Vajrahridaya

Yes, but this is merely a designation within culture. Beyond culture there is the break down of molecular structures. Abhidharma breaks down the structure of the mind, and also even physical components. These are more real than Tuesday. But, they are as well relative. Very true.

Yup. Something good for us that are experiencing it.

Right... I dig it. Buddhist non-dualism is everything is empty, even emptiness does not inherently exist.

No... more like a tiny blue sphere and white light around it or all colors around it. Or just a blue shiny sphere of deep dimension in vast blackness. Muktananda said this happens sometimes, but is rare that someone has awakening from the Sahasarara. The sensory experiences were more of feeling deep bliss, love, compassion and there were lots of different visions and lights. I would experience deep stillness and feel like I was merely walking space and my body was suffused with a very light but deep sense of blissful joy, no need for a smile but a smile can come easily and spontaneously if the condition requires it. Deeply relaxed sense of being. Then I started experiencing some tail bone pain and started to have physical kriyas in meditation, sometimes I wasn't conscious of what my body was doing and other people would tell me about it. Or I would see my body moving from outside of my body as if I had an eye outside of my body, or bodiless awareness was looking at my body. I would feel energy rushing up my spine sort of speak. Yes, it would just naturally go up or go down then up.

The phrase is an explanation of the reality of things. Interdependent origination doesn't have a beginning as it's not really a phrase, it's a realization of the nature of the beginningless cycling of universe after universe, both externally and internally. It applies to absolutely everything, both conceptually, materially and spiritually. Interdependent origination is a concept that describes how the cosmos works, so it's really not a concept in the grand sense, thus no one coins it, but rather, you come to understand it through insight. The Buddhas purpose was to teach, he just needed some coaxing. He probably needed a little time for his enlightenment to really unfold it's wisdom as a gradual process. When he first realized the truth of things as inter-dependent and inherently empty, I'm sure he was more in a state of profound awe and thought... "Wow, how profound! How can I teach anyone this truth which is so profound, no one will get it." I'm sure that was merely a mistaken cognition based upon the awe of it all. But, he calmed down and integrated his enlightenment with all that he was supposed to do.

Nirmanakaya is the expression of the unconfined unity of the other two as the motion or activity of compassion. Dharmakaya is sometimes understood as being mind, but not the ordinary mind, rather the realized mind. Also it is understood as merely the realization of emptiness and is even synonymous with emptiness. But yes, it's also what you said.

It never did begin. Buddhist cosmology talks of infinite regress, not primal origin. If you keep looking for a beginning, or a primal agent, then you will not understand what emptiness means even intellectually. The Buddha actually does talk of beginninglessness when he talks about the innate purity of the mind. As the mind is empty of inherent existence and originates dependently over and over again, moment to moment, it cannot be inherently defiled, thus is innately pure since time without beginning. This is the first thing he says right after enlightenment even before he teaches the Dharma. According to Buddhist cosmology, this universe did not arise from itself. The Big Bang is not a primal origin, it is all just due to causes and conditions left over from the previous universe and the previous universe is caused by what's left over from the one before that... add infinitum.

It doesn't exist in the Upanishads. Sure it is. Upon realization that is. Also Nagarjuna explains it in such a way as to show how it self transcends, which is why this teaching reveals Anatman rather than a primary agent or Atman so it's not the non-dualism of the Upanishads.

Yes, Buddhism handles realization and the experiences leading to realization with more humility I feel. When one doesn't understand consciousness within the schematic of the Pali tradition, then one gets over-zealous about the experiences and starts getting a kind of a solipsic interpretation of the experiences where one considers everything to be located inside or reduced to consciousness. Also the fact that people don't understand the Pali, can lead to people mis-understanding Dzogchen, or teachings in Vajrayana. This is why Nagarjuna said basically that only understanding dependent origination directly leads to liberation, otherwise, as he said, "other vehicles only lead to the edge of Samsara." This is also why ChNNR teaches some basic Buddhism in his Previous Vase. As the Buddha said Brahma paths (of which are most) only lead to higher rebirth or the formless realms but not Buddhahood.

Duly noted.

