Vajrahridaya

I don't know his mind directly, so I cannot speak for his internal interpretation of the words, translated from his own language, which you have quoted and might have mis-contextualized due to a subjective idealism. Then again... I might entirely disagree with his interpretation of Buddhism. I do not know enough about this "Zen Master" to assume that your interpretation of his words is the same as his own. All I do know is that your interpretation of Buddhadharma does not hold up to Buddha's scrutiny. This is based upon my own study of all the different forms of Buddhism as well as meditative insight. If I am wrong... may I be proven so and I will concede. I have done so before in public when my interpretation of Buddhadharma was much like yours. My interpretation definitely fell under a universalist idealism before I actually studied what the Buddha truly taught and experienced through initiation into Buddhist lineage.

The insight of emptiness as defined by Buddhadharma, mostly mis-understood, is an affirmation of the malleable nature, non-static nature, and non-binding nature of all reality, and experiences of reality, both internally on a spiritual level and externally on a mundane level, through the 5 senses. Emptiness is not at all a negative insight. It is deeply positive if directly experienced on an intuitive level insight. It only seems negative on the surface when one is first introduced to it. The Emptiness of Buddhadharma cannot be equated with the western concept of nothingness, nor can it be equated with the philosophy of nihilism. Emptiness means the interconnection of all phenomena, including individual consciousness, as well as the non-inherent nature of all phenomena and consciousness. It's a supreme revelation of total and across the board relativity as an absolute, not the revelation of a self standing, non-relative absolute. Buddhas teachings do not agree with the idealization of a supreme source of everything, or any rooftop concept or non-concept, and reveals infinite regress. This is very different from any other spiritual tradition as a whole. This doesn't mean that an individual within any spiritual tradition cannot come to the same insight and explain through variances, but as a tradition, this sets Buddhism as a whole, apart from all others. Not as a dogma, but merely as the difference as a tradition of explanation of insight.

If one has direct insight into the truth of emptiness and dependent origination, talking and thinking have no inherent power to bind ones experience of open and infinite, beyond quantification, expansion. Those that think that the experiences of formless samadhi beyond thought reveals a supreme truth, because of it's bliss, fall into the extreme of eternalism and are merely reifying one of the 4 formless samadhis. This is not in line with the Buddhas insight of dependent origination/emptiness which only came to him after he had stability in the 4 formless samadhis and saw them as neither a proof for an absolute truth, nor proof of an abiding Self of all. All your interpretations of the Buddhas teachings were rejected by the Buddha himself.

According to Buddhadharma, one only experiences true and full openness on the most humble level by realizing directly the emptiness of all things and consciousness. Only when one truly has the experiential insight of emptiness, does one experience the totally transparent nature of everything, including ones self, thus ones consciousness expands infinitely, but not as a supreme self or source, but merely as a result of the experiential insight of the emptiness of all things, including the emptiness of Buddhahood. For Buddhists, Buddhahood also does not inherently exist and is empty of independent and absolute existence. There is no beyond phenomena source of everything in Buddhist cosmology, though there is the direct insight which transcends all things including self. This insight is Nirvana. Since Samsara only exists relatively on an infinite scale of co-relating phenomena, it has no inherent power to bind, so this insight is considered Nirvana, not as an essence, but as an insight which liberates.

Actually, if you really study Nagarjuna, he criticizes all forms of Hinduism and any theism for that matter. You continuously say that Buddhists don't understand Buddhism, but it's quite clear that anyone reading Buddhist tenets under the definition of Theist re-defining, will not get a clear interpretation of what they are reading. You have to suspend your own system of belief and interpreting and read exactly what is being spoken by Nagarjuna from it's own side. It seems to me that you are only reading Hindu interpretations of his teachings, and therefore you must be reading mis-translations and out of context interpretations of his teachings. At least it seems that way when you have put up links here connecting to readings of his teachings from Hindu scholars. You have to read his teachings as they are, not how Hindus or Theists for that matter want them to be. I'm not trying to get you mad, but this is merely the fact. Nagarjuna was born a Brahmin in the Hindu caste system, but completely rejected the entire corpus of Hindu interpretation of reality and spiritual experience and became a Buddhist genius and expanded with very clear connecting to the Pali Suttas, the true insight of pratityasamutpada (inter-dependent origination) and Shunyata (emptiness). There is no way one can truly read his teachings directly without commentary and come to the conclusion that his teachings lead to the same insight as the Upanishads reveal. He was very much an Atheist and you are very much a Theist. Your lineage of interpreting spiritual experience leads to an entirely different idea of what Moksha or Nirvana is from a Buddhist interpretation. This is not merely conceptual as the seed of ignorance transcends concepts deep within the formless unconscious of an individual mindstream. This is why the Buddha taught that even the deep and formless samadhis of infinite space, infinite consciousness, infinite nothingness and neither perception nor non-perception do not necessarily lead to insight without the right view of pratityasamutpada (inter-dependent origination). Neither the Buddha, nor Nagarjuna, nor "The Six Scholarly Ornaments," a group that also includes Aryadeva, Asanga, Vasubandhu, Dignaga, and Dharmakirti, believed in the cosmology of independent origination which all schools based upon the subjective idealization of a supreme subject or Self of all stand upon. A link to a text below. NAGARJUNA (2nd Century AD) THE FUNDAMENTALS OF THE MIDDLE WAY (Mulamadhyamaka-Karika)

