Vajrahridaya

The term Sanantana Dharma was first coined by the Buddha to explain the Buddhadharma, not Brahma dharma. The Buddha quite unabashedly reveals that Brahmadharma his a good path leading to high rebirth, but does not lead to complete liberation or complete understanding of the nature of Samsara. Well, debate is considered a practice called, "refining the view" in Buddhist tradition. It's because we don't take up samadhi as the entirety of the path, we understand as you do that service is also needed, but more so than in Hinduism is logic and reason needed to be completely refined and made clear and supple with the "right view" as is the first part of the 8 fold path, along with right concentration or samadhi. None to you as well dear brother on the path to deeper discovery! No problems. I am merely a bug! Saweet! You have a parrot? Lets see a picture!

This is exactly it, the conscious stilling of all pranas or winds, and the bliss of formless transcendence occurs. This stilling does not burn completely the seed of selfhood and re-samsaric manifestation unless coupled with the intuition of right view applying emptiness and understanding how this too originates dependently and is not the static, unending source of existence, but rather merely a state of absorption. But, going into this state greatly increases an individuals capacity for love, bliss and compassion. Still, there is deeper as is notarized by the experience and explanations of Rigpa or Vajra-samadhi. The unending offering of merits allows one to manifest continuously for unending Samsaric beings and avoid re-absorption at the end of the cosmic eon as what happens with Brahma path practitioners. That is correct. These nice states though are confused by many because they can last for eons for an individual who holds one or other of the states as a Self of all. This identification with, allows the mind for an elongated subconscious focus on a formless light which illuminates very blissfully and turns one's karmas into an expression of blissful energy. Very great!! But not Buddhahood.

Shiva and Kali are considered two Buddhas who teach Brahma yoga to those that only have the karma for this level of understanding, but they are already destined to manifest as Buddhas in Nirmanakaya in the future. I've had deep experiences with the Bodhisattva Ganesh in open eye states of Samadhi. Also, I grew up a Shaivite before I went to Buddhism. Tantric Shaivism and Vajrayana as well as Dzogchen have somewhat similar features except for the fact that true creationship is given to the deity Shiva where in Buddhism that just doesn't swing as there is no supreme creator or source to existence. The insight of Dependent Origination reveals that it's all more chaotic than that, so there is more to internally order and burn away than is realized in Monist paths.

It's fine. I like this question anyway. The Buddha is just talking about the state of Nirvana, the state of seeing through everything, including one's self, he's not talking about an absolute existing entity. Because when a theist reads that, they project something other than what it means within the context of Buddha teaching, they project inherent existence. Translations of this stuff into English can be hampering. He means the state of realization is unoriginated because the universe has no origin primal origin for itself, as in this moment across the cosmos is not self caused. There is no cosmos really, just endless inter-relations, inter-connections that have relationships with each other in order to manifest things manipulated by sentient energies that are also co-originated. This is an endless process with no beginning, no primal cause. If one understands dependent origination, one realizes that because all aspects are caused and all causes are themselves caused ad infinitum, that there really is no inherently existing universe, that it's all relative, so to see right through this is to realize that all our concepts are not self originated including our self experience. The translation of "un" in front of all these is due to the realization of this cosmos and all experiences being inter-dependently originated which means emptiness, this is not a thing, but a realization of the malleable and non-static nature of existence, this leads mind, which also arises dependently, to experience an expansive luminosity, but without self reference. So, the unoriginated Nirvana is a realization of the true nature of things. If one realizes impermanence permanently on all levels, then one has the endless realization of Buddhahood. What I posted above in reply to Yuanqi where it talks about Madhyamaka and Pratityasamutpada should be read. Especially the part where Nagarjuna explains the non-inherent existence of cause and effect. Because nothing arises by it's own nature, things don't arise inherently at all, thus nothing truly exists from it's own side, leading to the realization that is unoriginated. Yet, this realization still originates dependent upon realizing dependent origination which does not inherently exist, so all concepts are subverted, including infinite concepts or identifications. So, it's all quite the play, and to describe the fact that what the Buddha described as the "all" as inter-dependently originated is actually saying that everything just flows without an absolute for support, and this is absolutely true. The absolute Truth of Buddhahood is that there is no absolute truth. All states and all aspects arise relatively so are empty of self existence. Even the state of Nirvana does not inherently exist.