They teach subjective idealism version of non-dualism basing everything on a single essence or primary subject. The Buddha did not teach this type of non-dualism. Thus, it sounds odd, but there are two kinds of non-dualistic teachings. Those basing everything on the conception of God, thereby everything being reducible to a single essence and the teachings of the Buddha where there is neither an inherent 1 or 2. So, Buddhist non-dualism of inter-dependent origination/emptiness is different. Thus the experience of Rigpa is not to be equated with the realization of Brahman as described in the Upanishads. The non-dualism of the 8th Jhana I experienced when I was 14 in Shaktipat. I thought it was the source of all existence the single essence behind all things. I made the mistake of reifying the experience as the end all be all. This mistake which the Buddha warns about. This is not the non-dualism of the realization of dependent origination/emptiness as there is still a knowledge obscuration when taking up an experience of formless consciousness as absolute and real in and of itself, or the source of all things, or primary element of all things.

I concur. This book sounds awesome! I want to print it out and read it.

There is also the 9 yana system and the 12 yana system. Of course the Kunjed Gyalpo said anything can be broken down endlessly because of infinite regress due to the fact of there being no beginning to the universal cycling. The below is cut and pasted using various sources, mostly Wiki. Nine yānas The Nyingma school of Tibetan Buddhism has nine yanas, a list made by combining the first type of three yanas, and adding the six classes of tantras. Hīnayāna- 1. Śrāvakayāna = Śrāvakayāna is the path that meets the goals of a Arhat – an individual who achieves liberation as a result of listening to the teachings (or lineage) of a Bodhisattva Buddha. 2. Pratyekayāna = Pratyekabuddhas are said to achieve enlightenment on their own, without the use of teachers or guides, according to some traditions by contemplating the principle of dependent arising. They are said to arise only in ages where there is no Buddha and the Buddhist teachings (Sanskrit: dharma; Pāli: dhamma) are lost. Many may arise at a single time. Unlike Supreme Buddhas (see bodhi), their enlightenment is not foretold. Mahāyāna consisting of: 3. Bodhisattvayāna = Bodhisattvayāna (Skt.). The ‘Vehicle of the Bodhisattvas’. An alternative designation for the Mahāyāna or ‘Great Vehicle’, it is the way, means, or method by which Bodhisattvas pursue their religious career. It distinguishes itself from the two methods employed by the Hīnayāna or ‘Small Vehicle’, namely the ‘Vehicle of the Hearers’ (Śrāvakayāna), and the goal of personal enlightenment (bodhi) in seclusion of the Pratyekabuddha (Pratyekabuddha-yāna). Both of these earlier ‘vehicles’ are thought to be deficient by virtue of their lesser concern for others. (taken from Encyclopedia.org) (In my opinion this is true as a teaching vehicle, but not necessarily as a result different from the Hinayana, as when one realizes the nature of things as dependently originated, one automatically would take up the Bodhisattva ideal of realizing liberation for the sake of others. Thus the Mahayana is the natural progression of expression from the teachings of Hinayana.) Vajrayāna, consisting of: Outer Tantras & Inner Tantras 4. Kriyatantra = The kriya tantras, or ‘action’ tantras, are so-called because they are concerned mainly with external conduct, the practices of ritual purification and cleanliness and so on. 5. Upatantra = (Tibetan spyod rgyud) ‘practice tantra’ and the Ubhayatantra (gnyis ka’i rgyud), ‘dual tantra’, because it practices the view of the next vehicle, Yogatantra, together with the action of the former. 