Vajrahridaya

Very good, I was going to write something along those lines just now. Infinitude is potentiality. The universal cycles have existed since beginningless time, there never was a non-existence you could say.

I'm quite sure that you can quantify infinitely, without end.................................................................................................................................. I can keep dotting................................................. endlessly........................................... I'm using the word ambiguous too much lately. I should use the word "ominous"... a looming mystery... daunting and mind shattering!!

Way to contribute insult master! Or...... Grand Master Insulter has now entered the premise! Dun da da!!!

See this is what the Buddha avoided, ultimating an experience and calling it true, transcendent and self luminous. For a Buddhist, no experience is beyond dependent origination and all experiences can be explained through both the formula and understanding of dependent origination which is "right view" of the first of the 8 fold noble path. This type of mysterious ambiguity we consider part of the erroneous views or misinterpretations of meditative experiences.

I agree... perfectly understood without ambiguous new age excuses like, "You are already enlightened, you just don't know it!" Well if that we're true, by the very definition of enlightenment, I would know it! As when you enlighten a room, you can see everything clearly. So, when my inner being is fully enlightened, I can see that it is fully enlightened very clearly. No... we are not already Buddhas, we have the potential, just as a light switch has the potential to be turned on, but it takes the right tools, namely a brain, body and some fingers, as well as the right height to reach the switch, then lo and behold!! The room has been enlightened!! "I can see clearly now" the darkness is gone...!!! Warning: This is a metaphor and not to be taken for the real thing. You are spot on Sereneblue!! Spot on!

Not to a Buddhist. To a Buddhist, the Tao is part of a Samsaric view of the cosmos. Unless your just saying it's naming the process of things without being a source of things. But as Michaelz and I have pointed out, the Tao De Ching certainly makes it clear that it's being named an impersonal source of things, not a God per say, but a homogeneous source of all existence. So is actually a Samsaric interpretation of the cosmos according to Buddhism and thus not in alignment with the Buddhist goal of liberation from Samsara, so we avoid that mysterious ambiguity all together because its an understanding that lacks clarity. Now... we don't have to agree to get along. Matt proved that. So please. Smile and don't take things too personally. Even quietly call me ignorant inside yourself and arrogant, that's fine. But, just argue the point if you wish.

I read the entire post Matt! I loved it's honesty. Thank you for such a refreshing post! So nice... A true yogi's stance!

My existence is endlessly relative and never ultimate.

I never started the argument. My intention was simply to state how Buddhism differs from other belief systems. If you follow, you'll see that Stigweard started the argument and none of this had to happen if people didn't take my posts so personally. But, it did and I think some people got clarity from it all. Of course, some are just confused and others are angry. The subjective universe!! Samsara... Thank you.

The Tao De Ching say's the Tao is the source and mother of all things. What all you guys are saying is that this is a lie? It's a mistranslation? If it is the complete sum total of everything thought of and not thought of, and is the source and mother of all things. The center of the universe from which things spring and return to... Then what does that say? It is the reality of the real! To a Buddhist that is reification. It doesn't matter how mystical you guys want to be in your terminology, it lacks clarity and is ambiguous. If it's just "to be experienced" that's the same excuse as the Hindus make about Brahman. You can't think it, you have to be it... and all that jazz. You can have that jazz (abstract music), that's fine. I didn't bring up this thread as a Buddhism vs. Taoism thread, Stigweard made the first comment about superiority. I just stated how it was different from other paths. Peace. I sure did, you must not understand the answers then. I can't help you ralis, this is an ongoing problem of yours. I understand you, but you don't understand me. So be it. I didn't say that you said them, did I? Also... in Buddhism, we don't think that there is anything unknowable. All things have to do is be contextualized properly and they can be known, directly and even non-dualistically as free from thought elaboration.

