Vajrahridaya

Your just protecting your ego. There is no other way to interpret this... "Before Heaven and Earth are born (the beginning of duality), there is something formless (beyond concept) and complete in itself (shines from it's own side). Impalpable and everlasting, silent and undisturbed, standing alone (shines from it's own side) and unchanging (static), it exercises itself gently, and generates itself inexhaustively in all dimensions. (is the shining of the shown) It may be regarded as the Mother of all things (the source of all things). Far beyond humankind's relative conception (mysterious ambiguity), it cannot be referred to by a specific name (oh is that Brahman I hear?), yet it may be identified as the subtle essence of the universe. (Ontological essence) In the absence of an accurate word, I shall call it "the Great"." (Mahabrahman) "Which means the great indescribable absolute" It's not revealing the same truth... sorry. Then the two paths lead to different realizations and therefore Buddhahood is not the same as Taoist Immortal. Interdependent origination is showing that there is no cause, no primal cause at all. That's why Buddhism is not a top down path where there is some ineffable non-thing behind everything. Dependent origination is NOT A CAUSE!! Nope, I am not. It's merely how the seemingness of things flow. Your not seeing the meaning of my words. So... this is quite pointless. You are quite attached to your view. You are having a hard time seeing the viewless view. It can only happen through an epiphany. Go ahead... say it right back to me. Yes, I have and yes, I do know it. Your opinion is not the measure of my realization. You keep re-bringing it up.

Well, that's Tantra dude...

Yes... you would. No because the Tao according to the Tao De Ching is an ontological essence that is beyond concept, yet whole and complete since before time, and exists from it's own side and is the source of the existence of all 10,000 things. So... we are talking about two entirely different interpretations of how the cosmos works. They are not equal in meaning at all. You can do what you wish... as you wish to benefit yourself. I feel that you should study more Buddhism. I have studied at length much of Taoism in this lifetime. I like Taoism, but mostly the practices and the applied skills, not necessarily the interpretation of the experience on the most subtle level. I find that Tao is still describing an ontological essence of some type that is "beyond concept" so is "beyond being and non-being", and is, "neither perception nor non-perception"... much like how Brahman is explained in Vedanta and the Upanishads. So, I can't in all good reason agree with the Taoist final conclusions. But... seeing dependent origination, I can integrate that view with absolutely every thing, except wrong conclusions about how things work and how things originate. I'm just being honest...

Since I brought up Sogyal Rinpoche and Lucky was talking about flying and super powered yogicness. I have a friend who got Dzogchen initiation from Sogyal Rinpoche. He told me that when he was giving the transmission of mind to mind Rigpa, that he literally before his very eyes saw Sogyal Rinpoche split into two people... I mean in a tangible way right in front of his eyes. He then said that Sogyal Rinpoche actually said to everyone in the class that some people see him split into two beings and he said that this is just a manifestation of him and his root Guru, but they appear as the same person to someone looking on. Amazing!! Here is my Rinpoche ChNNR with Sogyal Rinpoche on the left. Sorry... I couldn't help but share... Sogyal Rinopche is the short and funny Rinpoche who laughs a lot for no reason in the movie the Little Buddha with Keanu Reeves. He's the one that comes up to Bridget Fonda as she is watching her son through the fence and he talks about astrology to her for a second? I think that was the topic.

That's so awesome!! I love you!! p.s. You can have no greater ally in the war against your greatest enemy, your own self-grasping and self-cherishing, than the practice of compassion. It is compassion, dedicating ourselves to others, taking on their suffering instead of cherishing ourselves, that, hand in hand with the wisdom of egolessness, destroys most effectively and most completely that ancient attachment to a false self that has been the cause of our endless wandering in samsara. That is why in our tradition we see compassion as the source and essence of enlightenment and the heart of enlightened activity. - Sogyal Rinpoche... probably a guy that can fly... ya know?

I've dug myself a hole in the earth, but my fat head keeps sticking out!! Darn it!! I can't hide this big thing!!

.... eh.... it's not thought that binds, it's one's inward interpretation of the occurrence that binds or liberates as thought occurs.