6. Yogatantra = "Yoga tantra is so named because it emphasizes the inner yoga meditation of method and wisdom; or alternatively, because based on knowledge and understanding of all aspects of the profound ultimate truth and the vast relative truth, it emphasizes contemplation that inseparably unites these two truths." - Jamgon Kongtrul Inner Tantras 7. Mahāyoga = Ray (2002: p. 124) associates the Mahayoga with removing the obscuration of the mula klesha of aggression (or anger), the relative aspect of the two truths is mentioned and an embedded quotation by Tulku Thondup: Mahayoga-yana is associated with the masculine principle and is for those whose primary defilement is aggression. In Mahayoga, one visualizes oneself as the divinity with consort. "All manifestation, thoughts and appearances are considered to be the sacred aspects of the divinities within relative truth," in the words of Tulku Thondup. By visualizing all phenomena as the deities of the mandala of buddhahood, in the development stage, all appearances are purified. 8. Anuyoga = Ray (2002: p. 124-125) mentions visualization, subtle body, chakra, prana, nadis, bindu and pure land: Anuyoga-yana is associated with the feminine principle and is for those whose principal obstacle is passion. In anuyoga the emphasis shifts away from external visualization toward the completion stage, in which one meditates on the inner or subtle body with its primary energy centres (chakras), and its prana (winds or subtle energies), nadis (the inner pathways along which one's energy travels), and bindu (the consciousness). In anuyoga, all appearances are seen as the three great mandalas, and reality is understood as the deities and their pure lands. The vehicle of Anuyoga , or ‘following yoga’, is so-called because it mainly teaches the path of passionately pursuing (or ‘following’) wisdom, in the realization that all phenomena are the creative expression of the indivisible unity of absolute (all pervasive) space and primordial wisdom (as in the direct realization of dependent origination/emptiness). 9. Atiyoga (Utmost Yoga) (also Dzogchen) View The view is definitively established by looking directly into the naturally arising wisdom in which the three kayas are inseparable: the empty essence of naked awareness beyond the ordinary mind is the dharmakaya, its cognizant nature is the sambhogakaya, and its all-pervasive compassionate energy is the nirmanakaya. ....................... Twelve yanas Another schema associated with Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna sources adding these three under Dzogchen or Atiyoga: 10. Semde = (Tibetan: སེམས་སྡེ; Wylie: sems sde; Sanskrit: cittavarga) translated as "mind division", "mind class" or "mind series" is the name of one of three scriptural and lineage divisions within Atiyoga, Dzogchen or the Great Perfection which is itself the pinnacle of the ninefold division of practice according to the Nyingma school of Tibetan Buddhism. Semde emphasizes the clarity (gsal-ba) or the innate awareness (rig-pa) aspect of the Natural State. 11. Longde = The name Longde is translated as 'Space Division' or 'Space Series' of Dzogchen and emphasises the emptiness (strong-pa) or spaciousness (klong) aspect of the Natural State. 12. Mengagde = Focuses on the practices in which one engages after gaining confidence in knowledge of the state of wisdom (Tib. rigpa), emphasizing the inseparability of space and mind from the very beginning (dbyer-med). It is this inseparability that fundamentally characterizes the Dzogchen view. Menngagde is also variously glossed as "Secret oral instruction division", "Secret oral instruction series," "Secret oral school", or "Quintessential Instructions Series", or "The Category of Direct Transmission".

