Vajrahridaya

Be well!! Tashi Delegs!!

From the Dalai Lama: Emptiness and Existence "A consciousness that conceives of inherent existence does not have a valid foundation. A wise consciousness, grounded in reality, understands that living beings and other phenomena—minds, bodies, buildings, and so forth—do not inherently exist. This is the wisdom of emptiness. Understanding reality exactly opposite to the misconception of inherent existence, wisdom gradually overcomes ignorance. Remove the ignorance that misconceives phenomena to inherently exist and you prevent the generation of afflictive emotions like lust and hatred. Thus, in turn, suffering can also be removed. In addition, the wisdom of emptiness must be accompanied by a motivation of deep concern for others (and by the compassionate deeds it inspires) before it can remove the obstructions to omniscience, which are the predispositions for the false appearance of phenomena—even to sense consciousness—as if they inherently exist." This is talking about the meditative experiences or absorptions as well. "Selflessness Both Buddhists and non-Buddhists practice meditation to achieve pleasure and get rid of pain, and in both Buddhist and non-Buddhist systems the self is a central object of scrutiny. Certain non-Buddhists who accept rebirth accept the transitory nature of mind and body, but they believe in a self that is permanent, changeless and unitary. Although Buddhist schools accept rebirth, they hold that there is no such solid self. For Buddhists, the main topic of the training in wisdom is emptiness, or selflessness, which means the absence of a permanent, unitary and independent self or, more subtly, the absence of inherent existence either in living beings or in other phenomena. The Two Truths To understand selflessness, you need to understand that everything that exists is contained in two groups called the two truths: conventional and ultimate. The phenomena that we see and observe around us can go from good to bad, or bad to good, depending on various causes and conditions. Many phenomena cannot be said to be inherently good or bad; they are better or worse, tall or short, beautiful or ugly, only by comparison, not by way of their own nature. Their value is relative. From this you can see that there is a discrepancy between the way things appear and how they actually are. For instance, something may—in terms of how it appears—look good, but, due to its inner nature being different, it can turn bad once it is affected by conditions. Food that looks so good in a restaurant may not sit so well in your stomach. This is a clear sign of a discrepancy between appearance and reality. These phenomena themselves are called conventional truths: they are known by consciousness that goes no further than appearances. But the same objects have an inner mode of being, called an ultimate truth, that allows for the changes brought about by conditions. A wise consciousness, not satisfied with mere appearances, analyzes to find whether objects inherently exist as they seem to do but discovers their absence of inherent existence. It finds an emptiness of inherent existence beyond appearances. Empty of What? Emptiness, or selflessness, can only be understood if we first identify that of which phenomena are empty. Without understanding what is negated, you cannot understand its absence, emptiness. You might think that emptiness means nothingness, but it does not. Merely from reading it is difficult to identify and understand the object of negation, what Buddhist texts speak of as true establishment or inherent existence. But over a period of time, when you add your own investigations to the reading, the faultiness of our usual way of seeing things will become clearer and clearer. Buddha said many times that because all phenomena are dependently arisen, they are relative—their existence depends on other causes and conditions and depends on their own parts." Which also arise dependently. Therefore, the Tao of things, or the Way of things cannot be an ontological essence in and of itself outside of relativity.

Nagarjunas' point is also that there is no ultimate "it" to be understood directly. He basically said that any experience that is said to prove that there is an ultimate "it" originates dependent upon a view clinging to existence. This is why he said, "If there is something left not emptied of self existence, that too should be emptied of inherent existence." Emptiness means dependent origination, not ultimate existence, or self origination which you keep referencing. Emptiness does not mean Brahman. Nagarjunas' statements directly contradict your own conclusions. You should stop reading Hindu propaganda based interpretations of Nagarjuna and read Buddhist clarifications of Nagarjuna. Nagarjuna was a Vedantin by birth by the way before he became Buddhist, and there are reasons for this. Your version of non-duality is still filled with substance and the pride of self existence.

It's interesting how much people only agree with you as a person if you agree with them philosophically. This really reveals attachment to a self, and nothing more or less. Tea is good, if green! Sorry I didn't mean to come across as dogmatic in my tea preference. I do like all sorts of teas... LOL!

Thus your conceptual orientation is quite static? This has everything to do with dependent origination, which I call, "The Tao"... or, "the Dharma" or... "the way" in English. boy oh boy you people are a bed of defensive and thorn filled seeming roses.

