Vajrahridaya

In the Upanishads there is a statement that says, "He who knows, knows not and those that know, do not know" Which is basically saying that the act of an enlightened being is not predicated upon the idea, "I am doing this"... it's just the natural progression of the flow, the natural process of expression as a whole, a dynamic of the cosmic doing which this seeming I is merely a participant or aspect of. Basically... The impetus is not predicated upon ego. At the same time... in order to manifest the pathway of expression, one must during the practice of the way, build the impressions of expressions in order to have that gift upon the re-alignment of I with Cosmos, when it's at this point the Cosmos through me and not I against the Cosmos. As naturally speaking about the nature of the ability to even speak is the best way to occupy time and the greatest gift one could offer time. Wow... I could actually palpably feel the meditation in that room, just by opening up the intention to put a smiley face in there... I could really feel it. Then I wanted to say so on the room, then I wanted to figure out a way to do so with smilies... but figured... eh... nice! It's interesting that Ghandi said sanatana dharma, because that term was first used in the Dhammapada in reference to Buddhism long before the Advaitins started using it. What's also interesting is that the Hinduism that Ghandi practiced was not even in existence pryer to the Buddha, as most all of the Upanishads and yogic teachings are post Buddha. Even the Bhagavad Gita is considered a later, post Buddha addition to the Mahabharata by certain Anthropological finds. Anyway... not saying anything. Gotta love Ghandi! A good Vedantin indeed.

See Buddhism see's the manifest is on many levels, including levels that would be deemed Casperish to you. But, the Buddhist goal is never to attain unmanifestness. It's to realize what the nature of everything is and just continue to be through it without identification with limitations that are of it. Really Buddhism is about how better to hear and dance, and to see and co-create. Really, that's what Buddhism is truly about when it comes down to it's final teachings. There really is only relativity and how best to be liberated while experiencing and doing... is really the sole of the shoe. Before this big bang was only the end or big crunch of the previous universe. The manifest and the mystery are not dichotomous realities. The two truths of ultimate and relative don't have two distinct locations as Yo and Wu, and Yin and Yang are merely description of the one Tao that is everything. He's just being humble.

Enlightenment is felt faster by the one with the open heart, but understood for longer if that open heart is balanced and tempered by the mental comprehension. Mind and heart really aren't separate from the spiritual point of view though, ya know? There is designation only for the sake of endless elaborating... This is why the Buddha merely laid out the way nature works... "dependent origination", that every perspective, every experience, every truth or Truth, every explanation originate dependent upon causes and conditions which are themselves dependently originated add infinitum, and that upon looking at it deeply, nothing real or substantial is found, thus the endless possibility of this ever flowing interdependency that is nature was called by him... "emptiness." Which is merely the quality of things and experiences that allows for transformation and none static-ness. It's called The Dharma, or "The Path" Which is pretty similar to saying, "The Way" or Tao. As I get more and more intimate with what you Taoists are saying.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." The experience of being a Buddha is not confined by any system of explanation. But the best boat to that shore of Buddhahood is the boat built by a Buddha.

It was a bit of a subjective rendering of the Gospel of Thomas though. You did kind of change the words a bit here and there to suit your intention. I do agree with you about society and the powers that be, the shadow government that rules from behind the veil of, "We The People", when it's really, "We Control The People". With distractions done with the left hand and not telling the left hand what the right hand is doing, they're swindling our power for independent thought. Though, I do feel that one does not have to be internally effected by this. I feel that the best revenge is to really enjoy one's life without falling for the "happiness through material" ploy, though at the same time, there is nothing inherently wrong with enjoying the toys of this Earth, as long as one see's all of it's transparency and... From the Gospel of Thomas... 56 Jesus said, "Whoever has come to know the world has discovered a carcass, and whoever has discovered a carcass, of that person the world is not worthy." Don't take the outer play too seriously Magitek as my signature say's when you look under this...

People who start jumping down my throat are generally coming from a perspective that doesn't reflect a wholistic view of interpretation. There are certain experiences that happen to one that are a reflection of objective application of dependent origination that are liberating and reflective of insight. They lead to translucence... Prajna, and not marigpa. Other religions reflect a certain capacity for wisdom that may be limited but part of the step up for a personal rate of evolution. Like I said above. Also, the wisdom gained shows a wholistic view but not a mis-apprehension of reality based upon a dogma. Rather one see's the relativity of it all and doesn't damn other's from other religions, but rather just sees the limitations and where it fits in the 31 realms chart of progression, which is also relative as everyone is interpreting individually and experientially these concepts in subtlety nuanced ways. Uh hu... and only a Buddha is truly objective about it. Which may come off as subjective to you, and that's your subjective interpretation. I was just quoting literally what you or ralis said. Not a thing I feel. Of course, if I can't communicate dharma to anyone and bring anyone to the water of clarity. Then, I'd be quite the looser bodhisattva. Eh... it doesn't bother me really. I just don't need to bother my mom about this conversation. Though I might, but only because she is a devout Hindu and may need some convincing which I kind of want to get clear for her before she passes on. Though, she is in good hands regardless. She is on a path that will at least get her to Siddhaloka or a really good next birth. That's correct. LOLz to both you guys... yeah, yeah...

