Vajrahridaya

Ya know? With Dwai, I've tried the hard approach, the soft approach. But... I think this debate was a manifestation of my unconscious merits in order to get myself to get re-acquainted with scriptures I haven't read in a while and learn some new things in the entire process. I love debating because it refines my understanding of the Dharma. The universe is a mirror of my own level of perception anyway and if I'm on the path, it becomes the place where every event drives me deeper on the path. Nah, nah... it's... no I guess your right on the money there too.

Yes, I do have a problem with grammar sometimes. If it wasn't for spell check too, oh my lord! Faget'a'bout'et. Thanks... that's absolutely right... Dwai... it's your creation because you're missing the point of the other Buddhist texts.

Nope, there are other dimensions of experience that are non-physical that one cannot measure with scientific tools from this world. They sometimes can measure ghosts, because certain realms are closer to this one than others. I make that claim out of direct experience supported by texts by Buddhas. Thanks for asking though. No, these are insentient objects of conscoiusness, made of densified consciousness from the beings who conceived it's potential through ignorance of the nature of things, and thus manifested a tool in order to accomplish something. Your funny though... if that's a joke, or not... but, I did get a good laugh from it.

Yes, its a hard one to wrap the mind around for many. Because you release to it, and you don't wrap around it. Yes, there are plenty and plenty of yogi's who are swimming in formless bliss states of dimensions just made of their own consciousness lit up and they aren't experiencing any body and hearing anything and there is no perception of time for them. This merit will burn up eventually and they will fall out of that state, hopefully with the karmas to be human again, or something to that level of consciousness.

No Dwai, it's your creation because you're missing the point of the other Buddhist texts. So, all the Buddhist teachings that define this text are lying and this one text is the True text of them all? Your interpretation is based upon a Hindu conditioning. That's why when a Buddhist reads this text, he or she see's something entirely different. The Lakavatara text which is just as Buddhist as this one explains exactly how wrong you are. Yes, but that translation of the word shunyata as void can be misleading. Shunyata is directly associated with Pratityasamutpada. So again, it's a different type of non-duality that does not equate with the Upanishadic Atman. It's a non-substantial unity that does not dismiss infinite regress. The Buddha himself claimed exclusivity. How many times are you going to ignore that? So did Nagarjuna who is considered the second Buddha by pretty much every school of Buddhism except Theravada. They both exclaimed exclusivity. That your comprehension of the path leads to higher rebirth, but not total liberation. Nagarjuna said in fact that your path leads to the edge of Samsara, but not complete extinguishing of the future experiencing of it. We've quoted the Buddha and Nagarjuna as well as many other Buddhas over and over again. So, you see, you have cognitive dissonance. Plus, many of us here are not just book knowledge people. One needs vipassana coupled with meditation. Vipassana is very specifically applying dependent origination to the absorption states and everything else. He's in the refined heaven realm of peerless siddhas. His Dharmakaya is penetrating everything right now with accessible compassion and wisdom made of the heaps of merit he realized by walking the path. Our own potentiality is realized by him and countless other Buddhas who's awareness is all pervasive and in the constant experience of the non-abiding nature of all phenomena and consciousness. As the Parinibbana Sutta say's, he left out of the 4th Jhana, so he's in a peerless siddha and deva realm where they have high wisdom, but a refined form to teach those who have attained mastery of various levels to just finish their sadhana there. He has given some Mahayana Sutras from this realm to beings who have deep meditative abilities and can travel to higher realms of consciousness.

Yes, and it's the realization that originates dependently upon seeing that all phenomena including consciousness is inherently empty of self existence, since beginningless time. It is NOT the Self of the Upanishads. It's the Dharmakaya realization as a result of seeing dependent origination directly. Thereby it's the endless abode of a Buddha arisen dependent upon the cause of seeing the empty nature of all things. It is the effect of Buddhadharma realization. It's not a source of all existence. The subtlety is being missed here Dwai. It really is.