:lol: The most worthy of compassion. As it say's, water flows from low to high to low again.

It's good to know the capacity of the person I am arguing with. It's also good to know when pearls are being fed to... no... anyway. I'm sure you are a good person. Take care...

HAHAHA!!! So many buttons to push... so little time... Please take care of yourselves.

Then bound you will be, even after your death, of which you don't even have experience beyond, because you do limit the nature of your own consciousness to the 5 senses thinking that's the end all be all of perception. Really brother... there is more to see than the paradigm of your own self fooling through your 5 senses. Please get more mystical with yourself bro. Play with your own potential a bit more before leaving us physically. Well... except that the mirror is quite right in it's reflection. No, in finding that it is lacking in foundation is based upon subjective karmic influence. Please think about what this means. This means that conditioned influences from within based upon without, as in the information thus experienced so far has subjected the experience of a persons view of Buddhism to limitations outside of reality. No... but funny anyway. Is this your expression of inner contentment and security? Oh of course I'm still an unpolished slab of marble. :lol: I wish you peace and love too. Just don't take my arguments so personally... as you really seem to. You seem to cling to your philosophy like religion.

You're quite wrong. I do argue, but from the point of view of perspective rather than person. The mirror says that I'm right and he's quite wrong. Oh well... Well.. you are reading subjectively then. Which is fine. Ok, so you also are attached to religious terminology not considering it religious at all? I'm not forcing anything, I'm just trying to re-associate the terms into awake-ism within a context I can understand directly. Though, I am open contexted... I'll do it the other way around if oriented to do so.

There is no hole, there is only potential... endless, from the highest to the high and the lowest of the low. Know more, directly... of what you are speaking about.

Since you thought of it as an all absorbing principle that truly exists from it's own side.

This is true, but if you are awake, you will not disagree with a Buddha. Yes, but lets be frank. This view arises dependent upon ignorant assumption. But, these arguments reveal that there is not only one reality. Though there is only one way that reality does work, and that is mutual co-origination within infinite spectrum... "the way" that reality does it's doing. This DO'es mean that every conclusion of how things work is not really in line with how things work, even though it's the way of multiplicity and one can indeed experience as reality, as life reflects the principle of perception and ones view.... thus proving dependent origination and the emptiness of static self.

But really... look at yourselves. See how reactive you all are. :lol: No really... do... just for one second, take the time out. I'm just saying that the view of dependent origination is contrary to all absorbing and all conforming oneness, that is all. Oh how deep!

Oh, so the Buddha arguing against Mahaviras conclusions (of Jainism) and the superiority of his middle way view compared to Jainism extremist view has turned you off? You really need a re-orientation in understanding the nature of debate. Seriously folks... you people want some new age all absorbing fundamental principle, imperialist concept of oneness, messy thought consciousness, all roads lead to Rome but really don't, to take over the world? This in fact is the seed of Samsara, the all absorbing principle seed state of storehouse consciousness. This lack of deep self questioning and clinging to conceptual comfort zones is quite insidious and the demarcation of Samsaric (recycling karma) clinging. Most of you don't even know what these sentences mean, on an experiential level, but you still want to argue? Wow! More bricks in the wall... It's funny... the first time I said that phrase in this argument was a few hours ago. After that, me and my wife went into my car to take a ride to the store and we turned on the radio to hear who...? Pink Floyd! A strange serendipity. I don't need to conform to your philosophies of all absorbing trance, transcendent non-conceptual substance. I will not fall into a formless sleep... thank you very much. Really though... Tashi Delegs!!

You do not have direct experience of our history, first of all. Second... I don't care if he doesn't accept Buddhist thought, that is fine. So, he doesn't have to accept Buddhist terminology. That is fine, if he is liberated from all terminology then he can understand the meaning of all it's expressions. Every-time I post, he insists it's from mere book worm conditioning... or from the point of view of religiosity. Of this he is gravely mistaken and thus contradicts from the point of view of mis-association and mis-comprehension. You should take a look at his historical rebuttals towards me MarbleH. If you are to come from a more informed state of mind. Whatever, you are taking things too personally and are coming from a place of defensiveness right here. The main point of this argument is whether "the way" is an ontological essence or an undefinable flow of non-self oriented, but interconnected phenomena. I have stated so many times that "Dharma" means..."The way" but you so called experienced but neophyte like seem to not see past your curtain of conceptual bondage and merely see, "Dharma" as more Buddhist jargon to defend against. You have no idea how trapped you are in what you project me to be. He does not follow Tao as he is quite inflexible in his ability to re-orient his inner conceptual mapping. Subjective mis-representation at work here. You can continue to bark like a dog in heat or really understand the context.

