Vajrahridaya

I have and have studied some. I rather enjoy some of the texts from Zen. Yes indeed. It actually comes from Dhyan and then becomes Chan in Chinese, then Zen in Japanese, so it goes from India to China, then to Japan. Dhyan means meditation. Yes a bit. Good! Sure, as in everywhere... Actually it's based on meditation and insight... Jhana and Vipassana. As far as I can tell most other traditions are based on only Jhana as Vipassana means basically applied insight of dependent origination and Jhana is just absorption and most paths use contemplation of the experiences of absorption without dependent origination as it is elaborated by the Buddha. Or definitions can be explanations of the meaning of experiences through word form. The Buddha was quite adamant that meditation alone wouldn't do it, that insight or "right view" was needed before meditation even, otherwise one might get over excited about a meditative experience and think it an experience of ultimate reality. This is why Vipassana is very important. It's a process for sure... Well... this is interesting... But, see, without Vipassana, one gets too excited about the meditative experience and starts thinking that it's the real Self of all. This would not hold under Buddhist scrutiny. But, keep meditating, why not? Feels nice... eh? I like the intention of the whole poem though, that realization of the nature of mind is possible through meditation. It's just I don't know exactly what you mean by Self though...? That's a tricky word. I'm not sure about your interpretive conclusions?

Wiki page to Dark Crystal, Jim Henson.

Whatever evolves you is the best...

Ah... a very good place and time to be alive! Wow...

Vajrayana is more like Taoism than Chinese forms of Buddhism. Taoism is also secretive about their practices and only give practices to students who are ready to move on up. There was no real war before the Chinese invasion only talks. The Tibetans hadn't really been at war for over a 1000 years. Though there have always been skirmishes. Also, if you look at Shaivite Tantra, it's the same way... secretive... Because you have to have understanding as well as experiential readiness before you can take on certain practices... otherwise you will just not understand and yes... possibly go crazy. You have to learn how to swim in the shallow end before you swim in the deep end, and then you have to master that before you swim in the ocean... right? Otherwise you'll just drown. Just because you don't understand Vajrayana doesn't mean others do not. Don't limit us by your limitations. Vajrayana is Tantra. In China... your mostly learning Mahayana Buddhism, not Vajrayana. Mahayana is easier to just learn, as it's largely just sutra and meditation. Tantra is different, not to mention Dzogchen which will make you even crazier if your not ready for it. Get it or not... that doesn't matter, there will be plenty that do. Those that do are those that really understand Mahayana to a deeply experiential degree. Even some Theravadin Masters can read Dzogchen and go... oh yeah.. I get it! Because it's not different in essence from the Theravada, it's just explained from the perspective of the experience of what is taught in the different yana's. It's always coming from the perspective of the fruit of the practice, instead of the practice itself. We take up the goal of the practice as the practice.

The Buddha reached the level of neither perception nor non-perception through having a physical guru. Which is the very highest state of meditative absorption... it's the space that Vedantins and the Upanishadin's consider the end all be all, the start of things, the end of things... the space of the lord of all. He went off on his own because he intuitively felt that there was something deeper. He explains later that he found an ancient path, and not anything new. He also say's that there were wheel turning Buddhas on Earth before him. He also said in Mahayana Sutras that he had already realized the path in a higher realm and came down here to just go through the motions in order to have the karmas to show the path as a wheel turning Buddha. Basically, he consciously planned the whole thing. Which is why he had such a design for creating a path that was clear and accessible to all sorts of different mental developments. In a previous life he had a Guru. Plenty of Hindu Saints say this too, the ones that are supposedly born highly realized that they had Guru's in past lives... These are rare beings. Tibetan Vajrayana is set up so that it doesn't matter if your already enlightened from past lives, you will have a Guru in this life and many of them maybe... just because conventional reflections of the nature of enlightenment is endless really. So, even being enlightened is just coming from a state where you can learn endlessly from the space of no more psychological suffering. That, it's all just new reflections of "eureka" experiencing.

See, that won't matter if one has the right view, the first step on the 8 fold noble path. It's not that we don't have the experiences, it's just that we contextualize them differently. We don't interpret the experience of the Self as the Self. To put it simply. There is no deeper experience to be had that will compound an identification with an experience in meditation or otherwise, if one firmly understands dependent origination on an intuitive level.

