Vajrahridaya

Books by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu are good places to start... well and end. But it's a good start. Dependent Origination defines things very succinctly actually. When you have an understanding of it, it see's things and defines things as they are, not through a mystical essence of some sort, or a universal non-conceptual substratum that transcends things but is eminent in all things. Dependent origination is completely objective.

No, I don't want everything to be Buddhist. I see that Buddhist view is superior, that is all. Thus, other traditions views are not Buddhist and don't lead to Buddhahood. Stop bringing it back up again and again. I had let it go a while ago, but you went into this thread after my first post and starting arguing when I didn't mention Taoism once at all in my initial post. Stop being defensive. I will correct your mis-assertions on Buddhism. I don't need to mention Taoism. But, I wish to clear up wrong assumptions about Buddhism. Which is all I was doing without mentioning any tradition, but merely the meaning of the view of Monism which I was showing Buddhism does not co-ordinate with. You come up with your idea about my posts and then post it all over the place like an advertisement, calling me a hypocrite. When it's you that is mis-understanding the meaning. So... of course I'm going to clear that up. Why not? Because nothing is established, the view of non-proliferation should be expressed and experienced so that beings can realize their own liberation through the seed of receiving the Dharma teachings. You go ahead and talk about Taoism. I was fine with that... I had consciously dropped the arguing, but you brought it up again. Just look back and you'll see. Why should I let peoples mis-understandings about Buddhism not be clarified? If they occur and I'm here and have the ability. Why not chime in? There are plenty here who are now reading Buddhist cosmology because of my efforts. By the way, empty in Buddhism does not mean empty like in an empty jar. It means things have relative existence and not intrinsic existence.

Then you stop making assertions that Taoism and Buddhism teach the same thing. If they are, prove that they are, because thus far, all you've established is that you don't understand the meaning of dependent origination, much less the words that I write. So... how is the Tao not established? Then, it is dependently originated and does not inherently exist. Then, the Tao does not give birth to anything, is not the oneness of things and is not the secret, non-conceptual essence of things. Your logic is flawed.

Do you know what that means? Wow... seriously Stig. That means that all things are impermanent... always. That's not establishing any sort of permanent essence. Stig... it's hopeless to talk with you. You want everything to be a Taoist interpretation so that you can feel safe in Taoism. Buddhists don't see Buddhism in every religion, we understand that only Buddhism teaches Buddhist view. Like I said... all things are equally impermanent, but that means that nothing is established, not a Tao, not a Dharma, not a consciousness, not a one-ness, not a two-ness, not a many-ness. NOTHING is established, not even Buddhism and not even nothingness is established. Your Taoist view is blocking you from seeing dependent origination. Don't say my Buddhist view is blocking me from seeing the Tao, because I don't care to see the Tao, I know that to see an essential and eternal oneness is not going to liberate me from unconscious rebirth. Buddhism has never, ever established an eternal oneness, nor has it established an eternal nothingness. Not once, since the Buddha to Nagarjuna to Padmasambhava. So... you are obviously not seeing what I'm saying because I'm not saying what you think I'm saying.

Someone said that if you move fast enough, you'd open up a worm hole and go backward in time!!

The more you talk the less likely I am to really feel my apology. Oh well. Your opinions are what I call, negavision. Where one see's negatively only how one wishes to see from a subconscious level and see's all the proof's to back up this skewered vision like looking into a mirror and judging oneself through the apparent faults of others, which is really just one's own faulty interpretation of things. If it was merely a process according to Taoism, than it wouldn't be the mother of all 10,000 things. What your doing is reading Buddhism into Taoism. Which is fine, and take away all the erroneous views and make the world a completely Buddhist world. That'd be great! Buddhist imperialism!! HAHA!! I'm only kind of joking. Everyone needs their crutches and their way's of viewing to slowly transcend and go deeper in steps, until one does indeed see dependent origination. No... Taoist oneness is due to a mysterious ground of being. Buddhist non-dualism is not a oneness. It's a non-substantial not-two and not-one either. Sorry Stig... you missed the points of my posts and read Taoism into the meanings too much. It's an energy from seeing a connection to all beings. Where virtue naturally arises not as a contrived formula, but as a natural result of meditative contemplation.

