Vajrahridaya

This is a misunderstanding. This is an out of context projected idea and is not the meaning of the 1st noble truth, which the Buddha puts into context if you actually read his teachings. =) It's a relative statement meaning that life misunderstood leads to unconscious recycling into many other states of consciousness other than being human, either higher or lower, oscillating up and down, back and forth. The real meaning is so vast and deep that to see it merely on face value will lead to unfortunate mis-understandings of the Dharma. Life is not inherently suffering. Phenomena is actually inherently pure and liberated. What the Buddha is trying to tell people is that life at face value can bring no long term satisfaction, only fluctuation between painful and pleasurable circumstances. Where we try to avoid the painful and desire the pleasurable without contemplation, going from birth, to old age, to death without any insight is just meaningless if the deeper truths are not unraveled. Of course, most people are satisfied with fulfilling the status quo and just give in to the idea that these fluctuations are just inevitable and not worth examining more deeply, thus they take rebirth after rebirth for eons into favorable and unfavorable conditions without wisdom of the underlying causes. For a Buddha, Samsara is Nirvana. Life is bliss, completely unblemished freedom. As the Buddhas first statement after he gets up from under the Bodhi tree. "This mind is free and uncompounded since beginningless time" So, to take the Buddhas teachings out of context is like picking up a book and judging it simply based upon what the spine reads, or even what one critic says about a movie doesn't make it so, especially if that critic only saw the previews... eh? In Buddhism, suffering is not the meaning of life... and the Buddha is also talking more about psychological suffering and it's nature. The 4 noble truths are as such... #1 There is suffering (dukkha). #2 There is a cause of suffering (craving). #3 There is the cessation of suffering (nirvana). #4 There is the eightfold path leading to the cessation of suffering. Your friend seems nice and well meaning, but he doesn't understand the Buddhas intention very well.

In Buddhism (awake-ism) (( this designation might make me seem even more elitist than I am trying to be, because I understand the necessity for people to undergo there own progression through lifetimes or realizations in various philosophical and practice methods )) cosmology, the self is relative and there is no absolute and inherent nature to things except the fact that everything is inherently non-abiding, including meditative, non-conceptual and beyond sense experience. I hope this makes sense to someone?

Understand emptiness/dependent origination deeper on a level that transcends a beginning. You'll see that the only way you attain liberation is the fact that others before you attain it by experiencing closer and closer to the integration of their own phenomenal world and the realization of emptiness/dependent origination... So... each one teaches one, or influences the other add infinitum. So yes... there is only pre-determination for most beings until they come closer to the understanding and thus experience of emptiness by being influenced. Through this kind of osmosis from compassionate beings one eventually frees the will beyond conditions through the influence of Buddhas. Only Buddha influenced realms have Buddhas unless there are Pratyekabuddhas that manifest in those realms due to individual merit but without the tools to properly preach the dharma. No one is influenced properly by these beings. Anyway... only a Buddha truly has free will. The rest of us are either emptying our ping pong paddles through integrating the Buddha influence or we are just bouncing balls between the two hard places of our karmic paradox.

Also, In Buddhism, emptiness means non-static, mutability, or non-abiding nature of all things, experiences and phenomena, both conceptual and non-conceptual, both eminent and transcendent in meditation. Thus in Buddhism we say emptiness of emptiness in order to help people not identify emptiness as an Atman, or an abiding self existence. This shows that emptiness can never mean the same as Atman does in Vedanta, nor can it mean Purusha, or Brahman in experience. The experience of emptiness is the result of correct cognition of the nature of experience and not the result of an absorption. Though passing through absorptions with the "right view" does increase the possibility of correct cognition of inter-dependent origination which is the same in Buddhism as saying emptiness. In Buddhism, realization is not a transcendent, non-conceptual state that transcends the senses, because in Buddhism both the transcendent non-conceptual state and the senses are equally empty of inherent existence and are both relative. In Vedanta, one is considered real while the other is considered illusion. This is only one of the reasons why both Buddhism and Vedanta are not compatible and have different goals. In Buddhism, we do not surrender to an all encompassing Self that subsumes all things in it's blissful embrace. We consider this merely a transcendent meditative or contemplative state mis-identified as the absolute nature of things which leads to a long lived realm of bliss. This does not offer eternal freedom from unconscious rebirth, thus does not offer true freedom from Samsara in the long run, only for many eons. Nice goal, but not the same as the Buddhist goal. Buddhism treats phenomena with a different understanding, thus the state of liberation and the work one does afterward as a guide for other beings comes from an entirely different way of understanding and a different experience of how things work.