Ah see now this makes sense. I've heard that about Native American practice, it must be the Hopi's or the Navajo's... as they seem to be some of the more enlightened tribes. There are many tribes and not all of the Native American tribes are all that spiritual. Now, if the Tao just means seeing the wholeness of the flow without reification of a supreme identity... then... that's like saying it's the Dharma. But, I see quotes that seem to reify it as some sort of supreme source of all being, some sort of substratum, rather than just the realization of all interconnected phenomena.

Ah, it might help. Of course, my interpretation of book 1 comes from lots of other sources, including inner, but supported by outer. I appreciate your interest though. Vedanta doesn't preach that conventional knowledge stops at the realization of the godhead, but they do preach that realization of the Self of all is the end all be all of transmigration. Which makes no sense when you look at their cosmology which suggests that at the end of the cosmic eon, all is re-absorbed back into the one godhead. So... how is that eternal liberation for an individual? They basically say that liberation is a realization that all is already just one being, and that at the end of the cosmic eon, all beings realize that they are just one being and merge back into one being... only to what? Sit in a formless bliss for a while, then re-express as another cosmos once again to do the whole cycle over? This is exactly why the Buddha said that the path of the Veda's was not the path to total liberation from Samsara. Also, Nagarjuna was very clear when he said that the paths of Theists leads to the edge of Samsara, but not to the complete realization of Nirvana.

Well, the Buddha actually just said in the local language that he was "Awake". Then people just started calling him the awake one, "Buddha", and that caught on I guess. So, he didn't really say anything about being enlightened in the sense that we usually consider it. He just said that he didn't sleep anymore in the sense that normal people do. Awake I would suppose means 24/7 awareness without a break into any sense of unconsciousness? I'm sure he was being completely humble when he said that he was awake.

I use scripture in order to show that I'm not lying or making up my own Buddhism. Scripture just validates my experiential insight for others in writing, and for me personally as I don't want to mis-interpret an experience that I might have or an insight that I might stumble upon, I wish to see what the historical Buddhas have had to say about such things. Also, what you said about having that thought in the mind about, "I exist", is actually what it is, since the mind is dependently originated out of endless causes and conditions, parents, and previous parents, and previous parents, as well as your parents, parents... so you have your mind streams history as well as your physical history coming together, all just reflective of dependent origination. Then the mind has these really deep experiences based upon meditative absorption and focus techniques, and then this dependently originated mind goes... "OH, That's my Self!!" but really it's just a dependently originated experiencing, having another type of relative experiencing, maybe seemingly beyond concepts, but non-the-less, beyond concepts is just the flip side of concepts and vice versa, both are interdependent, like yin and yang. So, formless infinite concepts, are just the flip side of formed finite concepts. So, to mistake an experience as the SELF as the Vedantin's do, is considered a mis-interpretation of experience according to Buddhism. This is both direct insight and scripturally supported... thank you very much.. have a wonderful day!! Free from attachment to, "I" and "Mine"...

Dwai, What your not understanding is that, it's not that we Buddhists stop having such experiences that you call the Self, it's that we view the experience differently, we interpret it differently, thus handle the experience differently. Because it's not the experience that's in the way of liberation, it's the reification and deification of the experience that leads to re-absorption and recycling at the end of a cosmic eon. It's because we study the right view as presented by the Buddha that we don't make the mistake of attaching self identity to a transcendent experience. We consider the experience that you consider Turiya and transcendent true Self as a subtle phenomena, and nothing more. We also experience the bliss of Turiya, but we interpret it differently and we don't reify it as the meaning of life. Which is what Vedanta does, thus get's stuck in some sort of rooftop self definition.

This is craving for existence, the subtlest veil. This is positive Eternalism, an extreme and another subtle veil. I've read Bhratrihari, pretty cool, but still Eternalism and not as nuanced as Abhidharma. You could say the same to a mirror.

Wow, that's awesome!!

