Vajrahridaya

No, I'm sorry, I've been attacked a lot lately with people phishing for information to be used against me personally. Just not trying to fall for the ol' fake high, strike low blow... Yes, I can tell that you had a motive.. But, sometimes the motives are really pure and not trying to get personal. Ok... I'll say a little something. I'm going to bed though, I'm tired. YAWN!! Clinging to any swabhava or essence as a self of all is placing a seed in the alaya vijnana for manifestation of clinging and identity because the cosmos never stops cycling so the only way out totally is complete eradication of an identity and a clinger clinging to identity... both coarse or subtle, and refined. There is no self to be found, neither formless nor formed. Though... the Alaya Vijnana which is dependent upon it's seeds for existence becomes the basis for Dharmakaya when purified of dualistic seeds and instead filled with the endless heaps accumulated through walking the path. This is basically turning beginningless Samsaric activity of yourself into the space of activity as a Buddha and those connections you made and people you met all become disciples as you fulfill your sincere desire to attain liberation for the sake of all beings. This is unique for each Buddha as each person had his or her own Sasmaric begininglessness. The realization is the same, the way of activity predispositioned by his/her beginningless carrier as a Samsarin is different. So, when Nirvana is attained, it's endless, eternal, bliss and his self is basically the accumulation of merits but there is no real and substantial identity there, it's still relative, but now eternally fixed and unchanging in the sense of constant realization of the true nature of existence, just a dependency for being as the 3 bodies. Which are really one. So you see, this is what the Parinirvana Sutra is talking about. The Subtle difference is all the difference between being merely a Vedantin text or actually Buddhist. You see, when you have any sense of self... like the big selfers say their small self is humble to the big self and they offer everything there which is in everything... saying it's all you... but you are me... so it's kind of like an oppression or hiding away of the dualistic samscaras into formless states. It's just suppressing the kleshas into formless all pervasive realities and saying that's the self of all, it's not rooting them out of existence as the understanding of dependent origination and emptiness does. Where there is no superimposition, there is no possibility of re-entering ignorant states of consciousness, or even identity with consciousness at all. It's not actually burning the seeds of clinging to think that the formless states or samadhi's/jhanas are a final ultimate reality. The Buddha was clear about that which is why he left his Vedantin teachers who taught him the Samadhi's but not the insight into them which comes from seeing dependent origination and seeing even formless infinite consciousness as dependently originated, and the states of beyond perception/being and non-perception/being are dependently originated. There's a state that is subtler and deeper, but it's not an absorption, as the Buddha explains, it's the actual cessation of the possibility of absorption. All states of realization are simultaneous and ever fluid as everything the Buddha now experiences. There is no real ultimate state, and that's the ultimate realization. Nihilism is basically saying that everything is destroyed right now, there's no meaning, no real connection anywhere, so they give into chaos and get into ideas that are strictly materialistic. Nihilism is worse than Eternalism because it leads to self destructive behavior that leads to hell realms and animal rebirth. Vedantins at least get to be long lived Gods or enter Pleasure realms for long, long periods of time.

I've stated it many times through my historical posts. You can read the Chicken and Egg thread if you wish. I'd just be repeating myself unnecessarily. If you don't want to look at the previous posts, then I have no reason to think your sincere in your questioning, but rather trying to phish. Thanks for asking, have a wonderful night...

Indeed, thank you nac. You got it just right and expressed it clearly and simply. Much thanks! There is not one Self of all, that is never a Buddhist stance. Each Buddha does have an individual realization of the same truth of all things, that all levels of experience be it mundane or mystical is dependently originated and inherently empty of swabhava, or self essence.