Loppon Namdrol: There is no teaching in Buddhism higher than dependent origination. Whatever originates in dependence is empty. The view of Dzogchen, according to ChNN in his rdzogs chen skor dri len is the same as Prasanga Madhyamaka, with one difference only - Madhyamaka view is a result of intellectual analysis, Dzogchen view is not. Philosophically, however, they are the same. The view of Madhyamaka does not go beyond the view of dependent origination, since the Madhyamaka view is dependent origination. He also cites Sakya Pandita "If there were something beyond freedom from extremes, that would be an extreme." Further, there is no rigpa to speak of that exists separate from the earth, water, fire, air, space and consciousness that make up the universe and sentient beings. Rigpa is merely a different way of talking about these six things. In their pure state (their actual state) we talk about the radiance of the five wisdoms of rig pa. In their impure state we talk about how the five elements arise from consciousness. One coin, two sides. And it is completely empty from beginning to end, and top to bottom, free from all extremes and not established in anyway. Dzogchen teachings also describe the process of how sentient being continue in an afflicted state (suffering), what is the cause of that afflicted state (suffering), that fact that afflicted state can cease (the cessation of suffering) and the correct path to end that suffering (the truth of the path). Dzogchen teachings describe the four noble truths in terms of dependent origination also. Ergo, Dzogchen also does not go beyond Buddha's teaching of dependent origination which Nagarjuna describes in the following fashion: I bow to him, the greatest of the teachers, the Sambuddha, by whom dependent origination -- not ceasing, not arising not annihilated, not permanent, not going, not coming, not diverse, not single, was taught as peace in order to pacify proliferation.

Like I said in the other thread. You are mis-understanding the meaning of the words beings used and trying to read your own meaning into them. Buddhism is non-substantial non-dualism. Taoism is substantial non-dualism. Even though Tao is claimed to be beyond substance and concept. It's merely a way of saying, "it's the transcendent essence of all things." This is not akin to Buddhist realization and has nothing to do with what I was saying.

The difference between experiencing Samsara as Nirvana or not. Go get some real mind to mind transmission from a real lineage Master GIH. Seriously. You go around calling everyone stupid and lamas fake and enlightened masters... nice guys, but wrong. You don't display brilliant realization. Your just full of yourself.

Your not making the shift. It's a non-substantial universal truth, it's not a mysterious non-conceptual ground. It's merely emptiness and is not established. Tao is established. It's different. The subtle difference between the two way's of view is escaping you because you haven't studied Buddhism and your trying to read Taoism into my explanations. So, it's pointless to debate this with you. No... subtle means deeply nuanced in Buddhism, not ambiguous as in... "what's the real meaning?"

You are mis-reading me. In Buddhism, there is no formless ineffable ground for Buddhists or Dzogchenpas. Kalu Rinpoche is considered a very deep Master. Maybe there are other Taoist lineages that don't follow what Lau Tzu said about the Tao being an ontological essence. But, most here seem to. Because Tao in The Tao De Ching is defined as an ontological essence, a non-conceptual ground of being that all being springs from in every moment, That's not dependent origination. Not directly.

No... you don't. I detect limited experience and limited exposure to true enlightenment in you. Your defining ego as personality. I am defining ego as clinging to appearances.

Yup... Me thinks she got fa hr der a broken leg... thinks we gotta put hr ta sleep.

I have to go poo... I think both Buddhists and Taoists do that? YAY!! Common ground!! We both digest foods. Actually, I think there are high level practitioners who even transcend that, but they are generally cave dwellers and they are able to absorb nutrition straight out of the elements through mind manipulation. I can almost see the energetic metaphysical break down around such an ability! But, alas... I really have to go poo.

I'd say both can be true, it depends on whether the Guru was conscious of the occurrence and willed it, or it was merely the reflection of the disciples longing and a self projection into a subjective projection into an objective vision of a wisdom occurrence. As in seeing one's own merits manifest on a seemingly external screen for the sake of dualising clarity.

That I think would be a very interesting topic.