Vedanta considers the state of absorption beyond conception to be an ultimate Self. This leads to reabsorption into a formless state of consciousness where all merits are burned up either at the end of one's life, or at the end of a cosmic eon. So, it doesn't lead to liberation. The difference is in fact deeply subtle. It's not just a non-conceptual realization, it's a realization of how all concepts and how the entire cosmos actually works. It doesn't work on the hinge of a supreme formless will. This is why the Buddha did say in texts that it's not the same as the Atman of the Upanishads. No, I get that from you... I feel that your pretty watery... as opposed to stoney. To explain further. Atman is kind of an Alpha and Omega in Hinduism. While the Tathagatagarbha is really just an omega. This is figuratively speaking though. One can say both in many ways. The Tathagatagarbha is a source in a sense that it is the source of all liberation, and all the teachings leading to it's realization, because it's the truth that all buddhas realize. But, it's not a source of all existence. It's a realization of what "it's" are in nature; dependently originated and inherently empty of self essence.

Pratityasamutpada is the framework dissolver, including the framework of a cosmology that has a primal source of all existence. It dissolves the two Truths of Buddhism, it does more than dissolve the two truths of Vedanta, it actually reveals them as not even relatively true, except for someone still stuck in a Samsaric interpretation of things, then for that person, through the power of his or her mind, he or she will experience this as Truth, and recycle unconsciously. It's all explained in all the different turnings of the Buddhas wheel. Pratitsamutpada reveals how one can have a real experience of a false conception... such as Theism. The absorption of beyond being and non-being is not a place to identify everything with as the Upanishads do. The Buddha spoke this in the Pali Cannon.

Nope, it explains it perfectly. Much better than an idea of a primal source or a primal Will to all things. Also... absolutely every single school of Buddhism hinges on Dependent Origination. Just a very few reify emptiness. Most of the arguments are not at all about what Dependent Origination applies to, as it applies to everything, even your universal Self. It's sooo subtle that teaching... so deep. Nagarjuna's entire catalog hinges on it. Which you have yet to really read with objectivity, nor understand. The Tathagatagarbha is clearly laid out by the Buddha to not be Brahman in the Lankavatara Sutra. The Dharmkaya is not a universal soul, or controller of all things. There is no God, or ultimate personality at the helm of the wheel of Samsara. Dependent Origination was sited in the Pali Suttas as the Dharma. To see Pratityasamutpada is to see the Dharma and to see the Dharma is to see the Buddha. You just don't understand Pratityasamutpada yet. You think it just applies to things outside of an ultimate subject so it's profundity has not yet hit your conscious mind yet. Much less your subconscious archetypes of Self which pratityamutpada empties if applied subtlety. See, Pratitsamutpada does not have an origin, it's not a superimposition. Anyone who doesn't interpret the above with Pratityasamutpada part and parcel with the first of the 8 fold noble path "right view" is not interpreting the Buddhist way. Plain and simple. But of course, your not a Buddhist. Your a Hindu with a long familial history linked to that, so the identity is very strong.

I agree, all the natural side effects of spiritual practice.

Yup, for sure. NM is a strange and lovely land though, filled with lots of things boarding on mystical and fringe reality. I know, I grew up there and have many, many stories! Yes, I've seen.... %$#@.

Actually that's highly disputed. There is no conclusive evidence. But some think it could be and other PHD's consider it a fraud. Who knows?

Perfect time to "OMG"!!

Thus arrived, thus gone... same meaning in reflection. You are gone from the experience of Samsara and arrived at the experience of Nirvana. Do you ignore Xabir's posts? Just wondering. He's cleared the misunderstanding up quite well. What latent potentiality means in Buddhism and what it means in Vedanta is different. For us, it's latent as in all things are originated dependently and are inherently empty, we and our consciousness is included in this, "all things". Just as explained in the Pali Suttas and in other Mahayana Sutras.