Actually Buddhist Philosophy is still at it's core even if the dressings have various influences. Most teachers will tell you to understand Madhyamaka discussion of emptiness in reference to all the aspects that can be mistakenly understood as exemplifying a single supreme source to everything, like Samantabhadra for instance.

Well, supposedly Bon was a left over from a previous Buddha which is why much of its cosmology was quite similar to Buddhist cosmology even before Vajrayana came to Tibet. Though Bon as well had many different styles of practice pre-dating Buddhist integration. But, I'm not a Bon scholar at all. My Rinpoche; Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche is though and he has written some works on this topic.

The goal is different. Self is relative in Buddhism and absolute in Avaita which is how one can make statements like the above and identify with it in Vedanta but not in Buddhist realization. The whole paradoxical statement thing that enveloped Vedantin or Shaivite poetry is reflective of the type of insight they have, which is different from Buddhist insight. In Buddhism, we see that we are connected with everything, but we don't look for oneness with everything, we see this as a high level trap wrapped in rapturous states. It is merely expansion of the sense of "I" found in transcendent states of meditation, then integrated with multiplicity and then considered the true samadhi. But this is considered a mistaken cognition according to the Buddha, even since he delineated the different Jhana states and also the 31 realms that co-inside with the different states of jhanic bliss. Vedanta and Buddhism have different goals. Which is fine. You have your goal and we have ours. We think ours is superior and you consider yours the same as ours, we think this is incorrect, and you think it's correct. Oh well! This is what makes a Buddhist view different from Vedantin view.

=^)

I find "mindless" to be a bad translation into English as it's more about "free from mind", not that mind dies, but that one's awareness of mind is transformed and liberated. Exactly.

Actually a genius sees that both are actually in union. Through analysis of dependent origination, one eventually has the intuitive experience, if one is also coupling study with meditation. I see your brushing away of the intellect as lacking insight into dependent origination. Because both are not separate. Also, thinking that intuition is not conditioned, is a fools gold that merely leads to higher rebirth because it's taking the assumption that there is a real truth underlying "self", that always is. Your whole premise is out of sync with the Buddhas stages of liberation. Analysis leads to intuition which leads to emptiness, which is not the same as "nothingness"... so you are off base from the very beginning due to various mis-assumptions.

I "analyzed" your statements and "thought" I would add this... Buddhism actually does not believe in absolute truth, only relativity, which is what dependent origination/emptiness means. No "one" basis of all things, merely malleability without any static nature. The only constant is inconstancy. There is no ultimate nature, other than non-absoluteness of all things. All things and beings are inherently empty of any static substance, thus the state of fullness can be realized.