Lineage as in lineage of teachers, sages, gurus, deities of veneration. Spiritual merit as in ones spiritual, or beyond mundane opening potential. Everyones is infinite, but I mean practically, like how deeply open one actually is during any given moment. This is consciously, subconsciously and even unconsciously. Because some people have absolutely no conscious opening towards spiritual paths, but they come into contact with a spiritually illumined being who reflects ones own unconscious spiritual merit, and blamo!! They get zapped and are taken to an entirely different realm of awareness instantaneously without their conscious opening to be as such.

Kundalini is basically the manifestation of ones spiritual merits. I don't believe that Shakti chooses anything. A persons merit just manifests according to karma, which is deeply organic and not a mechanistic view that some people consider. It's not black and white and much subtler and far more complex than any other concept as everything is karma, and it's complexity is infinite, not as an inherent being, but merely as movement, as karma merely means action. So, when a person is open due to spiritual merit, they will receive that reflection from any reflecting medium, anywhere, at any time. Even online, or just by seeing a picture of one that you might have a karmic connection to. But, different beings have different reflecting powers due to the level of clarity or lineage they themselves are connected to, and this connection is also reflected in the individuals karma who receives the blessing. This is very deep and would take a vast amount of writing in order to go into the detail of this truth of the nature of relative manifesting. Also, because my view is Buddhist, we don't believe in an all subsuming source of everything, which everything manifests from, so the much used Hindu idea that Shakti is basically just acting to bring beings who are ready back to the source of all things does not reflect the Buddhist understanding of how the cosmos works. Since our mindstreams are beginningless throughout beginningless cosmic cycles, having kundalini awakening does not mean that one will definitely attain liberation, unless the view is clear about the nature of infinite regress of one's personal karma and how this is the cause of how it manifests. We as Buddhists don't believe in a supreme will that decides things. It's all our own individual doing on a deeply interconnected level with other individual beings infinitely and endlessly. For Buddhists, Shakti just means "power". We actually prefer to use Prajna, or wisdom and our spiritual wisdom manifests according to our opening to insight, and not due to a divine will. Though, a persons lineage, manifest due to karma does determine the type or nuanced way of this power (shakti), as a Kundalini awaken-er is empowered by his or her chosen lineage of connecting. If anyone even if they disagree, which is fine, wants to refine my opinion through questioning, I am open to field these questions nicely, without confrontation.

Right. Ok... off to work. Play nice peoples! Just discussing beliefs here... that's all.

It's talked about in Mahayana that one goes to a Pureland in order to teach really high up teachings to highly responsive pupils, but can still project compassionate manifestations from there into Samsara.

Shurangama Sutra: Link! All that exists comes from this; every cause in fact has no cause. Subjective reliance on objective appearances is basically groundless. Thus, upon what is fundamentally unreliable, one sets up the world and living beings. Commentary: All that exists comes from this. "This" refers to ignorance, because: From a single unenlightened thought the three subtle appearances arise. Then external states become the conditions for the arising of the six coarse appearances. "All that exists," then, refers to these appearances. Yet, every cause in fact has no cause. "Cause" here refers to a place of reliance. Why is there said to be no cause? It is because, although the three subtle appearances are said to arise from ignorance, ignorance is not really dependable. It is not a true place of reliance. Ignorance itself is a false creation, an empty appearance. Therefore, although it seems to be that the three subtle appearances arise out of ignorance, it doesn't really happen that way, because ignorance itself doesn't even exist! Since ignorance doesn't have any substance of itself, how can the three subtle appearances arise from it? Subjective reliance on objective appearances is basically groundless. Living beings are the subjective aspect that relies on ignorance, the objective aspect. But basically there is no foundation in this. There is really no source. Thus, upon what is fundamentally unreliable, one sets up the world and living beings. Basically there is nothing to be depended on, but it is on this unreliable ignorance that the world is established. Out of what is empty, false, and unreal the world is set up, and with it all living beings. Their very existence is empty and false; there is nothing real about it.