Infinite mind streams attain liberation all the time within infinite space and time. There's no limits, it's uncountable. They intermingle... there's no real subsentence there for merging to actually happen. Do you mean like can two mind streams become one? No, unless one is to see through time and see that your mind stream right now is a collection of a whole bunch of streams of experience since beginningless time, but that's what a mind stream is. An enlightened being through his or her heaps of merit, collected pure intention energy can manifest many different streams of mind reflective of the one intention to liberate beings but cannot actually liberate all beings at will. So, this one enlightened beings Sambhogakaya can become many Nirmanakayas. But, there is no supreme will according to Buddhism. No soul controller of the entire mass of Samsara. Nirvana Sutra doesn't even allude to that, it just alludes to the fact that we all have the garbha, or potential, for tathagata, or enlightenment to transcend Samsara. That is the true home, true place, true way to be for a Buddha. That's what the term atman refers to in this sutra. Not a Self of all. Though one does attain omnipresence, one does not attain omnipotence. Buddhanature is not established either and upon investigation, cannot be found to inherently exist outside of it's relative meaning as the potentiality of all conscious beings. This relativity is based upon the absolute truth that all is inherently empty, and this realization becomes an endless positivity as a Buddha, or Tathagata. These new Western scholars who are influenced by Theism are just not getting the subtleties. There are many tathagatagarbha sutras. You can't just read one of them. You have to read them all to get an idea of what it's alluding to. Read again what... tathagatagarbha means... Garbha means potential, and Tathagata means thus gone. Meaning the potential to be thus gone, Nirvana, blown out... The realization is positive. The realization that all things and beings have always been empty of inherent existence. Like the first statement of the Buddha... "mind is uncompounded and pure since beginningless time". It's the realization of yes, what already is. But, no, it's not a true inherent existence, other than that all things are inherently empty of essence, which is the essential nature and potential to be a Buddha. Do you get it? The words in the Sutra are tricking you because you don't have context. Of course it's reification in Vedanta. It's reified as the one ultimate reality. The real source of all existence, the real that makes the unreal seem real. In Trika Shaivism (Kashmir Shaivism), it's the real of the real as the base of things are real, so are all it's expressions as the Nataraj and Lila is real. There is no illusion other than mis-cognition of this real true substance of the universe the soul of all things that is all things simultaneously. This is not the Buddhist realization.

Tathagatagarbha: It's the absolute realization of the absolute non-abiding and empty nature of infinite dependently originated experiencers, experiences, experiencing and experientials. All beings have this element of potential to become a Buddha because of this. That's what Buddha Nature means. It's not a big Self of all that is the source of all being. Tathagata means, thus gone, or one thus gone. Garbha means embryo, or potentiality. so... you see, all beings have inherent in them the potentiality to be a Tathagata. Your not seeing the subtle difference which is the difference between a cliff and the open space beyond the cliff. Your still clinging to an ultimate existent. The guy commenting on it is dismissing the Sutras that explain the meaning. It looks like Brahman to you because that's what you wish to see. But, the Lankavatara Sutra which is just as well a Mahayana Sutra which is used to understand the Nirvana Sutra clears up your misunderstanding.

Your funny Dwai. Most of what I've said since I've come here are my own words and realizations. Which you'll probably insult right now. I used the cut and pastes to support my realizations. It's retained through traces on immaterial levels, or refined material levels. Also like chains. Even Brain specialists talk about how this happens and also how hard drives compress information like traces to through various causes and conditions come out and play larger than the compressed module seemed to have. There still is no real absolute self there, just a play of causes and conditions extending through immaterial to material to denser hell realms. We seek Nirvana in order to realize the endless relativity of things and consciousness and the non-abiding nature of any level of experience, thus to be freed from experience while experiencing is Nirvana. Then help others. I haven't learned Devanagari script, no. But, I do understand a bit of the grammar. But all through transliteration. I understand the Gutteral, Palatal, Lingual, Dental, Labial in pronunciation according to what symbol is used over the letter, and how to hold for 1 matra in conjuncts. I've been told that for a white boy, my pronunciation is pretty good. But, I've been chanting for most of my life, and hearing sanskrit my entire life. But yeah, I have not been officially schooled in Classical Sanskrit. It's very complex. Mr. Panini was a genius.