Yes, I like Shiva... he's my favorite Hindu god and he, Kali, and Ganesh have a high standing in Buddhist Tantric Texts which can be read about. For the record, I like you and Santi's energy as well. I love the video you posted of Santi giving Reiki. I have atunment as well in that tradition so am quite sensitive to that energy. I had a very nice and deeply relaxing nap after watching that video. It was meditative.

This is exactly what the Buddha said does not lead to liberation from Samsara, but just higher rebirth and finally re-absorption into the formless in order to be recycled again ignorantly. What you have described is called Monist Eternalism, or Monism. This is different from what the Buddha teaches and is not considered the truth that leads to liberation, only the truth that leads to more recycling. What you describe is a lofty state, but it's considered a mis-cognition and mis-interpretation of the nature of things if considered an ultimate truth in and of itself. It is merely a relative truth originated upon an identification with a formless state of samadhi.

They do not, as the place you end up originates dependent upon view, and if the view is not that of "right view", then it does not lead to true liberation according to Buddhahood. Your view is an all absorbing dogma without getting the particulars. Buddha view is much more refined. Thus is the experience and the knowledge of the nature of things much subtler. These ideas you have of the Dalai Lama are off the mark. Have you actually read what he teaches? In Buddha cosmology there is no underlying reality that exists from it's own side. This interpretation of meditative experience considered real because it seems is without thought, is a deeply subtle tendency to cling to a self, just made infinite and formless. This is not the teaching of the Buddha and misses the point of dependent origination which subverts any monist translations of cosmic experience... read...Pratityasamutpada - inter-dependent origination Here is one quote from this link "Madhyamaka and Pratityasamutpada See also: Mūlamadhyamakakārikā Though the formulations above appear might seem to imply that pratityasamutpada is a straightforward causal model, in the hands of the Madhyamaka school, pratityasamutpada is used to demonstrate the very lack of inherent causality, in a manner that appears somewhat similar to the ideas of David Hume. Many scholars have agreed that the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā is one of the earliest interpretations of Buddha's teaching on paramartha originated from Pratītyasamutpāda [18][clarification needed] , [19][clarification needed]. The conclusion of the Madhyamikas is that causation, like being, must be regarded as a merely conventional truth (saṃvṛti), and that to take it as really (or essentially) existing would be both a logical error and a perceptual one, arising from ignorance and a lack of spiritual insight. According to the analysis of Nāgārjuna, the most prominent Madhyamika, true causality depends upon the intrinsic existence of the elements of the causal process (causes and effects), which would violate the principle of anatman, but pratītyasamutpāda does not imply that the apparent participants in arising are essentially real. Because of the interdependence of causes and effects (because a cause depends on its effect to be a cause, as effect depends on cause to be an effect), it is quite meaningless to talk about them as existing separately. However, the strict identity of cause and effect is also refuted, since if the effect were the cause, the process of origination could not have occurred. Thus both monistic (Brahma Yoga) and dualistic (most other theisms) accounts of causation are rejected. Therefore Nāgārjuna explains that the śūnyatā (or emptiness) of causality is demonstrated by the interdependence of cause and effect, and likewise that the interdependence (pratītyasamutpāda) of causality itself is demonstrated by its anatta. In his Entry to the middle way, Candrakirti asserts, "If a cause produces its requisite effect, then, on that very account, it is a cause. If no effect is produced, then, in the absence of that, the cause does not exist." So as you can see, your teacher is wrong about what he thinks the Buddha taught. According to Buddha teaching both Nirvana and Nirvikalpa Samadhi is merely a pit stop. Nirvikalpa Samadhi is a formless state that leads to formless absorption, even after death. Read the 31 planes and the explanation of the Jhanas. This is only considered as such if you are a Hindu, or mystical theist. Buddha saw that there was no ultimate Self. He said that taking refuge in a formless self as ultimate would only lead to re-absorption at the end of the cosmic eon, so this does not constitute liberation according to Buddhadharma. You and all your gods get reabsorbed into this infinite, formless concept of Brahman at the end of this karmic manifestation of form into the potentiality for the next cosmic eon. This subtle attachment to a blissful formless light as a Self of all is a deeply subtle tendency of the ego. The Buddhas bliss is subtler and the realization is subtler. This is a common Hindu dogma. According to Buddhism, there is not a one that all things come from, that potentiality which springs this cosmos is just the concepts that are left over from the previous cosmos. Actually all sorts of universes are going on and when a group of mass of sentient beings agree on a single entity as the entity of all, and their karmas align, so does the end of their manifest karmas end at the same time and they are all at the same time re-absorbed into their formless samadhi to be ignorantly re-expressed when the conditions are right. Read Buddhist cosmology for more detailed explanation. Being introduced to a new interpretation may open up new vistas of meditative experience, which is more conditioned by your view than you are aware of right now. Myriad Worlds is a good one. Actually no. I understand your understanding quite deeply, as I also interpreted my deep meditative experiences through the view that you have. I was raised Hindu my entire life with Advaita Vedanta and Shaivism as the path I practiced very earnestly. My experience of Shaktipat at 14 was that of the formless state of samadhi, beyond time and form, but fully conscious on a deeply peaceful level. When I came out of this timeless space, I saw and felt connected to everyone and experienced everyones greatness beyond their masks. But, this is just an expansive state of consciousness known of in the formless samadhi and explained by the Muni. It is good to cultivate, but not to take up as an ultimate Self of all, as the truth is much subtler than this. The truth that Buddha revealed is that there is no underlying inherently existing Truth of the entire cosmos. Just that all states of being are impermanent and that all is connected, but not that everything is of one substance. It's an entirely different way of viewing that will be hard for you to comprehend at first due to being conditioned very strongly by Hindu dogmas. Inter-dependent origination is a much subtler realization that empties this clinging to ones formless experience as a Self of all. It is a worthy state of experience because one understands connectivity better, but one also must be trained in "right view". As the Buddha said, those that take up meditation as the path without "right view" are merely conditioned by their states of meditation. This is what happens in Brahma paths.