Buddhism doesn't deny any aspect of any Human capacity in the end. If one is like a mirror, as a mirror does not grasp at it's reflections, thoughts do not get in the way of the state of liberation. This is not a Buddhist belief, but is the state of a Buddha "awake one". Wow, this is as far off as this sun is from the next one. Where you pulled this one out of? Must be imagination and thinking too much? Buddhist investigations both requires logic, reason, analyzing, letting go of thought, watching thought, seeing through the process while engaging with it. Meditation, and study. Nothing I believe is a pre-conceived notion, it is all from direct experiencing, both through the senses and beyond. Buddhism just puts it into the clearest perspective and interpretation into expression through words and method that I have found. Which is why the Buddha is considered quite an important human being, because he realized nothing different from how reality actually works, not a set of projections. If you would only realize how dependent your thoughts originate upon your current stage of experiencing and interpreting. You would see that even though your opinion is erroneous and out of sync, it still reveals the truth of the Buddhas teaching of dependent origination/emptiness. This is not an idea, it's merely a fact of how things work. Not merely cause and effect either. My point was that basically ritual is natural. We all have our rituals, both mundane and spiritual. Those that live a chaotic life are generally unhappy and dis-satisfied and don't live as long as those with healthy mundane and spiritual rituals that they engage in utter surrender to the moment. Then there is also flexibility and non-attachment as well. Humans generally make a ritual out of what they find pleasurable or beneficial, and if they do it for a long time, they continue doing it even after the pleasure is gone and the benefits are gone as well. An enlightened being will change their ritual according to what is beneficial without attachment.

Everything is ritual, attachment is not the thing, but if it's an attachment that leads to liberation from attachment, it's a healthy attachment. Like the ritual of good eating and thanking the elements from deep within for the blessing of having manifested as food, to even think of the entire process in a deeply contemplative way, and good meditation, good teeth brushing, good conduct... it's all a beautiful ritual. Think if the Earth lost it's ritual of going around the sun, or the moon lost it's ritual of going around the Earth? Or if the seasons didn't ritually change? The comment about not thinking is not possible, now there are different levels of thinking. When you are more aware on a deeper than conceptual level, there is still processing of information, on a level of images, colors, positive feeling, subtle vibration hugging a deep sense of peace, gratitude and openness. There is movement, but yes... I think you are referring to confined thinking, or ego hard thinking. There are just different stages to thinking, more gross to more subtle. Logic and reason will become spontaneous and in alignment with flow and not be confined and filled with projection. But until fully liberated, one should thinking about one's thinking on subtler and subtler paradigms. Making no excuses, either experiential, or intellectual for not going deeper until complete liberation. Of course, that might be something different in Buddhism than Taoism. It might depend upon your lineage too. Because in Buddhism there are different stages. There is Nirvana, then there is Buddhahood, which is deeper than merely Nirvana. Anyway... if you think this is all just thought constructs. You are wrong. True that... it is really about the inner experience, not the outer ritual. The ritual is designed to take one deeper and deeper, if it's a good and strong method done with a strong intention and feeling, not cold and empty (empty like a jar, not the same as emptiness in Buddhism) For clarity.

That's because the deep feeling is intermingled with bliss and cannot be separated from this infinite sense of love. So, it's not really suffering anymore in the mundane sense of the reference.

How nice! Well, I'm off to my Honeymoon/Wifes Birthday Celebration today to The Fountains Resort in Orlando with some Universal Studios tickets ta boot! and won't be back till Wednesday. So, enjoy the enlightenment... have some tea and cookies with it while your at it!