Nope, it's not possible to reify dependent origination if it's understood properly. It is revealing that it does not inherently exist and that there is no source to existence. Stig is just showing his misunderstanding of dependent co-arising. That is all. It is an ontological statement saying that nothing inherently exists. So, it is the "right view" in the first of the 8 fold noble path. The Buddha was saying what he said to beings who had studied this view in depth and he was basically saying the the explanation of the view is not the same as the inward intuitive liberation that originates dependent upon seeing through reality with the use of this view. It is in fact the viewless view. But by the definition of ontology, it is an ontological statement and is the crux of the entire Canon of the Dharma from the first turning to the fourth turning. It is most definitely an ontological statement because it is most definitely how the entire cosmos works as well as how an individual works and how one manifests oneself as well as one's interpretation of experiencing. But, because it is also saying that nothing in the universe inherently exists, even the universe as a whole does not inherently exist, so also "how" the entire universe works does not inherently exist as well. So, ontology does not inherently exist and nothing stated, or experienced should be grasped at as "absolute truth" in and of itself, only relatively as an expedient means. So, dependent origination does not inherently exist and is not a "Self" of the universe, it is merely the explanation of the relativity of the flow.

Also for the most part it's an intention thing, as the power of the mantra is also reflective of the level of contemplation and depth of meditation involved from the mind of the practitioner. Also... if a Guru has realized the deep meaning of the mantra, even if repeated out of pronunciation, then it will still hold the power due to the teachers intention. There is a story about this I'll relate. A highly learned Lama Rinpoche was walking along one side of the river and he saw on the other side of the river a yogic practitioner doing mantras and doing fire offerings. He saw by the set up, what exact practice the yogi was trying from across the body of water and saw that the yogi was offering the different elements in the wrong order and at the wrong time. So, he got a boat and traveled across the deep river and as he got closer, he also noticed that he was repeating the mantras wrong, accenting the wrong points and singing certain mantras at the wrong tune. "He's a mess!" He thought to himself and thought that he should benefit the poor yogi by teaching him the proper way to do it all. So, he brought his boat to the other shore and interrupted the old yogi and compassionately helped him with the order of his offerings and the pronunciation and order of his mantras. The old yogi was very happy to get personal help from this well known Rinpoche. The Rinpoche felt content with what he had taught the old yogi and went on his way. He took the boat back across the river and as he was pulling the boat up to the other shore... he peered over at where the old yogi was sitting and saw that he had gotten up from where he was sitting and was in fact right in the middle of the wide and deep river running towards him, right across the surface of the river, without a boat! The Rinpoche just looked and his jaw dropped, his eyes watered and he was totally bewildered by what he was seeing. The old yogi got to the same shore as the Rinpoche and asked him... "Rinpoche, Rinpoche! I forgot how you taught me to repeat this one mantra, is it... Om Mane Pedme Hung? Or how did you say it?" The Rinpoche just looked at him, bowed to him humbly and said... "However you've been repeating your mantras up to this point is totally fine, please continue your practice the way you have always done it, I don't know anything at all." Om Mani Padme Hum

Alot of Tibetan Vajrayana Rinpoches teach the magic mantras in Sanskrit. I know mine does. Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche. So, I guess I have no worries. Om Ah Hum Vajraguru Padma Siddhi Hum!

I think the applied Taoism is complimentary, though I'm not fully convinced that philosophical Taoism is. Though, some explanation of understanding are more influenced by Buddhism than others. Chan and Shaolin types seem to be mixtures of both.

By Jehove or is it (Jove?) I think she got it!! (English expression) HA! That's awesome.

It means that the perceiver or cognizable being of dependent origination is dependently originated and the experience of this is without reference, or abiding thing. So, when one can apply this to infinite infinites. Then you have endless non-grasping while the endless display flows. So, even as ego arises, one is not clinging, but I suppose ego means "to cling"? Basically, what I was saying, in a horribly nuanced way which maybe I could only understand so maybe a pointless explanation? Is that, don't cling to your clinging or your ideas of ego because it's empty anyway. The practice of open witnessing is a good practice if you don't set it up as an ultimate subject of all like the Vedantins do.

