first in dependent origination,
There is a logical error in the second statement. The end of defilements (generally, not related to the cup, since the cup does not appropriate anything) is added to the cup. And we get âjust a cup + cleanliness.â That is, the second statement should sound like this:
<<2. end of impurities in a cup = just a cup + unconditioned purity>>.
Then the third statement will not sound as: <<unconditioned = a clean cup>>, but
<< 3.Unconditioned = purity that is always there and manifested>>
He never made such statements. Looking at the Yamaka Sutta, Sariputta there proposes to analyze the Consciousness of the Tathagata for impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and impersonality. Thereby showing that even such purified aggregates that the Buddha has are not the eternal permanent Self, core, primordial mind, etc. Or do you think that the mind of the Buddha is rooted in ignorance?)
do you mean nibbana arises in the mind ?
No cleanliness is always there. These defilements arise in the mind. when pollution does not arise, purity opens up.
I donât think you can call defilement as arising in the mind as they are beginingless so both are there since beginingless time
when defilement ceases the purity shows itself, it opens up
It so happened that I studied the issue of nibbana, consciousness, impermanence and impersonality for quite some time. The topic of nibbana has become very frequent in my discussions and even in this forum I have appeared in topics related to this issue. The time has come when everything that is needed is clear for me and there are no questions left. Therefore, further discussion does not make sense, itâs up to practice. I can summarize my opinion with the following reasoning. What is ignorance? how does the Buddha define it himself? and what is Dhamma? True? What is the basic and all-encompassing teaching of the Buddha? Ignorance is ignorance of the 4 noble truths. Dhamma is the 4 noble truths. The teaching that unifies the meaning of what the Buddha said is the four Noble Truths. The Buddha expressed in them what he called nibbana. 3rd noble truth.
It was important for me to know how liberation occurs, hence how nibbana-dhamma is contemplated. and for this you need to understand at least remotely what it is. Therefore, I spoke on this topic and studied it.
It must be remembered that all we need is the 4 noble truths - the footprint of the elephant, in which all the teachings are placed, like the footprints of other animals. The 4 noble truths succinctly express the truth of impermanence: suffering is separation from what is desired.
the truth about the characteristic of dukkha: suffering is a combination with the unpleasant,
and about the characteristic of anatta: suffering is not getting what is desired, disobedience of nature to oneâs will.
There is also the doctrine of dependent arising, in short: the cause of suffering is thirst (tanha), which leads to a new existence (bhava). And what is the cessation of suffering? is the cessation of craving which leads to a new existence (of the five aggregates). What else is needed? The Buddha taught suffering and the cessation of suffering.
If there were some primordial mind, the Buddha would have said: âthis primordial mind is the cessation of suffering.â Actually there is no problem to say it. For example, in Dzogchen, rigpa is considered the cessation of suffering. And nothing prevents adepts of dzogchen from teaching openly about this special mind. They think that it is impossible to cling to the non-dual mind. therefore, one must be able to distinguish it from the ordinary dualistic mind. Thus, if the Buddha had taught something like this, nothing would have prevented him from admitting it. Moreover, in his time, many taught the existence of a primordial mind.
Instead, the Buddha taught a different goal - the cessation of craving, that leads to a new existence, which creates grasping and aggregates. Itâs enough, itâs deep. Itâs not easy to understand. Giving up thirst is hard. There is nothing, in it, for one who is thirsty. There is no gold, no women, no heaven, no ocean of consciousness. There is no acquisition, only dropping, detachment and disconnection. letting go. If you want to know the Buddhaâs teachings, study the Four Noble Truths.
1 Like
I wrote a poem below, no copyright (just copy it right) 
Oh! Conditional is suffering.
Suffering do we really want?
Nay! So, letâs end all things conditional.
Feeling stills, perception stills,
Formation stills and so consciousness stills.
Conditioned by stilling process
So, whatever left must also be conditional.
no, Hindu advaita annihilated indian Buddhism completely without trace because they couldnât provide reasonable feedback to this discussion at that time
so this discussion is important otherwise we need to raise the white flag and proclaim the superiority of advaita philosophy
I think this statement is much better
so the unconditioned = just a cup + cleanliness as you said
he embraces that nibbana is conscious, that itâs consciousness
Could you please provide proof to back up your claim?
Please check first with the moderators if itâs possible to bring someone with authority of advaita philosophy to come here and have a formal discussion with the learned monks. We can see for ourselves who needs to raise the white flag. To my understanding, the Dhamma proclaimed by the Buddha in the NikÄya can not be stopped, unturned or defeated by anyone in the world, the gods, the Mara or the Brahman.
This is a lie and slander. Are you not ashamed to do this?
Was Advaita Vedanta attempted to respond to Buddhism? â CJSelvamani
Interestingly, the prevailing picture of Buddhism started to fade out after the emergence of a prominent Hindu philosopher Adi Shankara or Samkara or Shankaracharya ( 788â820 CE ).
I need to stress that advaita weakens indian Buddhism, it didnât completely destroy it, when Islam came the already weakened Buddhism in India got completely destroyed
itâs not until 1950 Buddhism entered India again under Dr Ambedkar leadership but he didnât believe rebirth and kamma and his followers didnât too
I thought about that too but thanks that you like the idea too