Unlike Jesus or Lau Tzu. He actually put forth effort to establish a tradition with lay disciple rules of conduct and monastery rules of conduct with monks. He also laid down the teachings of walking meditation and sitting meditation as well as the different stages of meditation. He laid out the 4 noble truths, numbering things with even round numbers like the 8 fold noble path and elaborated on the meaning very clearly in different ways. He is quite unique in the fact that he actually was the religion that he taught people and it didn't spring up later after he died. He actually created the tradition single handedly and then the torch was passed to Ananda and Mahakashyapa as well as others. He certainly was a Buddhist. They are free from nihilism and eternalism. They elaborate on the flow of things. That things flow for ever and ever since beginningless time. We say that there is no illusion only delusional cognizance and wise cognizance. There are lots of outreach programs, but the most important outreach is to teach the dharma so that people can liberate themselves from the causes and conditions of suffering. The point of life is what you make of it, because our experience of life originates from our view of life which originates from our interpretation of life on conscious and subconscious levels. Some just will not understand though. So, there are perfectly good Theist paths that work well to raise capacity and lead to higher rebirth. Go follow Amma if you want some charity with very little nitty gritty spiritual teaching other than the greatness of loving everyone and selfless service. Which are great things and part of the immeasurables which are virtue trainings within Buddhism as well. Buddhism is concerned with teaching philosophy and methods so that people can unravel themselves and realize directly the nature of things. This is the highest form of charity!

Pretty sure that'll kill ya! Unless it's just a small charge, then you might end up like that kid in Phenomena.

But, I'm just using your own words and statements. I find it egotistical to limit people to your own perceived limitations. "If I don't know... how can that person know! How arrogant!" Do you see? I think you are on the wrong path if that is your goal. You should become a Christian. No... Buddhas know. I find that Buddhas know the most in fact with utter clarity. I've read Taoist texts, Christian mystics, Sufi's... on and on. Buddhism is the clearest. I haven't read the very, very secret Taoist texts. I also still use the I-Ching. I like Taoism. I just haven't found that it leads to the same absolute freedom from unconscious rebirth. Something you don't believe in to begin with. So we are playing on different fields of experience and questioning. See, I am self assured about topics many of you are ambiguous about. And because I'm self assured about things that you may not agree with, it's called, arrogance. But if you agreed with me or had the same findings and it accorded with your own logic, then arrogance would not even be experienced, you would experience happy agreement. But since you don't, my self assuredness is called arrogance. So be it!

That's wonderful!! Yes sure. But that's why I'm not Taoist. I like the path to knowing, not ambiguity. So it's the reality of all concepts and non-concepts... that's reify. From a Buddhist POV. If it's not real, but it's the mother of all things, then how are things tangible? Buddhism explains that things are tangible due to endless causation and grasping at makes things more and more frictional and tangible on an experiential level. Not that there is a single source beyond the manifest that manifests things. Yes, there is the formless potentiality that holds information in an unmanifest state that due to causes and conditions allows for future arising such as a big bang. But that is dependent and not an independent source of existence. It seems to me that you are giving independence to this center of the cosmos and that you are granting it the power of being the "source" of all things and the prime mover of all movement. Just as the Tao De Ching says. So... that sounds pretty ultimately real to me. Thus... it is a reification from a Buddhist POV.

We dissolve psychological suffering by seeing through everything. We don't stop experiencing things as they spontaneously arise, as in physical hardship, we just see the occurrences as luminous forms of the conscious realization of emptiness/dependent origination. So, we end up seeing Samsara as Nirvana through proper realization. We end up seeing all things as self liberated as they never truly were established to begin with. We just created habits of identity and preference due to misunderstanding of the nature of things. Now we accept things as they are and we flow with what happens without resistance and this is bliss. Since a Buddha sees causation, they see future effects and they see interconnectivity, so virtue naturally arises as does compassion so one benefits beings through expression naturally. A Buddha knows where he or she is going after death and they know what they were before they took on this life. No more unconscious rebirth and no more unconsciousness about the causes of this life. One is awake! The life that was suffering was due to not seeing correctly, but now that one does, there is no more psychological suffering. One has connected the dots. That's Buddhahood. I don't think it would be fruitful for me and you to continue this conversation, as you don't really care to learn about Buddhism. We are speaking two entirely different languages and you don't understand mine at all. Maybe others can talk in a way that leads you to understanding if they so wish to. If I can't speak clearly to you in the way that I know how to, then it's pointless to try right now. All the best.

The ultimate wisdom is merely seeing that all minds and things are simultaneously interdependent and inherently empty all the time. Cosmos as in the term universe is merely denoting a whole bunch of things that are connected, but universe does not have it's own life. It is merely a term designating a whole assortment of processes that connect. Calling the universe God would be like calling our solar system the God of our planet. Or calling the planet the God of all beings on the planet. Do you see what I'm saying? The part about infinite regress is stating that there is no rooftop concept as in a holistic Alpha that all things come from and that all things dissolve back into. For Buddhism, the Alpha of this universe is merely the results left over from the previous universe. So, there is no creator God, or single creator being. It's a circle, like A leading to Z actually leads back to A over and over again, without a primal cause. A primal cause is a rootop concept, like the Tao that is the mother of all beings, or Brahman which is the source of all existence. That would not hold true in Buddhist cosmology. The term Dharmakaya denotes the endless creative matrix of mutually dependent phenomena and is really just talking about emptiness. Yes, omniscience of the nature of things is part of Buddhist realization. To be awake in Buddhism which is what Buddhahood means, is to know that you know. So yes, it is different from Taoism in that it doesn't make excuses for ignorance. Buddhism says, you don't know now, but you can know if you practice the methodology and read the texts.