I've read in English but I've chanted in Sanskrit transliteration with each word defined individually next to or underneath in countless texts. Causes/Effects and conditions coagulated as a seeming self since beginningless time. Buddhist Masters and scholars with way more study and meditative experience than you since antiquity disagree. I can be a parrot if you wish and overwhelm you with endless cut and pastes from them? We've already quoted from various Masters from history, both me and Xabir to no avail though. The Vedantin position on the Buddha is wrong and understudied. Most all the ancient famous Buddhist scholars of India were born Brahmin, but became Buddhist. For one reason and one reason only, they themselves saw that it was different in revelation. Are you absolutely not reading my reply's? Of course this question has been posed endless times. It's the endless and complex accumulation of causes and conditions mistakenly reified as a self through beginningless clinging. There is only the relative self, no absolute self. Since my experience of Samsara was beginningless, so will my experience of Nirvana be endless. Because the chain of causes and conditions is endless in both ways, endless regress and endless progress. Not like Vedanta at all. We seek Nirvana in order to realize the endless relativity of things and consciousness and the non-abiding nature of any level of experience, thus to be freed from experience while experiencing is Nirvana. Like I said, we don't deny that there is a relative self. But just like I said before, there is no absolute no-self either. There is only interrelating causes and conditions. Read Abhidarma. It's daunting, but it explains how this happens.

See for Buddhists, it's dependent origination that is full of infinite potential because it's endless relativity. Not a mysterious source or will that things spring from as if from no where and superimpose over in order to become limited and suffer through innumerable beings. This universe is based on the end of the last universe, and not caused by a supreme will or absolute source of being. The Nirvana Sutra is not talking about the Self of the Vedantins.

Your not understanding the subtle nuances of what we said about the Nirvana Sutra, which you've read in English, which has an extremely dubious history even in it's known Chinese translations. Mahayana is a huge cannon and it's the only one that talks like this to one degree, but other scriptures define what tathaghatagarbha means, and that's been revealed to you in previous posts, but I don't think you actually read the entire posts with objective clarity. In fact, I know you don't and only you can be honest with yourself about this. The purpose is liberation from suffering, from clinging to existence. Then, offering that realization to countless beings still experiencing Samsara. See, everything is not "emptiness", everything is "empty of inherent existence". Emptiness is not an identity, it's a quality. So then this self of a Buddha which is relative in the way's I've explained in previous posts on this thread, is individual, and eternal in the sense that he/she eternally realizes in every moment the inherent empty quality of all experiences. The subtle nuances is what it's all about. Yes, there is the self that is dependently originated, but even that self of the Buddha talked about in the Nirvana sutra is not absolute in and of itself, it originates dependent upon realization. It stands alone only in the sense that it's liberated from itself and the attachment to any ideation and cognition. It's got an overall different meaning from the one your reading into it. This scripture has been abused by systems of thought that cling to an absolute Self of all for quite some time. But, Buddhist masters with deep meditative experience and incredible cognitive skills can tell you the meaning of the text. Zen doesn't agree with your position and neither does the Tibetan position on the text agree with yours. You should re-read Namdrol's post on the text because that's the Tibetan version. Namdrol is a Loppon with over 30 years of study and practice, as well as transmission from Tibetan Masters. He's not some internet scholar. Re-read that post objectively, without laying attachment to your interpretation. At least give it a try.

See, it's not that there is no self in Buddhism, it's just that it's relative. There is also not an absolute no-self in Buddhism either, which is what Vedantin's want to call the Self is the no-self of the Buddhists. But, that's not seeing what the Buddha taught. There is no no-self and there is no self in any absolute non-relative sense.