Buddhism is just clearer in expression. If it's time to awake, it's time to awake no matter what conceptual formulation or language history you fall under karmically. You can see the concepts of Brahma, vishnu and shiva as an elaboration on dependent origination; i.e. creation, sustenance and destruction, leading to new creation etc. All interconnected with all concepts, thoughts, phenomena, experiences, etc., and Brahman as just the realization of this, not as a transcendent self sustaining entity of all or Self of all. But, if you read the Upanishads, Brahman is definitely reified, deified and thought of as a supreme source or Self of all. Brahman in Advaita Vedanta is considered the beyond concept origin of all things, thus the primal substance of all things. In Christian mysticism, you read the very same within Christian verbs of whatever language. For the most part, it seems that those with the karma for awakeness, come to the path of "Awake-ism". You have to have experiential insight into what the Buddha taught in order to realize what is not Buddha or "awake" insight. If you don't, you'll take explanations that seem to be alike on the surface as proof of aligned insight, when this is just not the case upon deeper investigation. The experience of one-ness is mere Samsaric re-absorption. There is no such one to re-align with that was there at the beginning and will be there at the end, unless you are talking about the awareness of emptiness which is complete self transcendence, and what this means is not explained outside of Buddhism with much clarity it seems. The difference between this and the interpretation of all things being God is deeply subtle, but most important. This is indeed what sets what the Buddha said apart from other traditions. If you don't have insight into what he said, you will say, "oh... we don't really know if he said that or not." Go ahead with your bad self then. At least you're trying... I must say. At least you will evolve positively, as it's better to be an Eternalist than a Nihilist. I think I've invested enough time in this argument tonight. Fare well! It's funny... we get all these revenge oriented people arguing after the fact that me, Marble and Stiggy find a common ground. Wow... please look in your own proverbial mirrors.

You can decide for yourself by going within your own conceptions and sub-conceptions and causes of them... try add infinitum. Oh yeah... dependent origination! Oh yeah... infinite regress without primal origin.

Actually, generally speaking... it becomes where you go when you leave. LOL! This may be exactly what you mean though...

Oh... how you have so many props.

You can decide to or not. Only to a certain degree. I used to go around and tell bullies that they were what they were bullying while in Elementary school. Literally, I would say, "You are that person". Then, I would get beaten up so I learned martial arts. I only read the descriptions of my earlier experiences later when reading texts by well recognized spiritual teachers. Conceptually later, experientially... right then and there. They occurred so young to me due to previous lifetimes of merit, that is all. All effects have causes, thereby are empty of self. You'll have an intuition about them when they occur naturally during your own progression, and when you read about their insight from more eloquent people as I was at the time, you will know directly through remembrance. My Mom said my experience of neither perception nor non-perception was that of God, and I believed her at the time, because it connected me to everyone and gave me insight into peoples unconscious, but I have since transcended that interpretation through coming closer to what the Buddha said in a more awake interpretation of the experience. How do you define special? Everyone has the exact same potential to realize Buddhahood. Just within a time-line, I've been at this for so, so many lifetimes, thus there is the fruit. Because people ask. People here wonder how I know if what I say is true or merely something I have read and repeat like a parrot. So, I say... no, I've experienced directly this truth beyond reading about it.

You act so threatened. Is your view of reality so ill based, merely 5 sense experienced?

Speaking merely anthropologically. The Buddha didn't just say some flowery statements here and there, nor did he write some ambiguous poetics that can be interpreted in many different ways. He spoke for 40 years and manifested a deeply defined path of method and contemplation, philosophy and psychology that has variant views for variant types of people, defining the many stages of results very clearly that happen upon the path. He stated the many states of focus meditation and the stages of mindful meditation. Plus so, so much more! There is no other individual who is attributed so many different spiritual teachings as a fire starter, or re-aligner of spiritual awareness on planet Earth as the Buddha. No one else did this with such clarity before him within recorded history. He spoke a way of seeing for renunciates and householders. It goes on and on, he spoke so much. He didn't just speak a little bit. The Buddha taught this. He also taught not to associate too much with people who have extreme views. I find Taoism to be a tradition that either does or does not have the extreme view of Eternalism (self existing source of things without prier cause), depending on the individual.