Monism is extreme and Eternalistic. Buddhism is the middle path free from Eternalism or Nihilism. That's my argument. There's no extreme being posited here. I may be extreme in my personality type, but that's it. That's just my personality that I have to work with. This does not subvert the facts of Dwai's misuse of the Buddhist teachings to support his view. It should be corrected as people get confused. I'm just here... and so, I can do so. I don't plan on conquering the world. Now, I did say before that Monism can serve a person to attain higher rebirth and better cognitive powers. But according to the Buddha, Nagarjuna and countless other known Buddhist Masters, it won't lead to liberation and it's basis is Samsaric. Michaelz talked about what Dark Zen is above a bit. It's just a new fringe group that takes up the Mahaparinirvana Sutra in it's English Translations that come in various types and made up a whole new religion online.

Your free to cling to a Self. Doesn't change the facts of your deluded commentary on Buddhist texts that real Buddhists throughout history have commented on with understanding that does not support your claims. How have you really read the text, in it's original sanskrit? Yeah right... did you even read the dubious history of the text? How scholars dispute aspects authenticity due to other translations that don't support others. Many of the English translations that you probably read as you don't read Chinese or Tibetan, are going to be really insecure as a basis for understanding. Your clinging to this one text as the be it of your view is standing on shakey ground. Much of it is contradictory. Anyway... I've never taken Vedanta out of context. I'm well aware of the stances of Vedanta both textually and experientially. You in your mind can cling to this subjective outlook as long as you wish. You're Vedantin interpretation of Buddhism has been debunked. I've quoted plenty of texts to do so and so have other Buddhists here. According to you, all these Buddhist Masters who trained deeply and meditated deeply in caves with other Masters with deep and ancient lineages that clarify the meaning both for themselves and to offer right view to all future Buddhists are wrong according to you and so many Vedantins. I know exactly where your wrong because I was wrong in the exact same way, but you'll have to find out for yourself. Take care. Google it. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=d...oq=&aqi=g10

Sure, clarifying the meaning. Coupled with good down home practice is exactly what enlightened the Buddha, the 84 Mahasiddhas. Plus many current Masters. The Dzogchen system requires study and practice and ends in the Jalus or Body of light where one dissolves everything into the radiances of Bodhichitta Awareness, or Rigpa. You take care findley.

The Parinibban sutta of the Pali Cannon is NOT the Parinirvana Sutra of the Mahayana Cannon. You don't read your Wiki sources very well do ya? Were not backpedaling at all. We are clarifying for you. All the Mahayana Sutras are to be taken into context and the text itself talks about as Namdrol stated. Read Namdrol's explanation. As, that's the truth of the Sutra. Brahman is always considered a source of all in Hinduism, as one with everything simultaneously. One can wriggle around saying how can it be the source of itself? Stop trying to make Vedanta sound like Buddhism. Shankaracharya's teachers did that and now the further one gets into the future away from the initial teachings of the Buddha the more that Hinduism sounds and tries to be like Buddhism, naming itself the Sanatana Dharma, when the first description was found in the Dhamapada and is originally a Buddhist designation, and Advaita Vedanta being somewhat of a Crypto Buddhism, even with some of the way Shankara trained the Monks, and had them take refuge in the Guru, Dharma, and Sangam, etc. etc.. Except there is one flaw, it's not Buddhism, because Hinduism reifies an eternal substratum. Which, in the Pali Cannon as I quoted in the other thread... BUDDHAS DESCRIPTION OF SOME WRONG VIEWS: ....Vehemently denies. There is no way you can prove that your position is the Buddhas teachings. It just is not. All Buddhist schools agree on this. Except Dark Zen.

There are lots and lots of realized teachers in the west who teach Tummo. They might not immediately and might require some pre-requisites. But, if you tell me where you live, I can find out the closest one's to ya? I mean city and state, not address. LOL!

Well, only the "supreme source" of personal experience of Nirvana/Samsara, but not of the entire cosmos... No.

Thanks guys for contextualizing!! I also read that critic by Loppon Namdrol many years ago as an Advaita Shaivite and was like... "oh" Meditated on it... for a number of years... before having my own realization of the truth of my own false assumption based upon Vedantin conditioning. It's all from a contested page on Wikipedia.