That's fabulous nac! I'm sure your doing just dandy... You seem quite open and humble.

They have them because they are created by humans for humans, so it's mostly relative to that.

Well, that should allow the possibility of a new dawn in your ideation.

So you only have intellectual understanding. Well, this is fine. Not everyone is ready for a teacher and they want to take the long way, that's really fine. I wish you blessings on your journey!

Yes, but that realization of doctrine of no doctrine is dependent upon realizing the meaning of doctrine. So, the realization of transcendence is merely understanding through direct intuitive experience, the eminence of emptiness. So you inherently exist all alone as a self pointing self to no-self without any influence from outside forces? You're an Island?

Zen has triple kaya too. As all Mahayana does have that elaboration. In Zen ascended masters are real, they just don't have Nirmanakaya anymore. Well, the lovely thing about Buddhism is that the doctrines arise from the wisdom mind of Buddhas and are expressions of direct experiencing of Buddhas, thus the clarity is unparalled. So in Buddhism, Buddhahood is more closely linked to the doctrines than other traditions where realization is equated with a state of beyond thought, which is not so in Buddhism, where Buddhahood is equated with a completely integrated intuition of emptiness with all dimensions of experiencing, thinking, expressing, the infinite things.

You misunderstand what he means by that. The Dharmakaya is an individual realization, yes. But that doesn't make it any less conventionally real for everyone that realizes it. A Nirmanakaya can indeed give you a gift as easily as your mother or father could. So, a living version of the 3 kayas, or even a dead version of the 2 upper kayas can and do offer blessings and grant gifts accessible depending upon the seekers accumulative merits. The 3 kayas is not the same as potentiality to realize them. As one has realized them as Buddhahood it's not potentiality anymore. A person who has realized the 3 Kayas is a Buddha, and once the Nirmanakaya dies away, the Sambhogakaya of that Buddha still acts on in a highly ascended way and comes to a person through visions to grant blessings if that seeker has access to that level of pure vision, which that person would have to be a high level Bodhisattva to do so according to Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche. To have a vision of someone who attained the Jalus doesn't take as much merit because that's part of the reason why a Buddha would realize the Jalus in order to extend the capacity to reach people easier through a Nirmanakaya that has merely dissolved into a dimension that is right next to our current one. Not a bad price at all! You must have bodhichitta!

Vajrayana doesn't think that they are only in one's mind. They are realized aspects of our own potentiality for enlightenment. They are also ascended Masters who were at one point just like us walking the path of human Buddhism, or non-human versions of Buddhism and then ascended. I experience them as real as you and me, they just don't have physical bodies anymore, or they might again project a Nirmanakaya through the Sambhogakaya anchored in the Dharmakaya realization. Deepending on how open you are, they most certainly can grant wishes, as that's one of their powers.

Oh, ok... just curious, thanks for clarifying.

Oh, I like your response now ralis. Not bad. I may chime in another time... Thanks.

So you agree that everything is based on and limited by the 3 dimensional level of perception and experience?

My IQ is also very high... People find it hard to debate with me, because I always find flaws in their lack of depth perception.

Buddhism is not anthropocentric. It includes all sorts of sentient beings who receive teachings from Buddhas and talks about aliens who are Buddhas and bodhisattvas. The Buddha himself recounted his monkey and other animal lives. But, it is the human incarnation that has a particular capacity. In Buddhism, it's not so much fear as it is knowledge and wisdom and understanding the preciousness of the human incarnation. But if one thinks that reincarnation is a bunch of B.S. then your are entitled to make up a whole bunch of other theories to support your emotions as that's also a human capacity that animals do not have.

Ok... Hmmm...

According to Buddhadharma, Hinduism and religious Taoism I would think. Matter had to go through it's evolution before it could become ready to host sentient consciousness which was existing in subtler, less dense realms even prier to the big bang of this physical universe. Buddhist cosmology explains what you just said in a different way that is not provable by physical science but only through meditative or contemplative insight. We weren't even aware as sentient beings in higher realms of what was going on in a denser realm below us, but once we manifested the conditions through the power of attachment to the modifications of the mind, we took up residence in physical bodies of very tangible density... Dinosaurs and Saber Tooth Tigers, etc. (It's actually more complicated than this explanation) Ah, you know I meant free from the body, not from from the body... good. I had to go back and correct that.

