Vajrahridaya

This attachment to silence could become an obstacle in later development. But... maybe not. If one takes refuge in silence and what arises from within.. there can be confusion. But... this is all relative of course. Buddhahood does mean awakeness only. If one realizes inter-dependent origination/emptiness directly and totally, then all the teachings of the Buddhas are realized as well. Actually there is in a practical sense, there is a way to meditate that brings about enlightenment in a shorter time. There is a right way to view the meditative experiences that don't lead to outbursts like, "Allah came to me in a cave and now I'm going to conquer the world in the name of the Islam he showed me, and all those opposed will die." Do you know what I mean? You're clarity has to come from some influence or another as clarity is still a dependent arising, either carried over from past lives or in this life. Ultimately speaking of course, they are merely relative. But, they are important, "right and wrong view". Very important, otherwise one will be wrongly conditioned by subconscious experiences realized in meditation, taking one or the other up as a self or a Self of all. Ok... good. I didn't bring my measuring stick so I can't measure to what degree this is so today. This choosing is influenced from deep within. We all have a beginningless source of information to go upon, lifetime after lifetime, it's just what seed is taking blossom now is based upon secondary conditions for ripening. It's good that you do have these seeds and the ripening conditions to influence this choice of letting go, even of seeds of influencing this choice. Yes, reality is inherently self-liberated having nothing to do with an inherent self, it is ever malleable. inter-dependent origination is not an idea, only in words is it, but it's actually an intuitive realization of how things work, even liberation. Not a problem... of course! Blessings to you as well.

Not a problem! If one is not conditioned in right view first, which is the viewless view of interdependent origination and emptiness, revealing the emptiness of causes and conditions. Then one is conditioned by the blissful sensations of meditation and the visions and subconscious coming to light experiences. So, for Buddhahood, right view is paramount, otherwise the Muni wouldn't have given it the first place in the 8 fold noble path. This is why there is great emphasis on refining the intellect and logic. Ok. My apologies of assumption. Sorry, if I don't understand a word in a discussion I google it. That's just me though. Dharmapala is a Dharma protector and the pralaya is the "big crunch" where all those that believe in oneness actually experience it directly without perceptual faculties and they experience it for a time, then conditions start loosening and a big bang happens again. Of course not by label, but if you see directly inter-dependent origination/emptiness, then you see all of the teachings of all the Buddhas at the same time. When the conditions are right for any individual, awakening happens! But, as far as organized religion goes, Buddhism does come the closest in expression, philosophy and methodology to the meaning of awakening here on Earth. From the Hinayana and Theravada to Mahayana to Vajrayana (which is super vast, technical and filled with amazing methods) to Dzogchen. So much clarity in writing, method, meaning, the yogas... etc. Even Buddhist martial arts was initially geared towards mind energy training through body activity. But, yes... enlightenment in and of the quality of the experience is as the Buddha said, "beyond, far beyond". Goodness I certainly hope so! Yes, it's our birthright, but the path of Buddhadharma and it's influence had died out when the Buddha took birth to spin the wheel once again. It is a unique teaching in word and method form. He did say that beings realize a type of Buddhahood without there being the presence of Buddhadharma on a planet, but they generally get stuck in a cessation after death unless further influenced by Mahayana. Unless of course they are carrying these seeds of influence in their mind stream from past lives. Of course it's all so complicated and karmas are deeply individual, so yes... no monopoly in any absolute sense, just in a relative sense. In the sense that Buddhadharma is very, very clear from beginning to end, thus has lots of clear realizers without ambiguity. It is unique in this sense. You can't really mis-interpret the Buddhist scriptures into thinking you should conquer the planet and kill all non-Buddhists. Or wage war against Jews because they killed the messiah. Or whatever... You know?

Buddhas realize infinite peace, love and compassion without identifying with a one of all and without absorption into a formless totality. So, your source for the same qualities seem to differ. Mine is realization of emptiness and inter-dependency, not oneness. Though, I know this experience very well and still have it, I just don't reify it as oneness anymore or as a substratum of the all. It's just expanded mind due to the friendly fact of empty phenomena. Also the doctrine of Alaya Vijnana is based upon an earlier talk in the Suttas about "saṅkhāra-khandha" or "the fabricating power of consciousness". So, it wasn't really a new teaching, just an elaboration on an old one. According to the Buddha you are actually wrong about what the Buddha teaches. "In contrast to the Self teachings of the Upaniṣads, the Buddha stated clearly that all ontological speculations regarding a Self are detrimental to spiritual progress. He stated that all thoughts about self are necessarily, whether the thinker is aware of it or not, thoughts about the five aggregates or one of them. As one scholar has written, The mysticism found in the Pali discourses ... goes beyond any ideas of 'soul' in the sense of immortal 'self' and is better styled 'consciousness-mysticism.' Furthermore, early Buddhism was not subjective idealistic. Some have misinterpreted the Yogācāra school of Mahayana Buddhism that developed the consciousness-only approach as a form of metaphysical idealism, but this is incorrect. Yogācāra thinkers did not focus on consciousness to assert it as ultimately real (Yogācāra claims consciousness is only conventionally real since it arises from moment to moment due to fluctuating causes and conditions), but rather because it is the cause of the karmic problem they are seeking to eliminate."

