Vajrahridaya

Oh... we remain in it, there's nothing else. We do manifest a pure realm where we usher beings into a place beyond the conditioned universe where the manifestations are based upon the unconditioned consciousness of a Buddha and endless merit accumulations, where beings can experience freedom and the teachings in a state of free, unattached bliss. But, we also through the realization of our Dharmakaya body, project through our merit energy body of Sambhogakaya, endless gross merit bodies or Nirmanakaya's into endless Samsaric realms, much like the Dhalai Lama and other highly realized Tulku's. We enjoy, while being free from it. We completely liberate from the possibility of unconscious rebirth and unconscious re-absorption.

We don't identify the open state of meditation, where one experiences the empty void of consciousness, known as one of the 4. formless jhanas/samadhis where time, things and gross or "refined spiritual" manifestations are suppressed for a time in quiescent focus, as an ultimate Self of the Universe. This is not the Buddha's teaching.

We don't consider the realization of a universal Self as the same as our ultimate unconditioning. We still see this as a very subtle condition which leads to recycling.

See what a Taoist would have to understand if they were to understand Buddhism, is that we as Buddhists seek liberation from the recycling oneness of Tao. The natural flow of Tao to us is just the identification with a universal habit energy that has perpetuated itself since beginningless time. Thus liberation for us is liberation from this universal substance, called by many names, but is one. So, we don't seek union with anything in that sense.

One thing that Brahman based spirituality needs to understand if they wish to understand Buddhism at all, is that we seek to be free from the blissful oneness that recycles us over and over again, universe after universe, which we consider a universal habit energy of joint consensus of endless Samsaric beings. So no, Buddhism is not part of the Hindu religions, because we don't seek ultimate oneness. This is not our version of the non-dual experience. We seek complete freedom from the substance of universal Self.

Your mind becomes more objective about itself and phenomena, and walls of perception that were hindered by the 5 senses seem to fall away opening up an entirely new luminous world of perception, where everything is not as the 5 senses deemed them to be. It is the start of the experiential usurpation of the court of bodily identification.

It's actually good that there are people on any sort of spiritual path at all. That's worth commending...

Could be. What is this spirit? What's it made of?

A holy man who's reference for action far transcends our limited notions may act within societal conventions, or may act outside of them, depending... So, at times a holy man may act in way's that fly completely in the face of our pre-conceived ideas of what it is to be a "holy man". As in what's appropriate may not always conjoin with our notions.

I wasn't thinking of the Nirvana sutra at all, I was thinking direct insight. The body manifests as a result of thoughts being completely reified through ignorance, and there is a kind of balance between illumination and veiling, thus the workable density of this realm. When the thinker of the effect that is the body dies from the higher realm as those karmas are exhausted, they manifest into this realm if that is the so destiny through the body that has been manifested through evolution based upon their thoughts projecting from another realm, either consciously as a Buddha taking birth to help people, or generally speaking, totally unconsciously as most all people and sentient beings on Earth. If this is a creation myth to you... so be it. That's what happens.

I is both a result of the karma of endless cravings for existence and the receptor of karma as one brings together experiences into a firm identity from birth through life, generally undergoing reactions from previous actions in previous lives in this life as the constructing factor for this new form of an "I", i.e. the parents you are born with and the circumstances that be-fall you seemingly out of your hands, are actually being attracted to you due to cause and effect, causation transcending and preceding this life. If you don't identify with an I, you don't grasp at anything, and everything just flow's, because you haven't centered anything into a stuck construct, you see all interconnectivity because there are no more wall's based on an "I". You're actions transcend subject vs. object in a non-substantial sense and you are flowing seemingly individually with the entirety of the endlessness of the whole flow without calling that a self either, or an "I", in an appropriate manor that is reflective of the highest virtue because your taking in the entirety as you don't have this identity with limited thoughts and experiences anymore and you that you reify as "my self". So, have no identity there-in that is deemed a permanent structure, only an appropriate reflection of infinity in every moment. So, you don't have this... "reified I", you have transcended karma even while karma continues to do it's thing. What you read was a black and white absolutism into a relative, which is why you didn't understand the context of the statement. It's not that having no "I" completely takes away karma, but rather it takes away one's identity with karma and thus one is free from karma. So for a being who is liberated, there is no more karma, just liberated energy in action. Only Nishkam Karma is left, but you yourself don't see it as that really, only others do so that they can learn from you as you are now a teaching body, a Buddha. We basically have an I of no I as a Buddha. There is calming centered-ness referencing infinity from within, but from without, there is just action that is reflective of the need of the moment without attachment to the fruit of the action, just pure focus on the moment without attachment to the past as a wall for being and without fear of the future as a wall for being, just flow. But, internally, through the intuition of dependent origination, one has the constant realization that there is no "I", thus no "karma" as well. Total liberation while in action.