This is where you don't see the insight of the Buddha Dharma. Consciousness is also a conditioned arising and is a phenomena and is empty of inherent existence. Your consciousness realizing the unborn nature of things through insight into emptiness and becomes the supreme source for ones realization or the experience of Rigpa. This is why ChNNR says to understand emptiness through the teachings of Nagarjuna as a primary agent in understanding Rigpa. In Dzogchen Cosmology, even Samantabhadra is considered to have just attained realization upon the beginning of this universal cycle upon arising from the potentiality left from the last cycle without knowledge obscurations. Namdrol could break it down for you as he can translate directly from the Tibetan. But, consciousness even as an experience of the whole is not to be taken as an Atman, or a Brahma either. As in, not a static Self of all and not the creator of everything in the singular sense of the idea. We all co-create. You should read Dzogchen cosmology as your reading of the Kunjed Gyalpo seems to have confused you a bit into thinking the teachings are somehow Upanishadic or a subjective idealization.

No, they are real, they are what reality is, but attachment to this as ultimate does not lead anywhere but more craving for more material. It says in the Kunjed Gyalpo that people just need what they need in order to advance, but all mistakes in understanding are rectified in the experience of Rigpa which transcends, yet encompasses all the different yanas. It never says that doctrine is wrong or evil, just that doctrine is doctrine and realization is realization. Thus no doctrine is OK in the ultimate sense.

the Grand Man is considered Brahma. That Brahma created everything from his own being. This is not in conjunction with Buddhist realization. Buddhism sees that all things that are now come from things previously, and so on and so forth endlessly since beginningless time. There is no primal cause, or primal origin to anything, thus emptiness and the teaching of anatman rather than atman and the teachings that everything is Brahman. The Upanishads think that the universe has a definitive beginning. Buddhist cosmology says that they do not. That phenomena have been cycling since beginningless time due to causes and conditions, in the plural. Not that all things arise from an Alpha that is also the Omega as the Upanishads and the Vedas put it. This is why the Buddha subverts the teachings of the Vedas says that they should not be taken refuge in. Inter-dependent origination means that this phenomena arises due to that and that arises due to this so on and so forth. The Upanishads is a reductionist metaphysical idealization where all things are subsumed by a primary subject. Thus, it's a subjective idealization whereby one thinks ones deeply subtle experience of consciousness is the source of all being. The Buddha doesn't make this assumption.

Ninpo, The Upanishads do not at all talk about interdependent origination. They talk about creationism, that all things proceed from a primal cause that everything is one with. That all things are the modifications of a primary substance, somewhat like what the TTC says. The Upanishads also say that everything is God's will. All these assumptions are not in cahoots with the Buddhadharma. Also there are only two Upanishads that might pre-date the Buddhas birth. They are the Chandogya and the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. But regardless, the Upanishads teach a different cosmology than Buddhas insight. You should read the Upanishads again to find clarity in this truth.

I studied Samkhya with real scholars, Sanyasins and meditation masters who see the derivatives of this extending into Advaita Vedanta and Trika philosophy. the Samkhya Karika is from 200 BCE. So, you are wrong and it's highly dualistic as well. Also... not entirely related, but partially so... Advaita Vedanta is a philosophy that is highly influenced by hindu scholars stealing from Nagarjuna. Your information about Samkhya pre-dating the Buddha is quite incorrect.

No, I did. But, I quoted that from my reply to you and it came out as saying you said that for some reason??

Consciousness is a conditioned arising as well and not inherent. This is why consciousness is also not a supreme source for everything, unless unified with emptiness which means dependent origination. Then your consciousness is the supreme source for your enlightenment because consciousness of your own realizes it's own empty and inter-dependent nature. Thus you never take any experience as supreme, and you never take any view based upon an experience as proof of an ultimate view. Thus, you never have an excuse for pride, though confidence happens due to direct, non-dual knowing of this truth. The entire Kunjed Gyalpo is to show how the yanas are completed in the experience of Rigpa, and that's it. Rigpa is direct insight into experience, an experience of it's own empty and dependently originated nature. You have to take every part of it in context of the entire cannon, otherwise you only see the side you wish to project. Then again.. maybe I am crazy?

Yes, mine went mostly backwards from highest to lowest, then forwards in linear progression. Oddly enough... all before I had a real vision of the 31 planes of existence at once and all related ramifications.

You have to get initiation to get the mudra and visualization, as well as specific contemplations equated with the same in Vajrayana and even Dzogchen. Also, there are specific yoga postures for integration that can be necessary. Also even dance techniques. Some things that most mainline Zen eschews. .

This is also in ChNNR's Precious Vase.

Ok, to your defense not all of them were but they also weren't seeing dependent origination with clarity. Though some of them came close.

What? Like a boxing match? :lol: Kidding... I would love to. Let's see how inspiration goes? At some point. I was just not here for the vast majority of this debate and don't really have the time this week due to 4th of July coming up and lots of work out on the beach to get into. Sometime... the right time. Thanks for your interest though. I would like to at some point do a commentary on the Kunjed Gyalpo which many subjective realists seem to integrate into their view, confusing many about the real meaning. It seems that so many that read that book completely miss ChNNR's little comment on how it's referencing each individuals mind, as well as the infinite interrelations of minds and is not talking about a universal substance, but rather that the essence of realization is located in understanding one's mind. Buddhism still doesn't reify a primary source, and it sees endlessly infinite and individually dependently originated minds. As in every individual is infinite but interdependent with all other infinites, as in the infinitude of infinites or infinite infinites. Sounds like splitting hairs, but that's what all this is, is hair splitting, deep, complex simplicity.