I like this... in a sense, quite true.

Not really the dissolution... well I suppose it depends on what you mean by that. But, one is not illusion-ed by any concepts anymore, yes. One still has concepts, but they are always cognized with clarity. One wouldn't say the constant experience of reality, rather, the middle path, neither real nor not real. But yes... for all practical reasons... the clear cognition of reality. Here's a link... I suggest reading all of it, as it's not that long. Pratityasamutpada Independent origination would be paths that teach that all things arise from themselves, or that all things arise from an independent self, as either one with it, like Monism teaches, or in a dualistic fashion like Christianity teaches.

Your idea of enlightenment is different from Buddhas. Also, Buddhadharma does not take meditation and the experiences of meditation as the path, only as a method for insight into self grasping and it's many layers. I practice Vajrayana which uses lots of movement, postures, mudra, visualization, energy practices, breath work... etc. I also practice Dzogchen. Because you don't take up "right view" as a guide.

What's "blinkered"? Anyway... it's not my view, it's "right view" as presented by the wheel turning Buddha and succeeding Buddhas. As well as what are called the Primordial Buddhas who represent the different families manifesting as the self-liberated aspect of the 5 main elements, as in the pure activity of these qualities.

But, you generally take my difference in path with a light heart, since we've already worked all that heaviness out it seems last year. Maybe not all, but plenty.

What anyone needs to awaken is right view. As the Buddha taught, it's not just about the light you get in meditation. It's about how you work with it and how you understand how it manifests. Enlightenment is not the attainment of one grandiose light of all in Buddhism. Being a Buddha is something subtler than this. That's a side effect, yes... but if you remain an active Dharmapala at the pralaya. Then... There are plenty that will be blissful and seemingly free for a while, and go to high heavens and do great things. But, it all comes down to having truly burnt the seed of unconscious rebirth. So, there are stages to what you said and there is a deepening as well. There is clear cognition of how things work and how the cosmos cycles. Not just concept-less bliss. There is also clear cognition and understanding of the nature of everything, not just an experience. Ok, then I've misinterpreted our debates that we had last year. Then you will agree that the light experienced in meditation arises dependently, does not have inherent existence and is not the source of everything? Sorry... I was just going on what we've discussed last year. Ok... that's a mark of Buddhadharma. Buddha did influence all traditions around the world anyway. It's more like the wisdom of Buddhahood. Please let go of your attachment to not understanding the Dharma as presented by Buddhas, not new age one-ists'. The Buddha didn't teach that there are all sorts of paths to Buddhahood. He taught that Buddhadharma is the one universal vehicle and other Buddhas after him agreed because they understood the uniqueness of what he taught. So, either he was wrong or right... you can make the choice based upon your reference of influence. Don't call it free will, it's deeply conditioned. They are not belief's, they are wisdoms and insights. Are you truly letting go? Buddhadharma is truly about letting go, but even on a formless non-conceptual level. Most paths take refuge in a non-conceptual experience and integrate that with everything calling everything one with "that." This is where this idea of all paths lead to God come from, the idea that all creation comes from one self existing source. Buddhadharma has a different teaching, it's deeply subtle, the meaning of inter-dependent origination as presented by Buddhas, as it's the deceptively profound insight into the cosmos that liberates.

The superior path is one that has more variables in methodology, more history of non-violence, more clear explanations about the nature of things, and has more enlightened beings who have traversed it. Buddhadharma. If an individual is awake, then they experience directly the true nature of things and that is dependent origination/emptiness. They do not take refuge in an all pervasive cosmic essence. The Buddha said this specifically in the Suttas, "if there was a universal essence to take refuge in for liberation, then I would teach this, but since there is not, I do not teach this."

New agist dogma. You lack study in sutta and sutra. You are missing the wisdom of "right view" which the Buddha taught. Take care.

Why are you so sure that I can't know this? I don't think we define the subtleties of liberation similarly. As I have read your belief's, you believe in an all pervasive self existing essence that is one with the all. So... your version of non-duality is substantial based on their truly being an absolute one, and thus not complete pristine clarity of the nature of things arises because of this condition. It's a subtle grasping at a universal Self, even if non-conceptually. You have taken refuge in a formless, non-conceptual phenomena. Buddhahood is not oneness, it's connectivity, but not oneness. It's both not one and not two. It does not take up meditative experience as the path alone, and is not conditioned by such subtle phenomena as samadhi's. It does not take up a transcendent all being as refuge. So, practically speaking it is different, and it does lead to a different result, though it can't be seen on the surface of a person, but if you have a glimpse, you know this... directly.

