Vajrahridaya

That's probably the worst translation on the planet. I've read many translations of the Bhagavad Gita and that's bar-none the most convoluted and biased, mis-representation of the scripture I've ever seen. Swami Prabhavananda's is good. The best version though is probably the Jnaneshwari or Jnaneshwar's Gita link to Amazon As it's an expansion of the verses in a way that's not really a commentary but a literal expansion by as it seems Krishna himself through the enlightenment of Jnaneshwar a boy genius. It's a highly acclaimed version and really worth the buy, it's exquisite and in line with real Vedanta. I'll give some background... He was from the late 1200's. He started composing this version of the Bhagavad Gita in Marathi at the age of 13 and finished it at the age of 16. It's one of the most highly praised works in Marathi, the boy was a literal genius. Writing this book he actually took the power away from the Brahmin's who wouldn't allow the common folk to read the text because they wouldn't teach the common folk Sanskrit. Sounds a bit like old Catholic way's eh? Anyway... the Brahmin's were mad but he held them back through yogic powers and there's lots of stories about this and he composed the book and it spread like wild fire. He took live mahasamadhi at the age of 21 being lowered into his Samadhi temple in a live meditation posture, he took full lotus on the slab and they lowered him down into his hole after the temple was built. He wrote some of the most praise worthy poetry in the Marathi language and in the tradition of Vedanta known to Indian history. By looking in a mirror, one perceives his own identity; But that identity was already there. In the same way, relative knowledge gives the understanding Of the identity of the world and the Self - But it is like using a knife To cut another knife. Fire, in the process of annihilating camphor, Annihilates itself as well; This is exactly what happens to knowledge In the process of destroying ignorance. The cresting of a wave is but its fall; The flash of a bolt of lightning Is but its fading. Likewise, knowledge, Drinking up the water of ignorance, Grows so large That it completely annihilates itself. This absolute Knowledge is like The intrinsic fullness of the moon, Which is unaffected By its apparent waxing and waning. Saint Jnaneshwar ....................... To have written like this in 13th century India at the age of 13 is just amazing!

As far as my remembered readings. The immortals or gods of Taoism are just enlightened sages of the past who have ascended and have manifested the light body through their cultivation and now just guide from higher dimensions. Someone is free to correct me. But, it seems to be that the Immortals/gods of Taoism are just previous realizers of the Tao and not creators of the cosmos, of course part of the co-creation which I think that concept of co-emergent-arising is a concept in Taoism? I've been told.

It's the experience of existing without conceptual definition. It's still merely a samadhi state.

I generally do... but I like the ritual and I like the fortification that comes from an outside source reflecting the inward contemplation.

I've heard all this before and it's all very interesting, but Islam has math and Kabbalah too to prove their texts are real and true. It's all quite interesting though. From personal experience, the I-Ching seems to be one of the most magical books that I've ever come across. As a Buddhist, I still throw the I-Ching around to get some clarity on some hard hitting questions. It's quiet astounding! This version of I-Ching is what I've been using my whole life.

That's right... get the concepts aligned, then you can start shooting them one by one.

As I've heard... Samadhi in the cave, but not in the town, ain't real samadhi.

Oh for sure! But, I also make sure that my butt stay's open, in case there needs to be an evacuation...

I have the John C.H. Wu version. It's cool, it has the Chinese characters first then the translation. It's printed by Shambala.

Oh... your clever... eh, eh. Nothing to find, except that realization. I actually had a period in my life where I kinda wanted to be a Taoist, when I was reading Wang Liping and all sorts of other things, as I have a whole bunch of Taoist material. Well not that much on me now, like 5 or 6 books. But, none of the secret stuff. I found it hard to find a real Taoist Wizard too, at the time where I was. I was also a very devoted Hindu at the time anyway and had a strong Shaivite practice. But, I have always found it intriguing. Sheesh... I can't stop... haha!! Just finished a transmission from my Rinpoche webcasted from Italy so I'm still up all night!! Still going!

There's a Buddhist I-Ching??

Yes, that's why I was confused, I hear all sorts of things, like there's no real consensus?

Not to debate... lol, but that's a false assumption. Just thought you should know. For a Buddhist, debate is practice and it clarifies the view in sutra. But, Buddhism is all about practice... as everything is the practice. Including my daily sittings and chantings and physical yoga's.