It is not superficial. You don't yet understand what the Buddha taught. He taught interdependent origination/emptiness. Not that all things come from one thing. The Buddha did subvert the Vedas. No, it's actually what the Buddha said. I know what the Dalai Lama teaches. Your teachings come from Eternalism, which is not the same as inter-dependent origination. The Dalai Lama will always ask questions because he is a humble being and wouldn't mind knowing details of the Brahma path that you speak of which does not lead to Buddhahood. Only in Hinduism, which did not exist as it does now before Buddha. All these different paths you mention are post Buddha, but still take up a Self as refuge. The Buddha did not teach this, the Vedas do. This is not superficial, it's that the end goal is different. There is no Eternal will that shines from it's own side. Buddhism is atheistic not agnostic. No, this is not the teaching of the Buddha. There is no soul ultimately speaking only relatively speaking and there is no Brahman either, this is a mistaken cognition of the formless states of samadhi which are also empty of inherent existence according to the teaching of the Buddhas. The Buddha called your path a Brahma path, which leads to higher re-births only. It's not dogma, which is the constant excuse people use to not investigate deeper. It's that the Buddha actually taught a different definition of liberation than the Vedas and Vedanta. He experienced that merging with Brahman is not liberation but merely leads to formless realms or long lived god realms. Even in Hinduism, Brahma has a life span before being reabsorbed into the potential for the next cosmos as all those that believe the end all be all is a formless all pervasive essence will experience this reabsorption at the end of the cosmic eon. Even Vasisthas Yoga talks about this and doesn't understand but just calls it, "Gods will". Which is an experiential excuse according to the Buddha. It's not dogma, it's just that the cosmos works a certain way and belief in an ultimate soul does not lead to liberation according to Buddhadharma. Read... 31 realms of existence and the samadhi states that lead to them. Buddhist teaching is far more concise than any group of Vedantic teachings. I used to believe as you did and followed your line of thinking, until I was educated in what the Buddha actually taught and had experiences directly revealing the intuitive awareness of inter-dependent origination/emptiness which is not a void or a vast Buddha mind like Hindus always like to translate it as. Emptiness means non-inherent existence and means inter-dependent origination and that there is no such thing as a causeless cause. It's a complete paradigm shift from the one you are used to. Like I said... this is not so according to Buddhadharma. According to Buddha, your view is an all absorbing dogma, the universalist dogma that says all paths lead to the same goal, because in the belief in a primal cause that all things arise from. There is no primal cause in the Buddhas realization of how the cosmos cycles. It's deeply subtle and the Buddhist cosmology is much subtler than Vedic cosmology. It should be studied from it's own points of view, not re-interpreted under Hindu dogma. The Dalai Lama doesn't believe that you path leads to liberation from Samsara and never has. He will ask questions, why not? That doesn't mean he is taking up the Brahma path which he has said does not lead to liberation. My understanding is only clarified by the texts of the Buddhas, but it is not bound by these texts as they speak to me of my own direct experience as well in meditation and contemplation. Read what the Buddha actually taught, not what your Hindu Guru thinks and says the Buddha taught, as he is mistaken.