We do practice visualisations, but only in order to change the way we see images and colors. We practice complex forms of visualisation coupled with contemplations merging the images with an inner feeling of seeing all beings as Buddhas, and seeing things as reflections of the state of mind of Buddhahood. It's quite complicated these teachings. One can read many books on this, but one also needs pointing out instructions from a qualified Master who has done silent retreats and has experienced the fruit of such retreat. We never reify as a static self though. This is a very beautiful video on the type of yoga we do as Buddhists, with a short introduction from a master of this particular system who is also my main Rinpoche, there are many systems of Buddhist yoga... Here's another system, this is a more hard core system and this might blow your mind a bit... Here's a Westerner performing some of the same postures that you just saw above... Some White Boy Trulkor Some Russians performing Tibetan Trained Tummo - Very Secret.... Another one that is very beautiful and I highly recommend with interviews of highly realized yogis... Yogi's of Tibet Part 1 of 8 Here's a good video about the Yogi's of Tibet...

That amount that allows you to function in the world, but not get caught up in the ever changing appearances. so, that amount that allows for wisdom in action.

Brain dead!! That's what people sometimes think of me when I'm in meditation... "what, is he brain dead?", "Is he a vegetable?" Did goldisheavy every consider himself wrong? Dwai won't be able to ever consider his path wrong, even for a moment because his whole identity is wrapped up in it, having been born a Brahmin with family ties to real Advaitin lineage. If he were even to consider the possibility that his path is wrong in the assertion all paths lead to the same truth, he would have to consider that maybe it's wrong in other assertions as well. So even though it's been proven over and over again through quotes from the Buddha, from the Nikaya to Mahayana that Buddhism takes on an entirely different interpretation of the nature of Cosmos. That liberation is caused by an entirely different set of rules if one is to be considered liberated in Buddhism. He will not admit that this truth is valid. He will say, this is all a misinterpretation, even though the words were not really up for interpretation much like calling a white egg, a white egg was dependent upon an interpretation of vision, rather than the mere fact of having the ability to see. It's quite obvious to those that are Buddhist with any sense of learning, because we don't have to orient our view with the Vedas which say, "I am one but my manifestations are many". Also they say, "The paths are many, but the goal is one". He can't see that Buddhism and Hinduism are coming from two entirely different points of reasoning because long ago they already assumed that the Buddha was an incarnation of Vishnu, even though he said in no uncertain terms that he was not a god. Anyway...

Right, I understand, that's quite similar to the approach of cosmos that Vedanta has in calling everything modifications of the unchanging Brahman. This view is what the Buddha called, Eternalism and it's considered an extreme. Buddhism is the middle path beyond the extreme views of Eternalism and Nihilism. So yes, this has been refuted by the Buddha since the very first turning of the wheel. Well be!

It was a Vietnamese monks protest of the Vietnam war. I've seen the actual video.

Marblehead, You completely re-contextualized it, showing the relativity of it's definition. When the offender's intention is merely discussion and not to offend at all, but the reader is offended, creating a reaction out of subjective reading, it is NOT the fault of the writer that the reader is offended when the written declares no intention on the side of the writer to offend. Of course, this is not always the case, sometimes I do like to get sarcastic and express how foolish I think someone is being. But, not outright, mostly it's only after post after post of being insulted in no uncertain terms. Anyway... my point was within a particular context and not within the context that you were ascribing to it, which is also true and correct.