This does happen, but a Buddhist as a Buddhist cannot accept "The Tao" to mean anything other than the way things mutually co-depend, and not as an ontological essence as Lau Tzu defines it. Buddhism universally is the same and does not believe in a universal essence, or a universal source to all things. Every form of Buddhism believes this. But, what they argue about or disagree in are the stages of the path. Oh, Shentong view holds that the nature of mind is real and shines from it's own side. Is empty of other, but not itself. Which goes against Madhyamika, and the Heart Sutra, not to mention all other forms of Buddhism down the line so is considered at times Heretical. But, not always, because one can see how this view can be used in meditation to focus on the mind without objects, but if this is taken up as a universal essence, then your falling into an extreme view of Eternalism renounced by the Buddha. Other than that... the core view of Taoism as an ontological essence and Buddhist refutation of it since the very beginning of Buddhism is what is being argued here. Not that a Buddhist couldn't do Taoist energy work without loosing his or her "right view" of dependent origination. Because a Buddhist can practice any of the martial arts and energy movements, as long as he or she holds the view of emptiness and dependent origination, then he or she will not fall into the extreme view of this always exists, or this never exists (eternalism/nihilism) which would not be Buddhist. See I and Buddhism agree that Tao can be applied to yin/yang mutual co-dependency, but not as a primal source or essence of all things. Thereby making it a truely self existent source that is not itself caused. Taoists seem to think of the Tao as an uncaused cause beyond thought, logic and reason.

They've finished it. I think season 4 is the last.

Exactly... this is fine! What I meant by universal is that the realization is possible universally. As in all things are universally permanently impermanent. It's a play in words but it gives an idea of how realization is made permanent, not as a thing, but as a realization of how dependent origination is not established and that there is no abiding self anywhere to be found universally.

Tathagatagarbha is not the beginning or source of 10,000 things. The realization of emptiness is considered the womb of enlightened activity as it's a realization of how things don't inherently exist and only exist relatively. So... it is different. You didn't understand and your projecting your own understanding. What I said is impermanence is permanent and universal. Not that something is itself permanent. You really are trying though. So... Tathagatagarbha does not have inherent existence and is not the oneness of all things. It is a metaphor for seeing dependent origination. I am not... because that's not how Buddhism is using the word. In this sense, everything shares the same core, which is not a reality in and of itself, but rather the core fact that all things are impermanent and arise due to each other's arisings. Not that all things have the same source of existence. This has been explained in Buddhism very deeply by Vasubhandu and Nagarjuna. So, what your reading into my post is just you reading into it. It's not what I'm saying. I hope your misunderstanding has been rectified now. Buddhist philosophy is very subtle and particular in it's usage of words. There is no ambiguity. What you are doing is seeing another meaning that I did not intend by taking things out of context.

Does he really comply to the leash? My cats would never... leash goes on... stop drop, make like a rock. Draaaaaaaaaaaaaaaggg.

I'll say a little more here now... just because all of a sudden I remembered your questions while doing something else and had these thoughts to embellish on what Michaelz said. It's true that according to Buddhism, there is no inherent nature. But, what Tathagatagarbha means, is that there is a nature inherent in realizing dependent origination or non-inherent nature. Not that dependent origination has any nature other than the flow of impermanence and causation. The Tathagatagarbha is considered the womb of enlightened activity and is universal as interconnection and impermanence is permanent and universal. This all Buddhas realize since beginningless time. What they realize is dependent origination, inter-connectivity and thus resulting in dharma activity for the benefit of all beings, since we are all connected. Not one, but connected. So, the nature of enlightenment is compassion, altruism, infinite loving kindness, wisdom, etc. All the positive qualities that you can think a conscious being can have is what Tathagatagarbha means as a womb resultant specifically of realizing inter-connection and non-abiding nature. It's figurative really, as in, it's the absolute nature of realization, but realization has no absolute nature other than just a sentient being seeing how what is, does it's is'ness. p.s. Please ask me any questions about this as in words, I know it seems paradoxical, but it really isn't.

LOL! You BALL CHOPPER!! No really, I love cats, and your cat looks soooo cool!

I do sincerely apologize if I am merely projecting my history and information gathered thus far about gamblers and poker players onto you without merit.