I'll catch your spit. Thanks for burning some of my karma.

As far as a path on Earth goes. It is. Now there may be secret transmission that lead to the same results hidden deep in the mountains of China, or whatever, called whatever on whatever planet. But if it has the 4 marks... it's Buddhism by another name. If it identifies with a source of existence that is homogenous with the all, and a background to all things that self exists from it's own light, or is the will of the all or the Self of the all. Or is an Alpha and Omega or identifies it as the one that is the all. The result of that path will not be the same as Buddhadharma as there are inherent knowledge afflictions in the methodology that lead to subtle obscurations or are reflective of subtle obscurations, even if it seems blissful and light at the time.

Even the present is ungraspable and does not inherently exist. But yes... basically... you are right, to put it practically. As the "NOW" also has to be emptied of identification with, and conceptual grasping of, etc.

This is true. But when I say liberating, I mean you are in that process that is liberating with the complete path that Buddhism is. Buddhism is not higher, it's more complete, so it's both higher and lower... :lol:

Because the philosophy is superior, the insight into cosmology is superior, the methodology for subtlifying (excuse my poetic license) inner experience is superior, the teachers are superior, and the result is superior.

Indeed! You are talking about Bodhidharma's representation in the chinese culture? I know you are joking... don't worry. But, I will take this instance to share because I'm just darn inspired to do so maaaaaaan!! The Buddha unless doing intense prana retention or kumbaka, would have been quite skinny due to the face that he only ate one meal a day. :lol: Or those that are light in mind but heavy in karma but enlighten that heavy karma and end up dragging tons of crocodiles, alligators, crabs and lobsters with him/her to heaven by walking deep in the valley... like the Buddha did.

It's not my world view. No world view is higher or lower, but some world views are more liberating than others.

I have edited the bottom part of your quoted text from me for the sake of more clarity, though it is technical as we are getting into subtle particulars.

Well then don't read it. You only reveal your affectedness and insecurities ralis. You spit so much spite and venom. You really should chiggitti-check yourself before you wriggitti-wreck yourself. How's that for some rhetoric? Actually ralis, if you really did understand Buddhist texts, you'd be Buddhist or actually, you'd be a Buddha, having transcended all such nationalities.

That's right, and if rightly cognized, it's internally experienced as Nirvana. Samsara is not phenomena, it's how one experiences phenomena, as phenomena will endlessly manifest due to the fact that it always has. I agree, it's all relative. But, Buddhahood is indeed full awakening to this relativity. One could say, it's absolutely pristine cognition of the relativity of phenomena while being free from this phenomena of pristine cognition. Relatively.

Intuition and intellect should serve each other. What people call intuition is generally conditioned by the subconscious. It takes a clear and meditative intellect to unravel these blockages or subtle identities.

In potentiality, someone born with down syndrome in this life may be reborn into the next life with the potential to be a scholar and an accomplished yogi. From all practical standpoints, yes there is the more intelligent and the less intelligent. There is the potential for either Buddhahood, awareness of the nature of things, thus omnipresence is realized or in any mind stream there is also the potential to be a worm. The mind stream itself is not more or less as the potentiality is equal, but the awareness of a Buddha is one who is aware of this potential and is fully aware of awareness. This is exactly what qualifies more awareness or less so for an individual mind stream. Oneness is also an illusion, and if grasped to as a self will merely lead to formless absorption. In Buddhism, non-dual means not two but not one either. There is no one substance that all being springs from according to Buddhas cosmology. There is just the state where perceptions and energy is stilled for a single being for an elongated period of time of seeming no time (due to the experience of neither perception nor non-perception), or a moment of no time (depending upon how long you can stay in this meditative state for), or a mass of beings in agreement with your ideation experience this at the end of one universe or another (as pralaya definition of pralaya), but only come out ignorantly in the next universe, doing the cycle of suffering to bliss all over again. So, this does not lead to liberation from Samsara. It just leads to blissful states and it's good for rest, but, this experience is not the source of all being though, it only seems to be. It seems to be because when one comes out of the state, and the light awareness touches upon multiplicity, it seems that it is manifesting out of this state of zero, but really, it's just that your consciousness expanded past the body and everything seems to be manifesting out of this. But, it's really just an unconscious experience of the empty nature of things, and the natural luminosity of the mind is then wrongly identified as "The Self of ALL". Really this state of zero, is also empty of inherent existence and the experience arises dependently. It's not an independent entity.

ralis, to put it in a nutshell. It's because in Buddhism the seed of re-emergence into Samsaric activity is identified, and that seed is self grasping. In Hindu interpretation of spiritual experience, there is still a slight form of self grasping, even if it's to a formless state of non-conceptual consciousness of all. It's still self grasping which eventually leads to re-expression in Samsaric experiences. So, the basis of unconscious cycling is not emptied in Hindu methodology or philosophy, thus the true nature of Samsara is not recognized.