It's the limits of language. Since dependently originated things are not inherently established in and of themselves and only relative, than neither is the explanation of dependent origination. D.O. is merely an explanation of how things work and not a thing in and of itself, so the concept of dependent origination originates dependently and is thus not inherently existent. Your not familiar with Nagarjuna are you? Anyway, since dependent origination is speaking of the co-dependency of mutually arising things and experiences, nothing really inherent exists on it's own, thus nothing truly arises, only seemingly so, as an apparition of co-emergents. Like looking into a solid object with a powerful microscope and finding movement of atomic particles that are themselves based on subtler and subtler particles and then finding more empty space than thing itself. Bohm's holographic universe comes to mind. Thanks officer for making me unpack. I'm trying to figure out exactly what certain Taoist concepts mean experientially in order to possibly come to that realization that they do both indeed lead to the same realization. I don't know if that will happen in a board like this where different types of Taoism are represented and each type is quite different. Just that the description of A natural Law or Term such as "Tao" which is an experience that can be unpacked using an endless assortment of metaphors, it behooves one to come to an understanding of what the metaphors are meaning experientially by knowing the words that are being used, even if the words are faulty English translations of Chinese characters. My stepmom is Chinese and can speak Chinese but she can't read it. So, she's no help. I don't know if Tao can equate with emptiness, it more equates I think with the term Dharma. Tao = The Way, and Dharma = Path or in certain contexts... Natural Law. Enlightenment in Taoism is considered, knowing the Tao beyond words, and in Buddhism a Buddha knows the Dharma beyond words. My Taoist/Dzogchen friend Chris said that there is the concept of emptiness in Taoism, and it might be the term "Wu"?

Just for you ralis. Boy you always feel so hard and bitter. Are you a cop? You sure act like one.

Ralis We as in sentient beings, not humans. Humans are not the center of the cosmos, but rather the cosmos is a manifestation of the consciousness of infinite sentient beings, as things are made of consciousness, because conscoiusness is not made of matter. We humans have incarnated in an endless assortment of sentient activities. So, yes you are having a hard time understanding me. Even after following me around and reading all my posts. It's called vajra samadhi (indestructible focus) or sahaja samadhi (spontaneous presence) which is basically just a breakless release of clinging to any aspect of experiencing but following the flow while continuously recognizing interconnectivity, relativity and emptiness, all fortified with bodhichitta or compassionate awareness based on these direct realizations. Thus there is no difference between attending to the body and being free from the body. I do agree that this is important for the sake of clarity.

We are the nature? Another anthropocentric view by Vajra. I suppose the world is flat and the sun and stars rotate around the earth. LOL! I thought this was a thread about the Tao, not about your narrow point of view. Just stay on topic. ralis How is my view narrow? How is it my view? You probably don't even understand what I've said as it doesn't seem that you have much of a capacity to do so, or no training at all in Buddhist cosmology. I guess all you have is to chase me around and lay out insults thinking your smart but it's obvious you don't have much else to go on, but insults. From a description of Myriad Worlds from the Treasury of Knowledge. My view is merely a description of the Buddhist Cosmology in few words. "Myriad Worlds" discusses Buddhist cosmography and the genesis of beings who inhabit the universe. Kongtrul delineates four levels of cosmology: These are three that fit in this discussion... 1. The numerically definite cosmology of the Individual Way (hinayana), in which the collective force of the evolutionary actions of sentient beings creates the world, and therefore all beings contribute to the creation of the world; (co-creation from conscoiusness' (plural) limiting themselves into material vessels in a seemingly dualistic material universe as a process of the nature things to be co-dependently originated, which Taoism calls mutual-co-arising symbolically through the yin yang circle) 2. The cosmology of infinity buddha-fields of the Universal Way (mahayana), in which infinite world-systems come into being as phantom appearances, through bodhisattvas purifying buddha-fields, in which they may fulfill their heroic vows to liberate all beings. The universe is conceived as a cycle without commencement that repeats itself until all beings are liberated from the sufferings of cyclic existence; 3. The cosmology of the Tantra of the Wheel of Time (Kalacakra), which establishes a correspondence between the macrocosm and microcosm in terms of the formation of the universe and fetal development, and between the configuration of the universe and the shape and size of the human body; A cloistered view would fail to see the ramifications of these truths. If the Tao is some transcendent identity of all things, then it has no definable nature, but if it's all things mutually dependent on each other as a yin and yang play than it's nature is basically just the dependent origination of yin and yang without beginning. Even yourself arises as a play of the mutually dependent yin and yang.