Yeah, I don't know, I couldn't resist the title of the thread and put my 2 cents in. I keep getting different answers about the Tao... So... Just trying to get clarity as well here.

That is a different context. That's talking about one's realization of emptiness... it's not making emptiness an existing identity. It's saying that emptiness is not realized outside of phenomena. It's not as a transcending reality.

One does not experience emptiness, one realizes the emptiness of experience, thus the inherently liberated quality of all experiences, it's not a space of non-conceptual wholeness. It's seeing through, cutting through, seeing as transparent translucence. Not trying to step on anyone's toes. Or beat anyone up.

The Buddhas emptiness is not what you are saying though. It's not a state of void beyond thought, it's not an "it"... it's a quality of dependent origination which applies to absolutely everything, including non-conceptual states of consciousness. So, I have not missed it. It's a realization, not an identity, neither is it a background, or a reality of things. Things are not emptiness, they are empty of inherent existence and merely relative and originate dependently, including realizations, and meditative experiences. As well as grand all encompassing formless concepts. Emptiness is a way of interpreting for liberation, its not liberation itself. You don't become one with emptiness. It's not dogma, it's just how things are. So, what I'm saying is the the comparison is unequal.

This is a different type of grasping... not a tangible grasping, but it's grasping the intangible as an ultimate reality or identity. This can in no way be equated with the Buddha's emptiness. But it can with Vedanta's Brahman.

It seems to be the same as calling the Alaya Vijnana an ultimate Self, when really it's just one's own experience of conceptless absorption that when one comes out of, that potentiality seems to manifest dualism. When really it's just an altered state of consciousness where the experience of subject object duality is suppressed for a period of focus.

Because this may come across as racist to some people. I would like to clarify that neither is white the source of all existence. Of course as a Buddhist, there is no source of existence as there is no beginning. These are merely states of consciousness either illumined, or unillumined. Matter is considered unillumined consciousness in many cosmologies. It's the state of veiling clear colorless awareness in order to manifest through it's own ignorance of it's nature as non-dual illumination to quantify, or seem multiple as duality.

The black void, or Mahashunya is the womb of material existence or *prakriti. It's not the absolute truth of all things and non-things (consciousness). It's the Jhana or meditative absorption of infinite nothingness or unconsciousness and is below the jhana of neither perception nor non-perception, which is below the state of a fully realized being who see's that these states of meditation originate dependently and are not the way of liberation in and of themselves. Meditative absorption alone does not guarantee liberation basically as it generally reifies (concrete ideation, grasping at) a source of all being. Black is not the source of all existence. Though some good satan worshipers would like to have some dinner with you. *Mulaprakriti can be translated as "the root of nature" or "root of Prakriti"[9]; it is a closer definition of 'basic matter; and is often defined as the essence of matter, that aspect of the Absolute which underlines all the objective aspect of Nature[10]. While plain Prakriti encompasses classical earth element, i.e. solid matter, Mulaprakriti includes any and all classical elements, including any considered not discovered yet (some tattvas-scientific principles.)[11]

Treasury of Knowledge Book One: Myriad Worlds This is very good and gives a basic understanding of the Cosmology in all the different turnings of the wheel of Buddha Dharma.

Ah well that seems more objective. I don't see a problem with some Lamas, but the vast majority of Lamas are generally speaking, quite heavy with knowledge but not light with wisdom. Of course, that's just the way it is on Earth. A vast majority of unenlightened beings. Eh! There are some really great Lama's though, and some really great Rinpoche's. But yes, even my Rinpoche met his root Guru outside of the system. He was a Tibetan doctor and teacher of Dzogchen, and renowned as a great reincarnate, but he wasn't into all the rituals. He was into direct experiencing and transmission of direct experiencing. You can read Chogyal Namkhai Norbu's account in "Crystal and the Way of Light". It's very interesting. It's also why I'm more attracted to Nyingmapa over any of the other traditions. Karma Kagyu is nice too. But the Nyingmapa lineage is the old lineage directly from Padmasambhava and it's open hearted, poetic, is mostly the tradition that teaches Dzogchen. Sakya 3rd and Gelugpa 4th. Though the Dalai Lama is my favorite Gelugpa, his main practice is Dzogchen and his vision is more that of Rime. Anyway, I might be more interested to read the book now. Thanks Paul!