The brain is produced from the mind as it descends into density. Mythological? It actually talks about it in a way that makes perfect sense within the scope of how consciousness densifies through a process of attachment and solidified identity. Yet, the body and the brain are short lived while being the result of the previous thoughts of previous bodies either solid in the sense that we feel solidity or other realms of conditioning that are not so dense. To understand would take an ability to see beyond merely thinking from a , "I was born and I will die"... state of logic. You will have to logically understand riencarnation and other realms of experience in order to see what the Buddhist and even Hindu logic talk about when it comes to the fact that mind is subtler than brain. Otherwise you'll just be stuck in the circle of mind is born of body and dies with the body. It doesn't make sense and seems to be a flaw because you don't accept the fact of other lives and other dimensions of conscious experience that may either be more dense than this realm, or less dense than this realm as in higher or lower realms of existence. Much of what Buddhism points to, won't make sense at all to a Western logician who strictly identifies with conditioned view's on body functionality and 5 sense limitations there-in. What do you want me to say... the immaterial births the material in order to channel itself into 3 dimensional experience to this middle land of Earth degree, not the other way around. You'd also have to have an understanding of the chakras. The body is created by electricity from a certain perspective, and it creates electricity, that can be channeled through another body that is created by electricity. They are interdependent, this immaterial experience and material experience. But, even if the wires that channel electricity wither and decay, the electricity still is electricity, maybe dwindles into the air, but mind is much subtler than merely this metaphor.

The brain is the result of mind, not the other way around. You can read, "Kunjed Gyalpo" (All Creating King, or... "The Supreme Source") where it talks about how mind descends into physicality to the degree that we experience it here on Earth.

Yes, because you do... I can clearly see the dirt.

No, there is only the relative self. Your going to have to completely let go of your subjective viewing and see Buddhism from it's own side. The subtle differences are the meat and potatoes of why Buddhism does not accept the Vedas and Vedanta as authoritative. There's no way around it. Buddhism is different and doesn't lead to the same truth as Vedanta. You can say that we are wrong, but that's not the same as saying that you are right in your assumption that we are talking about the same ultimate reality that you are. Our two truths does NOT mean the same thing as your two truths. There is relative truth that all things are interdependent, and then there is the ultimate truth that all things are inherently empty. That still does not reify an ultimate Self of all.

Hindu propaganda.

People just starting going off and arguing... If you read my post, I actually didn't mention it at first at all. Then someone mentioned that the absolute truth was a great blackness that permeated everything. I was compelled to say something about that and mentioned Buddhist thought say's something like this... then an avalanche started... So anyway... whatever... you guys are getting way to offended...

I'm actually not dogmatic. Rather, I just see that Buddhism teaches an ultimate wisdom that no other path seems to teach. I had my wrestling match with Taoism, as it seemed to also teach the same here and there. But, I realized that this was wrong and yes, Buddhism is the only path that teaches this particular ultimate wisdom. All other paths have plenty of endless conventional wisdoms related to life that parallel Buddhist wisdom, so there is no dogma. Just that Buddhism is the only one that teaches no essence, no ultimate identity that is shared by all beings that stands on it's own light. No ultimate universal substratum. Buddhism is the only path that teaches dependent origination to such a degree of scrutiny as to completely eradicate the ultimate conclusions of other religions and paths. My Dogmatic Hinduism was that all paths lead to the same destination, that we are all touching one elephant from many sides, that we are all bubbles in one ocean that all religions point to the same moon. What all you guys seem to be thinking. Buddhism is the only path that does not believe that, so is at odds with all the New Age, all religions are teaching the same thing through different words idealization. So, I was on the Buddhist site telling them that they were dogmatic and I was open minded because I believed that we all came from one supreme source and that we all return to it at the end of the universe, when everything goes crunch. I believed that the big bang was the single primal cause and the big crunch was the coming back into that single, primal cause. This was my dogma. Now, I don't have a dogma, I just see that all religions lead to higher rebirth and greater capacity so that one day they can realize what Buddhism teaches, even if on another planet, under another name. Buddhism merely means, "awake-ism"... That's it.

I said mostly. Also, there are direct causes for me bringing it up. true I think it's you who has tunnel vision because we keep saying that yes, we do exist relative to infinite causes and conditions, but we don't ultimately exist. As in we don't exist due to our own essence, we are not permanent, also we are ever changing thus our self is not a permanent fixture either. It's all convention. Stop seeing black and white and you will have an understanding. You say you see shades of grey but all your interpretations of the Buddha speak is so absolutist as if that is how we are seeing things. Of course you exist, relatively. We've said that many, many times. Yes, we exist relatively, not absolutely. independently originated? No... that doesn't make any sense. Your not that dense... are you? dependently originated, inter-dependently originated, co-dependently originated, co-dependent-arising, mutual-co-arising. Thus, we exist relative to an infinite chain of causation.

All times are available for liberation now that the Buddha has spoken the Sananta Dharma since 650 B.C. Before that there were solitary realizers, but after that, millions of realizers and in groups. The Buddha, the great muni, gave us all a blessing. Now, I can experience the potential that he realized through my own mind and my own realization of the nature of this moment.

Nope, just simplifying.