Yes, that's true. I don't find that the state of realization is the one true self supporting reality, but merely just the result of seeing through everything with the help of dependent origination/emptiness of all phenomena and consciousness. I'm also saying that there is not one single source for everything that was whole and complete at the beginning, which is what Taoism seems to be saying, somewhat like the impersonal Brahman of Vedanta. If that were so, then how do we have such suffering come from that which is already whole and complete? This was the Buddhas point in subverting the universal Self doctrine. That a whole bunch of lies cannot come from an ultimate Truth. Compassion is the result of seeing interconnectivity of dependent origination, so it as well originates dependently and is not self supporting or an essence of some sort. The positive aspects of the mind, such as generosity and compassion, as well as lucidity, illumination, wisdom... etc. are inherent only in as much as mind and all phenomena are inherently empty of inherent existence. Thus all this is also relative in as much as relativity is inherently empty, thus wisdom is ultimate in the constant seeing of the emptiness of the relative and is not a self standing ultimate as if Cosmos was not a sum of it's parts and no more than that. Cosmos is not it's own living entity, just like all the minds in the cosmos are not one living entity and they originate dependent upon all other dependently originated things add infinitum. Thus infinite regress and no roof top concept.

See, I also think that's valid. It's true that one can cultivate meditation while doing anything. But, to experience certain metaphysical truths, I think it's important to do conscious stillness exercise, like on a cushion with back straight and legs folded. But, some people who live their day in a meditative state, experience the jhana absorptions and experience the metaphysical truths of multidimensional experiencing when they go to bed. This is what my own Rinpoche does as his sitting practice is mostly just the chanting with mudra, which is a meditative focus, but he doesn't actually do Samatha for Jhana I don't think at least? But, he does dream yoga and gets all the meditative experiences throughout the night.

I don't believe that all these teachers are or were fully liberated and could actually use some methodology to get further down their rabbit hole. Also, a teacher is only going to teach according to how he or she got to wherever they are. I for one think it's highly necessary. The Buddha I think said to a disciple that he should practice more vipassana than jhana? But, people need different things at different times and only an objective Buddha would know exactly what for who and when. But, I personally recommend meditation for every single person on planet Earth.

Not everyone shares your opinion Ralis. So, why hold so tightly to your position as law for anyone other than yourself? Also... I wonder why you take it upon yourself to try to change me on a personal level? I also wonder why I offend you so much? You are so effected Ralis. I wonder about the state of your mind. Using Taoism for poker? I don't take you seriously at all because you do nothing but insult me and insinuate tones in your transcribing of my words that weren't a part of my intentions to begin with. "Those Iraqis"? Only a few exceptional intellects? Saying that I call myself superior? Why should I take any of your advice seriously Ralis? You should stick to your practice and ignore me, that way you'd suffer less.

Besides Kashmir Shaivism and Bon which are heavily influenced by Vajrayana and Dzogchen, Taoism is probably the closest thing to Tantric Buddhism while having entirely different roots. Thanks for that story Yoda... I dig your vibe! May the force stay strong with you.

I meant in regards to Buddhism, nothing else. He was the first to regard the Buddhist doctrine as superior to all others. I don't believe him to be right, I know him to be right. That's Theravada, not Mahayana. All questions can be answered according to Mahayana. Who said I was superior? It seems that there are those that do understand. Why should I write like others? Not everyone understands everyone. It should be in alignment with what historical Masters have said. So, the experience should reveal a truth that is interpersonal and not just totally subjective. Don't be offended by my opinions. Everyone who doesn't understand me seems to wish I were dead. Not you of course, but some others here. I just find that Taoism does not reveal the same clarity because it does not have the same clarity.