It takes specific talent to channel perfectly well, and channel the right person. In Tibetan Vajrayana, the person is chosen from certain signs of merit that show up at and around the kids birth, that this person has been trained to be as such for many lifetimes and has the accumulated power to do so correctly.

It's held to be true in Theravada, Zen and Vajrayana. Nagarjuna said the same thing and many, many other Buddhas. I say the same thing because it's also my own direct realization, as merely someone on the Bodhisattva path. I've experienced directly Nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman while a practicing Shaivite. I've seen directly the Alaya Vijnana which is known as the Nila Bindu and Shaivism takes that as the Self, it's the 8th consciousness in Chittamatra and we are trained to not take it up as a Self in Buddhism, and to apply Vipassana (applied D.O.). Which is what the Buddha did and talked about in the first turning when he said that the Jhanas/Samadhis would not take one to final realization alone, if your familiar with the 8 jhanas and the 31 planes. It's quite clear that the Buddha did say that, as it's recorded as having been said by him in many different ways throughout different texts. It is true. The sense that it makes comes clear when one see's emptiness directly. LOL! My girlfriend is arguing with her mom in the background... excuse me. Yes, so... it's clear that Vedanta and most other traditions reify a state of conceptualess absorption as ultimate reality (Jnanas of infinite space, infinite consciousness, infinite nothingness, neither perception nor non-perception which are all reified as Brahman in Vedanta and it seem's Tao in Taoism) this is not seeing dependent origination as the Buddha explained it. Most traditions see all things as a modification of one supreme entity or mysterious nature. There's no tradition other than Buddhism that see's beginningless and infinite mind streams that have no essential nature other than impermanent flow. Most traditions see all beings as coming from one source to return to one source. The Buddha said that's a Samsaric view. I've seen directly how this is so, through meditation, contemplation and realization. Yes, but that's exactly part and parcel with being a Mahayanist. It's kind of a rule of Mahayana and also part of the realization. As one cannot maintain a teaching body past the ending of the cosmic eon without recognizing "anatta" through "pratityasamutpada" and "shunyata" as they are explained in Mahayana, specifically Nagarjuna. As it's through this selfless offering of merit that one transcends the re-absorption that happens at the end of a cosmic eon. Yes, of course, which is why there are many different techniques or methods within Buddhism. There are also different way's of manifesting the fruit of enlightenment, the jalus, illusionary body, powa, etc., etc. But all recognize dependent origination/emptiness from the perspective of the Buddha, the 8 fold noble path and the 4 noble truths, seeing directly the 6 realms and the 31 planes of the 6 realms. It seems that yes there are some from other traditions that come to the same realization, but that means that they transcended the traditional teachings of their lineage and came to a specifically Buddha (awakened) realization due to the cause of their own merit which probably extends to having been a Buddhist in a previous life and then they take the existent teachings and make them sound more and more Buddhist. The closer to Buddhism any tradition is, the more clear it is. The thing is, is that if you actually study Buddhist cosmology it's the widest most explanatory cosmology known to man. If you read this... Myriad Worlds From "A Treasury of Knowledge". Which in English is even highly abridged. It has cosmology that comes from many perspectives. But, they all see beginningless flow of causes and conditions without a primordial beginning. Though the term beginning is used in Dzogchen, it means that one's realization or source of realization begins with awareness recognizing beginningless purity, which originates dependent upon seeing dependent origination and relativity of all experiences. It never takes up an experience as an ultimate truth, rather the ultimate realization originates the endless experiencing of liberation for a Buddha. Buddhist logic is extremely subtle. Much subtler than anything found in the most highly appraised texts of Vedanta and Trika Shaivism. Sure, a man with two legs in a town of men with one legs has the advantage, born of good merit of previous karmas and will be able to walk a balanced life amongst 1 legged hoppers. But, Buddhism is the path of the two legged men and is clearly that from beginning to end with utter clarity. Plus it has all the methods necessary throughout it 's many different branches that have in fact influenced many of the worlds more mystic versions of the religions. Sometimes vice versa, but the first noble truth is always there..."right view" and it is very specific in what that means for a Buddhist. It is the rigid viewless view. Sounds paradoxal as it's the dogmaless dogma. It basically say's that all states and all experiences are dependently originated, thus there is no reified ultimate Truth, and that's the ultimate truth of Buddhism.