Actually, this is standard Theravada into Mahayana interpretation. This is why enlightened beings can keep being reborn into any place in Samsara and not be sullied by it. This is Mahayana interpretation of the compassionate root for continued rebirth of an enlightened mind-stream. I don't have an interpretation that is my own. You 3bob do though. Your interpretation is not at all in line with Buddhist interpretation of Buddhas statements within the vast corpus of context. My interpretation is in line with the Dalai Lamas interpretation as well. You should read some standard texts by enlightened Buddhas in regards to the Buddhas teachings.

Yes, but this is an insight, seeing directly the malleable nature of things, the non-establishable nature of things, one recognizes Buddha nature, which is non-other than the empty and non-establishable nature of things. This doesn't mean that there is no world, but an inherently existing background that is self made wonderfullness. That would just be identifying with concept-less samadhi as a supreme source for existence.

This is the insight of emptiness, not pointing to an absolute self existence. You are taking this statement out of context and subjecting it to an idealism of a Self. This is a mistaken interpretation of the statement. Because all phenomena are empty of inherent existence, and because things cannot be established, it's as if the arisen has never become. This is the insight of emptiness, not an inherent existence. This insight in deed de=limits ones awareness. Actually, my interpretation is standard Buddhism. There is not a single Theravadin that would agree with your interpretation of this quote from the Udana Sutta. "Udana Sutta: Exclamation translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu © 1995–2010 At Savatthi. There the Blessed One exclaimed this exclamation: "'It should not be, it should not occur to me;[1] it will not be, it will not occur to me':[2] a monk set on this would break the [five] lower fetters." When this was said, a certain monk said to the Blessed One, "In what way would a monk set on this — 'It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me' — break the [five] lower fetters?" "There is the case, monk, where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. "He assumes feeling to be the self, or the self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in the self, or the self as in feeling. He assumes perception to be the self, or the self as possessing perception, or perception as in the self, or the self as in perception. He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self, or the self as possessing fabrications, or fabrications as in the self, or the self as in fabrications. He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. "He does not discern, as it actually is, inconstant form as 'inconstant form.' He does not discern, as it actually is, inconstant feeling as 'inconstant feeling' ... inconstant perception as 'inconstant perception' ... inconstant fabrications as 'inconstant fabrications' ... inconstant consciousness as 'inconstant consciousness.' "He does not discern, as it actually is, stressful form as 'stressful form' ... stressful feeling as 'stressful feeling' ... stressful perception as 'stressful perception' ... stressful fabrications as 'stressful fabrications' ... stressful consciousness as 'stressful consciousness.' "He does not discern, as it actually is, not-self form as 'not-self form' ... not-self feeling as 'not-self feeling' ... not-self perception as 'not-self perception' ... not-self fabrications as 'not-self fabrications' ... not-self consciousness as 'not-self consciousness.' "He does not discern, as it actually is, fabricated form as 'fabricated form' ... fabricated feeling as 'fabricated feeling' ... fabricated perception as 'fabricated perception' ... fabricated fabrications as 'fabricated fabrications' ... fabricated consciousness as 'fabricated consciousness.' "He does not discern, as it actually is, that 'form will stop being' ... 'feeling will stop being' ... 'perception will stop being' ... 'fabrications will stop being' ... 'consciousness will stop being.' "Now, a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for nobles ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He does not assume feeling to be the self... does not assume perception to be the self ... does not assume fabrications to be the self... He does not assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. "He discerns, as it actually is, inconstant form as 'inconstant form' ... inconstant feeling as 'inconstant feeling' ... inconstant perception as 'inconstant perception' ... inconstant fabrications as 'inconstant fabrications' ... inconstant consciousness as 'inconstant consciousness.' "He discerns, as it actually is, stressful form as 'stressful form' ... stressful feeling as 'stressful feeling' ... stressful perception as 'stressful perception' ... stressful fabrications as 'stressful fabrications' ... stressful consciousness as 'stressful consciousness.' "He discerns, as it actually is, not-self form as 'not-self form' ... not-self feeling as 'not-self feeling' ... not-self perception as 'not-self perception' ... not-self fabrications as 'not-self fabrications' ... not-self consciousness as 'not-self consciousness.' "He discerns, as it actually is, fabricated form as 'fabricated form' ... fabricated feeling as 'fabricated feeling' ... fabricated perception as 'fabricated perception' ... fabricated fabrications as 'fabricated fabrications' ... fabricated consciousness as 'fabricated consciousness.' "He discerns, as it actually is, that 'form will stop being' ... 'feeling will stop being' ... 'perception will stop being' ... 'fabrications will stop being' ... 'consciousness will stop being.' "From the stopping of form, from the stopping of feeling ... of perception ... of fabrications ... of consciousness, a monk set on this — 'It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me' — would break the [five] lower fetters." "Lord, a monk set on this would break the [five] lower fetters. But for one knowing in what way, seeing in what way, is there the immediate ending of fermentations?" "There is the case where an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person ... falls into fear over what is not grounds for fear. There is fear for an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person [who thinks], 'It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me.' But an instructed disciple of the noble ones does not fall into fear over what is not grounds for fear. There is no fear for an instructed disciple of the noble ones [who thinks], 'It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me.' "Should consciousness, when standing (still), stand attached to (a physical) form, supported by form (as its object), established on form, watered with delight, it would exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation. "Should consciousness, when standing (still), stand attached to feeling, supported by feeling (as its object), established on feeling, watered with delight, it would exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation. "Should consciousness, when standing (still), stand attached to perception, supported by perception (as its object), established on perception, watered with delight, it would exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation. "Should consciousness, when standing (still), stand attached to fabrications, supported by fabrications (as its object), established on fabrications, watered with delight, it would exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation. "Were someone to say, 'I will describe a coming, a going, a passing away, an arising, a growth, an increase, or a proliferation of consciousness apart from form, from feeling, from perception, from fabrications,' that would be impossible. "If a monk abandons passion for the property of form ... "If a monk abandons passion for the property of feeling ... "If a monk abandons passion for the property of perception ... "If a monk abandons passion for the property of fabrications ... "If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no base for consciousness. Consciousness, thus unestablished, not proliferating, not performing any function, is released. Owing to its release, it stands still. Owing to its stillness, it is contented. Owing to its contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is totally unbound right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.' "For one knowing in this way, seeing in this way, monk, there is the immediate ending of fermentations."