It's true, that even in Buddhas teachings, he said that knowing everything simultaneously is impossible through this capacity of body. You can get into a state of meditation and see things in a space beyond thought constructs, where information hits faster than the speed of light and volumes of information is known within a space really beyond time, but practically speaking, in one second. Just know directly and intuitively the nature of things and let it flow. This is known as the omniscience of the nature of things and not the infinite particulars that go about this flow.

Peace & Love to you as well Marblehead! Stay spherical brother!! Keep marblin'!

No, it does not, as in Buddhahood, liberation arises upon the condition of realizing the nature of things. So there is no contradiction as liberation originates dependent upon prajna, or wisdom. Again, inter-dependent origination at work here.

Awesome CowTao! Beautifully stated! As it's spoken about in the Mahayana that Nirvana only leads to the beginning of the Bodhisattva path which culminates as full Buddhahood, which is really just the beginning of experiencing Samsara as Nirvana. Nirvana is not an absorption into a higher universal consciousness and neither is Buddhahood. Nirvikalpa Samadhi is merely one of the Samadhi states that is not to be taken up as a Self. Also in the mind-only school it is considered the 9th consciousness and not to be taken up as a Self, as is warned in the teachings. Though, Nirvikalpa or Sahaja Samadhi as it's called when one integrates nirguna brahman with the experience of form, is a lofty goal indeed, but it could not be equated with full blown Buddhahood, but merely as a stage of developing the 4 immeasurables as well as the inner empowered state of stillness.