Nagarjuna will not be understood by reading hindu interpretations as they don't read everything that Nagarjuna taught. They read subjectively and only partially because they don't want to admit that Nagarjuna was vehemently clear when he said that if there was anything in the universe not empty, that too should be emptied, even emptiness is empty of inherent existence. The Shunya of Shunyata. Which is why Shunyata can never be something that one can superimpose a categorical framework over. Shunyata does not exist like that in Buddhism. For Nagajuna his major teaching was that there was absolutely no Self to the universe, that there was absolutely no essence behind things that transcended the all. Just as the Buddha said. The all is defined by dependent origination and the Buddha said that if anyone were to teach that there was anything beyond this, that person would be wrong. Also, Hindu's enjoy misinterpreting Nagarjunas two truths teaching of Nagarjuna. Nagarjunas two truths have to do with dependent origination and emptiness, that conventionally, things relatively exist, but ultimately speaking they do not inherently exist and without understanding these two truths, the Buddha's doctrine cannot be understood, which is why Vedantin's don't understand Buddhism. Because of attachment to an ultimate subject of all, it makes it very hard to be free from subjective thinking and projection of one's self definition onto everything. It's kind of an all subsuming view that is inherent in the Vedic texts and interpretation of cosmos. Which is why the Buddha said the main obstacle for gods was pride and attachment to existence which they reify through their metaphysical doctrines. Nagarjuna taught that there is no ultimate Self to the universe, there is only dependent origination and relative selves, which are inherently empty. Which is why Nagarjuna taught this... Philosophy Nāgārjuna's primary contribution to Buddhist philosophy is in the further development of the concept of śūnyatā, or "emptiness," which brings together other key Buddhist doctrines, particularly anatta (no-self) and pratītyasamutpāda (dependent origination). For Nāgārjuna, it is not merely sentient beings that are empty of ātman; all phenomena are without any svabhāva, literally "own-nature" or "self-nature", and thus without any underlying essence; they are empty of being independent. This is so because they are arisen dependently: not by their own power, but by depending on conditions leading to their coming into existence, as opposed to being. (This also applies to experiences both in meditation and mundane experiences) Nāgārjuna was also instrumental in the development of the two-truths doctrine, which claims that there are two levels of truth in Buddhist teaching, one which is directly (ultimately) true, and one which is only conventionally or instrumentally true, commonly called upāya in later Mahāyāna writings. Nāgārjuna drew on an early version of this doctrine found in the Kaccāyanagotta Sutta, which distinguishes nītārtha (clear) and neyārtha (obscure) terms - By and large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by a polarity, that of existence and non-existence. But when one reads the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one reads the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. "By and large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), and biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view. "'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle..."[6] Nāgārjuna differentiates between saṃvṛti (conventional) and paramārtha (ultimately true) teachings, but he never declares any to fall in this latter category; for him, even śūnyatā is śūnya--even emptiness is empty. For him, ultimately, nivṛttam abhidhātavyaṃ nivṛtte cittagocare| anutpannāniruddhā hi nirvāṇam iva dharmatā||7 The designable is ceased when the range of thought is ceased, For phenomenality is like nirvana, unarisen and unstopped. This was famously rendered in his tetralemma with the logical propositions: X, not X, X and not X, neither X nor not X. Nagarjuna also taught the idea of relativity; in the Ratnavali, he gives the example that shortness exists only in relation to the idea of length. The determination of a thing or object is only possible in relation to other things or objects, especially by way of contrast. He held that the relationship between the ideas of "short" and "long" is not due to intrinsic nature (svabhāva). This idea is also found in the Pali Nikayas and Chinese Agamas, in which the idea of relativity is expressed similarly: "That which is the element of light ... is seen to exist on account of [in relation to] darkness; that which is the element of good is seen to exist on account of bad; that which is the element of space is seen to exist on account of form."[7] For more on Nāgārjuna's philosophy, see Mūlamadhyamakakārikā.

It is necessary, but I don't think you understand what inherent existence means? Do you? This is what inherent existence means and this is why it's important to refute. It seems to you that the Tao has inherent existence? So, as a Buddhist it's refuted... But that's not inherent existence, that's relative existence. Sure that's one way which leads to a good level of peace. But Buddhism goes all the way and say's that unhappiness arises from the attachment to self period, because we realize that death is not the end of one's self experiencing, where you disagree. So, we create a philosophy upon a very different premise, that death does not truly exist, it's only a relative appearance. Right which is why the Buddha gave us the 8 fold noble path which is a self applied solvent of suffering. Yes, if one is serious about removing psychological suffering, it will take one's entire life generally speaking, even if one has done lots of work in previous lives. So, most people don't really take up the path, because it takes too long, and most will just try to fill there time with pleasures and avoid as much displeasure as possible. Ah, but life always brings spills and thrills.

That's not true. We all would agree that the light bulb is dependently originated and inherent empty and is only relatively existent.

Real happiness is the natural side effect of living in the experiential understanding of the nature of life. When one knows how life works, then one's liberated because your not bound by projections of hopes and fantasies, your happy to just be a part of the flow. Your not trying to find a happiness that is built upon a fantasy of how things should be, but rather your happiness is of how things actually are, right now, always.