Not Vajrayana. Unless you take vows of monkhood which some do at first only to re-invent themselves and the way they experience their inner energy. Renunciation is a very good practice at first. But, only to build up the energy from within to later integrate more openly with what "is". The form that I practice is Dzogchen which requires absolutely no renunciation or sexual repression and is all about integration of view and method with what "is" without denying or craving. I think your view of Buddhism has been conditioned by a lack of information and understanding. But, follow your pulse I suppose. Your karmas have lead you to where you feel more comfortable. It can be beneficial, or not, depending on how you utilize what comes. I do notice people throw the word, "natural" around without much contemplation. As if it were just some big universal truth! What comes naturally is merely habit patterns governed by lifetimes of fear and craving, propagating the species. What I love about Buddhism as it's very clear about the causes of suffering and doesn't make excuses of, "it's only natural." Though, in Buddhism, it's said that "enlightenment is merely recognizing how nature works." Different methods work for different levels of realization. People who have strong cravings and attachments need to renounce at first in order to re-align their energy through a process of transformation, but this is merely a means and not an end. Enlightenment itself requires merely the inner renouncing wrong views and ego clinging. Nothing at all to do with sexual repression or repression of any sort, this would be the side effect of misunderstanding the Buddhas teachings. Thus, not Buddhism at all, but merely a human predicament when it comes to mis-understanding religion as a whole, as most people do. Thus people see these majority followers mis-understanding their own path and turn to unhealthy feelings like, "despise" which keep them from looking more deeply. Despise is a pretty hateful and unhealthy feeling I'd say. Also Hagar, I'm not disagreeing with you either, as you are absolutely right on a relative level. I'm saying that I agree with you, but that what you are saying is merely a method, and not the whole truth, because there is in fact the relative and that's what we are working on here. That's funny. But, when it comes to spirituality, one should find the path that cuts the most clearly. For me, it's Buddhist view applied to every spiritual tradition I read on and about. With this I see the wisdom in the other traditions without getting sucked into the idea of an absolute nature of some sort which most seem to posit as a true existent. Taoism seems closest to Dzogchen and some forms of Vajrayana to me in many ways. Which is probably why I've always, my entire life had an affinity towards it, not to mention past life memories.

It generally doesn't help when you get into the hole with the other person. It's better if you can leverage yourself outside of the hole and lend a helping and compassionate hand. I agree with this "pity party" thing. My X-girlfriend would always complain about the most silly things and I would offer a perspective that could alleviate the psychological suffering immediately. Just a different outlook can totally change one's experience of reality. She would get mad and say... "I just want you to support and comfort me in my pain." I learned over the next few years that it was only after joining her pity party first, that she would open up to beneficial suggestions later. So... sometimes it does take getting into the hole with that person, only physically of course, not psychologically, and then offer some help. But, everyone is different.

ooops.

hmm...

Buddhism is quite clear about what liberation from all levels of psychological suffering is, and it's not merely feeling good and happy in the now, it's feeling good and happy even after you die and offering that continuously. It's not caught up in unclear ambiguity. It's quite clear that the identity of universal energy is a mis-cognition brought upon by a mis-interpretation of "spiritual" experience. A very blissful and seemingly knowledgeable mis-cognition, but erroneous none the less. Buddhas know and show the difference between suffering in this life and afterwards, and not suffering in this life and afterwards. As well as how to benefit endless beings throughout endless time and never makes excuses for ignorance. It's a simple duality, that does not hold up to investigation as a self or Self, but does hold up to relative reality, which is really all we are dealing with here, ever. Everything is clear cut, the only ambiguity is our own inability to recognize what's really going on. Enlightenment is being filled with all the positive qualities of being and endarkenment is the opposite. Not that either are real in and of themselves, but for practical purposes, there is a huge and vast difference between being enlightened, and merely thinking that one knows better through a clever manipulation of conceptual structure through non-conceptual excuses. P.s. No offence Hagar, just thought I'd also offer up a different perspective.

This is close to the beginners mind, but also considering delusion as merely a subjective delusion as well is a good place to be too. Kind of a catch twenty two that delusion is a delusion, huh? I know, sounds obvious, but it should kind of help to let go of being attached to the idea of an idea.

Nice... totally want to go to Beijing now.

I cry daily, that helps. I mean... not out of sadness, but out of recognition and a sincere since of longing to want to help in whatever way. Crying relieves one's own toxic sense of disconnection in my experience. It's somewhat of an enrapturing experience, blissful, yet humbling, compassionate, not sad. Recognizing and empathizing for sure. It's a feeling I can't quite put my thumb on. It feels very motherly and fatherly at the same time. That's it, like I want to be a comfort blanket. I don't always feel like it, but daily at least once or twice it happens in the course of a conversation with someone in life, or watching the news, or watching a movie, or TV show dealing with cancer or something? It's definitely a sense of universal love...

The power of subjectivity is incredible!! Deep, and subtle.