Well, emptiness in Buddhism is not a vast nothingness, it's merely the recognition of the mutual co-production of all phenomena and perceptions, even non-conceptual perceptions or states of consciousness transcending subject and object is not an ultimate mind or anything as such in Buddhism. But, the way you worded it does sound more akin to the state of revealing freedom from proliferation. But yes... words are very tricky. A Vajrayana master of Tibet said that you can indeed explain enlightenment through words, but it would just be very hard and nuanced. Thus the endless volumes of Buddhist explanation. Definitely. As the Buddha said, "Dependent Origination is the Dharma, if you see Dependent Origination, you see the Dharma." See what it says is that, we don't start with an assumption that there is a self existing, void of explanation fullness that precedes anything. Dependent Origination takes no assumptive starting point and actually places no construct or non-construct as any ultimate Truth that shines from it's own side. The explanation that you quoted from the Tao De Ching, no matter how beyond words that explanation is pointing to, it's still placing an indefinable self existent non-conceptual as an ultimate Truth that outshines all explanation, and also shines from it's own side that is in fact the shining of all that is shown. Dependent Origination subverts this experiential assumption and say's even this high up formless level of perception and experience beyond words and seeming dualities originates dependently. Dependent Origination subverts all assumptions. If understood correctly and is applied to all levels of experience intuitively.

In Buddhism, we even consider attaining the realm of highly informed bliss heaven realms as a realm of suffering, because it still has the potentiality to re-manifest a hell realm in the future, even after eons of merit burning as a long lived God life. Eons is like trillions of trillions of our years. Without direct insight into dependent origination, liberation from the future possibility of intense psychological and physical suffering is not possible... according to Buddhism.

It's all ego... Just seeing how both consciousness and it's objects are dependent within an endless and infinite spectrum leads to being objective about it and having a wider awareness of seeing influence, both being influenced by and influencing. So is the ever widening spectrum of the Bodhisattva path until complete liberation and infinite reference which is truly objective within subjective activity empowered by the virtue of and accumulation of compassion within the spectrum of infinite regress. This is interesting and yes, math seems to express non-experiential values of infinite finites giving rational within infinite regress of expression of the non-quantifiable experience of the emptiness of all mutually dependent things within infinite quantifiable regress.

This is deep and mostly pretty hard to really release to, but to do so... is such liberating bliss, wisdom, knowledge... it's very deep. What's also deeper is that this was todays "Rigpa Glimpse" which is a daily quote from Sogyal Rinpoche. It's so pertaining to your question, it's astounding if you let it be. You can have no greater ally in the war against your greatest enemy, your own self-grasping and self-cherishing, than the practice of compassion. It is compassion, dedicating ourselves to others, taking on their suffering instead of cherishing ourselves, that, hand in hand with the wisdom of egolessness, destroys most effectively and most completely that ancient attachment to a false self that has been the cause of our endless wandering in samsara. That is why in our tradition we see compassion as the source and essence of enlightenment and the heart of enlightened activity.

Oh believe you me. Sometimes when I was a bit younger, I used to wish that I had never realized certain spiritual truths. Because now I can't enjoy my delusions with as much blissful ignorance!! ARGH!!! p.s. I've since taken the high road and decided to enjoy my delusions without the blissful ignorance and now somehow... I enjoy them even more because they don't take control of my psyche. They just dance like fancy display's and are less destructive in the influence.

So is my Dad, he lost his from a hockey puck! He used to scare me by removing his fakes when I was a little boy. Now he has permanents.