How? As a Buddhist, I want to not have any more unconscious rebirths and have no more psychological suffering, ever, ever again. No it doesn't. This arises because of that, and that arises because of that other... so on and so forth. The power of causation is not some eternal will, but causation itself without beginning. Because of this, that arises, because of that, this arises. That is dependent origination add infinitum. This shows that there is no stand alone self, this shows interconnectivity, this shows the reason for compassion, compassion is the way out of negative karma, the way out of negative karma is the way out of suffering. God as a creator says what about the cause of suffering? In Buddhism, the first of the 8 fold noble path is right view, which is understanding dependent origination, which is seeing past a primal cause. Then you meditate and integrate one's experiences with that view. Thus one doesn't fall into the trap of eternalism, which is the theistic view. Saying there is a single essence to all this that all arises from and returns too. That means there is not really any free will and only one Self of all. No, your just not understanding the meaning of the question. If God is the substratum of all things, then when all phenomena dissolve at the end of the universe, then you will just dissolve into this God, to be what? Your really a beginner at this. I'm afraid you won't accept me telling you this. Your not even at a level of understanding our context here. Like a first grader watching college kids figure out math problems. So... I suffer because he wills it. Great! All my problems are his. There being some eternal source makes no sense to a Buddhist and does not answer the question of why we suffer, experience old age, and die as individuals. Actually, your just doing what I said you do. Project your own experiential limitations onto others. I actually do know. I've done lots of meditation and have seen directly what is happening on a level beyond the 5 senses and their created tools. It can be interpreted to a degree of Theism akin to as deep as Hinduism goes, or one can go deeper by understanding first "right view" in the 8 fold noble path of Buddhism and have a different context for meditative experience and liberate from this single will that holds us all to the cycle of birth and death over and over again, universe after universe. To suffer, play, and have pleasure, only to die and be reborn unconsciously. I've broken that pattern thank you very much. I actually know what I'm talking about and know that I know what I'm talking about!! This is the cause for lots of happiness!!

It's ok, you are new to Buddhism and have probably never read Nagarjuna, one of the forefathers of Mahayana. Emptiness does not mean nothingness, it means dependent origination. Here's some Nagarjuna... Nagarjuna on Wiki. Please be patient and give yourself some time to read this all the way through. Nagarjuna is critical in the development of Buddhist logic. He is considered a second Buddha by most of the worlds Buddhist practitioners. If you read this, you will have a better context for understanding the premise of this thread. Dependent origination means no static essence which means empty of inherent existence. This means the self is relative to all existents and does not stand on it's own. Neither does the cosmos, as it's merely the sum of it's parts. Really you calling Michaelz statement dumb is actually quite wrong, because you actually didn't understand what he meant by emptiness. Emptiness in Buddhism means all things have relative existence and no ultimate existence, or are "empty" of ultimate existence and only exist relative to beginningless causation. No, the only problem is you not understanding our syntax. All phenomena are dependently originated and without self essence. No, you don't understand the meaning of our words because we are coming from a different paradigm. Like the other side of the train tracks has an entirely different social system that you would not be able to understand unless you grew up there. What we are saying is that saying that everything has a single cause, is that all things are under one will, and that all suffering can be blamed on one being, so no free will. If there is only one Self of all, and this is God, the creator of all, then all my suffering is his or her fault, and I can only submit to his or her will and at the end of the universe, I will dissolve back into that being. There is no liberation in this conception according to a Buddhist. This is bondage. So... we as Buddhists have the solution. You as a theist are bound by a problem that is a misunderstanding of how the universe works. Because you don't understand our syntax, doesn't mean that we do not. You need some context. Study some Buddhism. It is a huge paradigm shift.

Endless regression is not the problem, it's the solution. Beginningless infinite regression and endless infinite progression. That's emptiness of dependent origination which is the ALL. There is no independent originating. Which is the concept of God. Then what will happen to you when all perceivable phenomena dissolve? beginningless regress. Not for us that see personal causation transcending limited lifetime birth and rebirth past the beginning of this universe. As in... past the big bang and see the big crunch and the big bang, and the big crunch and the big bang. The formless potentiality which is repressed processing abilities and bodies, manifest into unmanifest through identity to a mysterious will of all, is the cause of crunch time. The ending of the holding energy based upon intention of union with a homogeneous ground of all, as in the end of that karmic grasping to a blissful formless, conceptless union, is the cause of the big bang. When all this unconscious springs forth seemingly propelled from no-where! But it was really suppressed and unrealized potentiality from the last here. Glad to hear! No, it's not... because it picks apart the ignorance that thinks there is one thing causing all this. It see's infinite regress is cosmos as not a problem, but the solution.