Sanantana Dharma was first coined in the Dharmapala as Dhammo Sanatano, which was later taken by Hindus and applied to Hinduism, calling there path Sanantana Dharma, thinking that they were teaching the same thing as Buddha Dharma. Sanantana Dharma does not become a phrase for the Hindu's until the Katha Upanishad which is written after the Buddha taught Buddhadharma and called his path the Dhammo Sanatano. No they did not, they were Brahmanistic Hindus, who believed in the Vedas. You should study Buddhism instead of getting your information from Hindu interpretations, which is kind of an absorb all religion and call it one's own with the thought that everything comes from "one God". The Buddha said he taught something that wasn't here on Earth at that time. He also said that the path of Buddhadharma existed prior but had died out and that he was just re-establishing an ancient path and the older Buddhas have been named, and they have nothing at all to do with Hinduism or the Vedas. Buddhadharma and Hinduism do not lead to the same goal. The term Nibbana was first used in technical Buddhism and was not in any of the older Upanishads. The Buddha first spoke about this term and the Hindus later took it. This is anthropologically true. This is not true. Certain Hindus keep pushing the dates of their texts back, but anthropologists and scholars don't agree. Even the Bhagavad Gita is written after the advent of the Buddha. It would behoove you to study Buddhism more if you are going to make these claims with certainty. In order for a Yogi to realize full Buddhahood, they must after reaching Nirvana which is defined as extinction of worldly cravings, accumulate the full 3 kayas for the sake of teaching the Buddhadharma in endless world systems that have a condition for accepting the dharma. This is where the path of the Bodhisattva comes in, where one attains realization for the sake of all others and really puts an end to the seed of self-hood and self attachment, which keeps one spinning. Hindu's consider Nirvana merging with the formless all pervasive being of Brahman, the true Self. This is basically taking the formless samadhi's as a platform for reality and the Buddha said that this is a mistake, so the Buddha in fact subverted the early Upanishads and the Vedas entirely in his teaching of Anatta or Anatman. The Buddha and so many Buddhist yogis who realize Buddhahood afterwards completely disagree that this is even liberation. Nirvikalpa Samadhi is merely the 8th jhana in Buddhas teaching and is not a Self according to buddhism but merely an expansive state of consciousness beyond thought and no-thought or beyond perception and non-perception or beyond being and non-being. It is not what the Buddha even meant is Nibbana or Nirvana. He taught a subtler teaching through inter-dependent origination/emptiness. According to Buddhism, this that you describe does not even lead to true Nirvana which is merely the beginning stage of the path of a Bodhisattva. The Buddha taught something different from what appears in the Vedas and the early Upanishads. He called the Vedas non-authoritative when it came to his teaching. Study some Buddhism and don't get your Buddhism from Hindus who haven't themselves studied Buddhism under the right guidance. Your path is described by the Buddha as Eternalism (that there exists that which shines from it's own side and which exists as a causeless cause) and falls into one of the two extremes and is not considered the middle path of inter-dependent origination/emptiness. Even the Dalai Lama teaches that Brahma paths which is one that you have described, leads to higher rebirth, just as the Buddha taught, but not liberation from Samsara. Brahma paths lead to formless states and elongated states of bliss in higher realms, expanding only on the 4 Brahmaviharas; The four sublime attitudes (brahmavihāras) are a series of virtues and Buddhist meditation practices designed to cultivate those virtues. They are also known as the four "immeasurables" (Sanskrit: apramāṇa). According to the Metta Sutta, Shākyamuni Buddha held that cultivation of the four immeasurables has the power to cause the practitioner to be re-born into a Brahma realm (which is all that you and your Guru are teaching) (Pāli: Brahmaloka). The meditator is instructed to radiate out to all beings in all directions the mental states of: 1) loving-kindness or benevolence, 2) compassion, 3) sympathetic joy, and, 4) equanimity. This same list is also found in Patañjali's Yoga Sutras (1.33), a text composed long after the beginning of Buddhism, which shows heavy Buddhist influence. These virtues are also highly regarded by Buddhists as powerful antidotes to such negative mental states (non-virtues) as avarice, anger and pride. But this alone does not lead to Buddhahood.

Ah... now you are getting somewhere! Yeah!! More like a compassion and empathy with it... not as an it of course, this is just the limitations of language speaking.

Yes, this idea of an ultimate self that is inherently free to have a will is a subtle trap most cling to, even in spiritual development. There is inherent freedom, but not as a single being, but rather as a reflection of the fact of the parts of the cosmos arising inter-dependently and the luminously empty nature of things. We as a product of this endlessness which through influence from enlightened beings attains the conditions of seeing this directly, has liberated awareness even while will as a conditioned phenomena, does it's thing, as a part and parcel of the spinning all aware of inter-connectivity and emptiness, in recognition of, rather than denial of or as a static identity saying, "I have free will". People don't realize how deeply conditioned the choices they make are. How free is a will that is conditioned by so many layers of factors? Just let it be conditioned by factors of liberation, rather than factors of bondage. Even this "letting" is conditioned by influences. Ah... makes sense to me... maybe I'm just talking to myself here. :lol: Two mirrors looking at each other. Hi!