The Buddha never spoke of an absolute self existence. You are mistaken. When he speaks of the unconditioned, the uncompounded, he is talking about the insight of Nirvana, which uncompounds from being compounded much like untying a knot, so this experience also arises dependent upon the insight of emptiness and is not an absolute existence that transcends everything. Also, the experience of Samsara becomes Nirvana for a Buddha, thus they can go anywhere in Samsara and only experience Nirvana. As Nirvana is not an absolute transcendence, but rather the experiential insight into how Samsara works, and thus one is internally unsullied by any of it. This is why they say, Samsara is Nirvana. One need not transcend anything, just have insight into everything. This is how the Buddha say's, "Go beyond, far beyond", not into an absolute essence, but rather just through direct insight, so it's not a literal go beyond, it's rather just see, truly see. Thus the Buddha was considered "Awake", and not a "God". The Upanishads and Buddhas sermons are at odds with each other and do not come to the same conclusions.

Marblehead, some is and some is not. It depends on the lineage or the individual as in any interpretation of a spiritual traditions teachings.

I've experienced this, also the entire bed shaking like someone shook the entire bed, but no one is in the room. I like the explanations above about this phenomena.

So you'd rather roll your eyes than give me some quotes I can work with? I have not read the entire Shurangama Sutra in a long time but I never found in there support for some sort of ultimate self standing existence of all that is beyond relative arising. Please support your statement... if you care to have a discussion that is. P.S. In Buddhism, there is a beyond the beyond insight, but not a beyond the beyond essence, unless one were to call this insight the essence of Buddhahood, but this still does not mean inherent existence, as this insight arises dependently.