Hi Birch, You come across as a humble seeker of truth. I truly appreciate that. Sorry about flaming Goldisheavy on this thread. I just don't like the way he makes absolute judgments of peoples capacity and subjectively mis-represents the things people say as well as the teachings. Sometimes he is spot on though, just generally when he rarely is, it's in a rude kind of way. He's known to say things like... that was just stupid, or your stupid, and this is the truth because I say it is. Even though as far as I can tell, he's had no real training under the guidance of real lineage. He makes intellectual excuses that seem logical as to why not, kind of like Krishnamurti, who I'm not a big fan of as I find his view to be extreme, though not all together wrong, just not ultimately benefiting anyone as it completely denies process and the value of tradition. Anywords... The thing is, in Buddhism enlightenment is defined by seeing dependent origination, which means mutual co-generation. That nothing stands on it's own, and that there is no essence to anything, no static source of anything, everything is connected to everything since beginningless time through different modes of manifestation. For example, you know you can break a chair down into elements that connect to other elements and work to support other aspects of the entire system we call cosmos and that really there is no real chair, just mutually dependent elements that are further mutually dependent upon other elements that happen to come together into what is used as a chair, but the chair has no real and tangible self. That's like us, except in a more complicated way because we are sentient beings. So, motivation is very important as the final realization of Buddhahood is defined by there being no absolute self, and that all things are relative and impermanent. There is no unique essence to anything and there is also no essence to the cosmos because cosmos is just a name for an endless assortment of connected processes, so there really is no entity that is itself "cosmos." So, Taoism can be in alignment with this Buddhist tenet of no self anywhere to be found if one were to take the meaning of Tao to just mean constant process, the way of everything, but not a source of things and not an ontological essence that everything is merged with in a sense of "oneness", or there is only "one" and that is "the Tao". So... with that in mind, there are many, many similarities between Buddhism and Taoism, if one were not to take up the idea that the Tao is a source of things, because to Buddhism, there is no source to anything, not even in the sense that some people say "the Tao is not the source of anything because all things are one with the Tao so how can something be the source of itself?" This type of logic doesn't work with Buddhism as this is a Monist premise to non-dualism, and Buddhism is a non-substantial non-dualism where all things are equally empty of inherent existence, including consciousness, so all things are equally relative, thus non-dual, not that all things are a single mysterious ineffable essence, or even one energy. Ok, so with all that under the belt of your understanding. For a Buddhist, in the Mahayana which is the form that came to China one wishes to attain liberation for the sake of all beings, so that one builds virtue and right conduct as well as right understanding. One contextualizes ones desire so that it becomes a wholesome desire and not a selfish desire, it's a desire that both benefits yourself and all other beings through one's intentionality. It also expands ones consciousness to altruism and compassion. Which are both natural arisings in one's consciousness when one consciously includes everyone in one's way of thinking. You feel a sense of softness and connection with people so you act in reference to this feeling instead of a hard feeling, denying the world thinking... "I'm going to be better than you all and attain my liberation". This type of attitude is a popular one at first, that doesn't necessarily come out that obviously expressed, but that feeling lurks in a person in some form or another in the beginning of their spiritual journey... generally speaking. I remember feeling, "You all suck! So, I'm going to go be a Buddha." "You all dress so cool because your sucked into the popular culture schematic and think it's the bomb, so I'm going to go put on robes and be better than you all because I renounce all that BS." Do you know what I mean? Can you see how this type of subtle ego grasping has taken shape inside yourself in whatever personal way? I know it did for me when I first started doing spiritual work. I think it might even serve a purpose as long as one's unconscious of it, it can motivate you to at least do something different from popular consensus. But, it's not really a compassionate intention and feeling, so in the long term it will cripple spiritual learning. So, Buddhists make it a point to consciously think in a universal way, so that one already starts the self de-construction process from the outset. Which not only means de-constructing oneself, but also everyone else, in a non-judgmental manner. Just seeing clearly that people do what they do for the sake of happiness and to bring cessation to suffering in whatever way they know how through their worldly pleasures. One has compassion through understanding that everyone is really motivated by the desire for peace and happiness, but people don't know how to go about it and many don't even realize that they are motivated in their chaotic ways for the sake of this inner experience. But, you want to be an example setter and show the true path to peace and happiness is the inner path of spiritual contemplation and meditation, not so that you can be better than everyone and show them... "HA told you so!"... "See... you were wrong all along... I've got peace and you don't because I'm spiritual... nah, nah!!". That type of attitude would really be quite paradoxical to the intention of spiritual cultivation... right? So yes, motivation is important, but include yourself... you are a part of everyone and everyone is a part of you as well. That's really all Buddhism is saying, do good and be good not only for you, but for everyone, because you and everyone are connected anyway. I think Taoism says this too!

Oh my God!! Marble just looked into my future and saw that I'd be toothless!! Wow...

I guess it does!

Sometimes the only medicine is a slap in the face. Thanks Marble... LOL!! It's Buddhist too. When someone walks around trumping everyone, acting like a total jerk, being hostile to everyone and thinks it's wisdom, sometimes you need to kick that person to try and get the message through. His ego might be too hard though to take it in?

My girlfriend keeps telling me about this, but I have football shaped eyeballs. I don't know if it's possible to change their shape? I have astigmatism and I just don't like to wear glasses so I don't and live in a blurry world.