That's fine to one degree. But, on another... this attitude is what leads to the Dharma ending age. The view posted in the link you gave, completely mis-represents the terms that find their birth in Buddha's teachings. Therefore, your link only ad's to confusion about what Buddhism is teaching as Buddha does not teach of a source of all existence that shines from it's own side, and this is not what Dharmakaya means at all. It's deeply subtle what the Buddha teaches and how it's different from other traditions that lead to good places, worthy places, but not liberation from Samsara as Buddhadharma does. Which is fine... if you want to be a blissful god in a high realm dancing and singing with your favorite deities for a number of eons before being reborn unconsciously into a lower realm having not dealt completely with the seed of Samsaric karma... that's fine... and a worthy goal. It's just not the same goal as Buddhahood. There are better books that talk about how to cultivate the body of energy towards enlightenment and the 3 kayas. In your link it says that the Dharmakaya has inherent and ultimate existence and the Buddha didn't teach this. Anyone using these terms should know this. Buddhadharma is not about some sort of happy pit stop, as this is all your link is talking about. Buddhadharma talks about the ultimate bliss that is the quality of the state of liberated compassion, which is what the Rainbow Body is. Your link does not really teach about the rainbow body and it's statements will not lead to the rainbow body, at least not the rainbow body of the truly liberated... Buddhas. This should be known... but do what you will. Your choice. This has nothing to do with scholarly debate, it has to do with the experience the information in that link leads to, as it has nothing to do with the terms being used as they are being used wrongly... leading merely to more confusion and not the Dharma and complete realization of the nature of things.

That is fine... the path is narrow, the view is tight and concise, this alone leads to complete opening and Buddhahood. Not... all is one theories... I just disagree with the majority of views here, as the Buddha does as well. As far as what the goal of them is at least. They all follow incomplete paths. The Buddha also taught this. He didn't say that every spiritual tradition leads to Buddhahood, he said that Buddhadharma does, the Sanatana Dharma of the endless displays of Buddhas only leads to Buddhahood. He debated and he preached and he didn't agree with wrong views. He of course did it with more tact and enlightened energy though.

Why not, I know without a paradigm of doubt. Why should I lie? I am open and thus I have received the blessing of experiential knowledge of what the Buddha was talking about when he himself said that his teaching was superior. He said it, and I do as well. Nothing new... why should it be? The truth remains unsullied. It depends on what one wants out of the spiritual path. Every path does not have the same goal. He didn't say that. He said if you want Buddhahood, you need Buddhadharma. Everything arises dependent upon view and Buddhadharma has a specific view that is different from other paths. It's the viewless view. Other paths have a deeply ingrained attachment to a supreme subject, call it Tao, Brahman, God... whatever. This is what the Buddha called the mistake of Eternalism. So, Buddha doesn't agree with you and neither do I. If you want Buddhahood, you need to first understand the Buddha view, the first of the 8 fold noble path. Of course this experience of the view evolves from conceptual to experiential and intuitive. Just like the Buddhadharma evolves from Hinayana to Mahayana/Vajrayana and finally Dzogchen. Yes, that would be better... I could use some more tact of course. I'm not a Buddha even though I've had many glimpses, I'm still merely a Buddhist. That is true! Thank you for your gentleness spiritual path walker!