I understand the experience that leads to the delusion of a single original substance of all things quite well, and if this Zen teacher is talking about this, which he might not be but may appear to be due to translation errors as well as pulling one statement out of the context of the whole? But if he is saying that all things come from one transcendent essence that shines from it's own Self, then this would not be in line with Buddhas insight. This type of clinging only leads to re-absorption at the end of a cosmic eon. This idea that we are all one substance leads to this experience when the karmas of activity cease during the pralaya. A buddha transcends the Pralaya through insight of dependent origination and goes to another universe in order to do dharma action, a universe that is not undergoing pralaya as of yet.

Your translation may be faulty? You'd have to give me some direct quotes. The realization of relativity is absolute in the state of a Buddha, thus the persistence of the dharma body of a Buddha is absolute and endless, relative to the endless insight of dependent origination seeing through it directly and consciously through the insight of emptiness.

I didn't call you ignorant. I said that according to Buddhism, the root cause of dwelling in heaven realms and earth realms is ignorance. So, I'm calling everyone ignorant, including me. Unless you have completely obliterated ignorance and thus your root cause for manifesting is now compassion on all levels? Talk about taking a statement completely out of context.

When you have insight into the 12 links, you realize that consciousness is a dependent arising and thus this pride of existence does not persist. Also the idea that the cosmos is a manifestation of a divine and transcendent being does not persist as well. One finally has the insight of infinite regress. Consciousness does not inherently exist but exists relative to subtle causes and conditions within the elements, and one can have insight that transcends it's persistence through ones mind stream since beginningless time. So the insight of Buddha transcends itself you see. It is not based upon an independently originating self, other than the fact that it's transcendence is based upon the fact that there is a relative self to transcend, and that there are those that cling to a notion of an absolute Self that this too is possible to be transcended.

The opposite could be said. I've experienced deep formless samadhi with shining bliss. I experienced what Hindus call the Self daily as a devout Shaivite living in an Ashram meditating 4 hours a day and chanting 6 while offering Seva in the food service line amongst other Sevas. It wasn't until I really started studying Buddhadharma that I realized my error in identifying the deep concept-less states of consciousness as a Self. Just like the Buddha taught, the formless samadhi of "infinite consciousness" arises dependent upon a certain type of focus and that's it and is not to be considered a Self of all. Through these various states of formless samadhi I experienced the blue light of "The Self" suffuse everything and I experienced heightened powers of perception. Buddha tantra just calls this the conscious illumination of infinite space and not the light of an absolute Self. So I realized that the experiences are relative and arise dependently, endlessly. This understanding only leads to positive future rebirths in a Brahma realms of one sort or another as the Buddha said. This understanding also leads to a slight obscuration of pride of existence, thus the seed of ignorant re-becoming and forgetfulness is not obliterated because dependent origination is not realized on an intuitive level. The Buddha discovered the insight of dependent origination only after he experienced the samadhis of infinite space, infinite consciousness, infinite nothingness and neither perception nor non-perception. He said that dependent origination is a subtler insight. I do agree based upon personal and direct experience. Shankaras critique of the Alaya Vijnana is quite weak in my opinion as he doesn't understand dependent origination and how it applies to the subtle obscuration of Alaya Vijnana. It is a formless unconscious that persists due to the persistent clinging to existence as absolute and not relative.

That's exactly what I said to V the Buddhist. He just ignored me. I don't think I did ignore you. I cannot remember. Anyhow, what is in common is the deeply formless clinging to self, which is what the Alaya Vijnana is. All that is needed to remember past lives is awareness of connections. The identifying with connections as a self sustained self is all that's happening in each moment. It's a necessary function of the aggregates. It is what makes mind streams unique. When one realizes Anatta or no-self anywhere, then the Alaya Vijnana with all it's information since beginningless time turns into the endless expression of Buddhahood and thus the Alaya Vijnana is the basis for the result Dharma-body or Dharmakaya. Until the Alaya Vijana has been emptied of all it's seeds of clinging, it continues to produce the effects of clinging from formless to form realms from deep in the unconscious of a sentient being from a bug to a horse to a human or alien. It does not take a transcending of phenomena essence to remember past lives according to the Buddhas take on re-birth.

Which is very interesting to see how he's developing. I'm finding more connection with him which is good. Even though I dread the day that ChNNR leaves us. But, in that good dread, so maybe dread is the wrong word, but more like... a deep sense of love miss. His son though is going to develop into an incredible Master over the years and that is exciting for me as the responsability will get passed on and I think he will do very well with it.