This is a very bad interpretation of Buddhism and what the Dharmakaya means. There is absolutely no causeless cause in Buddhism. The Dharmakaya is not a cause or source of all things. It is a realization of the empty nature of things, so it is a result body or a Buddha, not the body of the cosmos. The Tathagatagarbha is considered the womb of all the Buddhas in as much as all Buddhas have the same realization, not that all Buddhas literally come from the same source, but the source of their realization is the same, realization of inter-dependent origination. The Buddha has explained in the sutras that the Tathagatagarbha is not the same as the Vedic Brahman. The Buddha actually says in a Sutra of which I don't have time to go find due to having to go to work, but he says that those that take up this notion, find themselves with the creator gods, those that are deluded by being first born in the universe and think they have created the universe from their one being. Basically what you have linked is an entire mis-representation of what the terms actually mean in Buddhist context. It's more like a Vedantin interpretation of Buddhist terminology. The very same Vedanta that the Buddha debated was not a complete system of interpreting the way the cosmos works and what liberation means for a Buddha. Anyway... take care, and try to be sure about your sources for Buddhist information. I have to go to work... bye. Here are some explanations... Buddhas dependent origination Rainbow Body Dzogchen If your going to talk about the Rainbow Body or Jalus, then you should get proper information on it from the tradition that talks about it. It has nothing to do with the belief in an all encompassing God of the cosmos. It has to do with a result of wisdom of the nature of things via understanding interdependent origination/emptiness and compassion for all beings, including the God's/God that think they created the cosmos, i.e. Vishnu, Brahma, Shiva, Allah, Jehovah, etc.

Your spontaneous poetry revolves around the intention of insult rather than debating the words. What am I supposed to do, agree with you and see your ultimate wisdom and go... "Oh... all my experiences and sadhana are just hollow words"? This is not wisdom, this is you getting personal instead of wise. How subjective can you be?

It's quite clear. You believe in a one behind the many and you call it awareness. It's a monist position. You believe in the oneness of all awareness' and you believe that all things find there source in one grand underlining awareness. I argue a different interpretation of experience. If this is not so... then what is it you are saying? What I am preaching is what the Buddha taught and experienced. It is also what I have experienced. Just because it fly's in the face of your system of comprehension does not make me as bad as a Southern Baptist who preaches hellfire and damnation. :lol: Wow, the level of subjectivity in this room is quite staggering.

Just attain enlightenment for the sake of others while contemplating the fact that you and others do not inherently exist, that way the goal of attaining enlightenment for others, leaves others as a non-distraction but rather as a form of selfless service and a tool for selfless realization. Just offer without attachment to the results. Be as loving as you can be within your capacity while expanding it through seeing interconnectivity, but also see emptiness, otherwise there will be attachment to the results or experiences that unfold throughout the process.

It seems like we are mosquitos, drilling into the non-renewable life blood of the planet for power rather than using sun and wind power gathering technology on a much larger scale. Maybe the Earth will swat the majority of us off? Time tells all.

Yes, kind of, but due to a lack of awareness of the state dependent upon the latent potential for bondage to be worked out from the unconscious into the conscious body... it is lost just due to the fact of having the karma to be born here in this dense realm. Unless you take birth consciously out of selfless reasons like some beings here on Earth, generally in the arms of already deeply enlightened parents and surroundings... unless your premise for taking birth was to really get into the mud but remain unstained... this also happens. Mostly speaking though, enlightenment is merely the state of a fresh brain, "child" while having awareness of it and aware responsibility about it, as in wisdom. A baby is like they are simply because the dormant karmas in the unconscious which shape it's surrounding happenings through subtle pulsations haven't taken shape in the conscious brain as of yet. As the baby's karmas manifest through it's conscious experience through the period of progression outside of his or her ability to make choices about it, as in the first number of years (?), you get a sense of the reality of the persons mind stream. No one is born for the first time, as we all have infinite and eternal mind streams. Some are quite new to the human experience though in this current universal experience, coming either from higher or lower realms. But what we've been through in previous universes? Well... that can be revealed as well through deep meditation and contemplation with "right view" at the helm.

No freakin' doubt. They just print money for themselves but keep us working our asses off for a little bite. Freakin' Asuras at the top of that pyramid!!