Oh boy... yes another scripture that non-buddhists just refuse to understand. They love to propagate their self existing eternalistic ideas onto it. The realization of Nirvana is eternal. The self spoken of is the body/mind complex that has accumulated the heaps through realization and one realizes the Dharmakaya, Sambhogakaya and the Nirmanakaya. There is still NO reification of a truly self existing eternal self. Other than the endless realization that is Nirvana. This Self of the Buddha is in fact merely the realization of the inherent non-abiding nature of all things, always since beginningless time. It's not the self of Vedanta and not a source of all existence. The dharmakaya is a result body. To read this scripture properly, one needs a genuine teacher who understands the subtleties. Otherwise, one will be just like Dwai and reify, reify, reify without proper comprehension of the meaning. Yes Dwai, you are wrong again from a genuine Buddhist perspective. Most of this commentary is what is known as Dark Zen style and they are a fringe Buddhist group and not accepted by the vast majority of Buddhist groups, at all. Atman is being used in a figurative manor here, in the sense that all beings have the potentiality of realization. This scripture is also argued against as being somewhat of a Hindu concoction. Because it's the absolute only scripture that talks about an eternal self existing Self, when in the Pali Suttas he clearly states that there is not, as I quoted in the Chicken Egg thread. Hindu's looooove this scripture though. I know, I used to love it and use it to propagate my view which was akin to Dwai's for many years of my life. I realized I was wrong though and off the mark. There is positive in Buddhism. Realization is very positive. But there is no reification of a Self, course or fine, limited or unlimited... only relative, never ultimate. Unless it's talking about the ultimate realization that is Nirvana, which means like a flame put out. The true nature of things is inherent in as much as the inherent nature of things are empty, not that there is a true and abiding essence. Unless one were to talk of essence as in the essential nature is non-abiding. There is still no super Will to surrender to, no divine conductor of the play, no true being behind all being. I'm talking about Buddhism as a whole, not one fringe scripture that really needs some contextualization.

Oh boy... yes another scripture that non-buddhists just refuse to understand. They love to propagate their self existing eternalistic ideas onto it. The realization of Nirvana is eternal. The self spoken of is the body/mind complex that has accumulated the heaps through realization and one realizes the Dharmakaya, Sambhogakaya and the Nirmanakaya. There is still NO reification of a truly self existing eternal self. Other than the endless realization that is Nirvana. This Self of the Buddha is in fact merely the realization of the inherent non-abiding nature of all things, always since beginningless time. It's not the self of Vedanta and not a source of all existence. The dharmakaya is a result body. To read this scripture properly, one needs a genuine teacher who understands the subtleties. Otherwise, one will be just like Dwai and reify, reify, reify without proper comprehension of the meaning. Yes Dwai, you are wrong again from a genuine Buddhist perspective. Most of this commentary is what is known as Dark Zen style and they are a fringe Buddhist group and not accepted by the vast majority of Buddhist groups, at all. Atman is being used in a figurative manner here, in the sense that all beings have the potentiality of realization. This scripture is also argued against as being somewhat of a Hindu concoction. Because it's the absolute only scripture that talks about an eternal self existing Self, when in the Pali Suttas he clearly states that there is not, as I quoted in the Chicken or the Egg thread. Hindu's looooove this scripture though. I know, I used to love it and use it to propagate my view which was akin to Dwai's for many years of my life. I realized I was wrong though and off the mark. There is positive in Buddhism. Realization is very positive. But there is no reification of a Self, course or fine, limited or unlimited... only relative, never ultimate. Unless it's talking about the ultimate realization that is Nirvana, which means like a flame put out. The true nature of things is inherent in as much as the inherent nature of things are empty, not that there is a true and abiding essence. Unless one were to talk of essence as in the essential nature is non-abiding. There is still no super Will to surrender to, no divine conductor of the play, no true being behind all being. I'm talking about Buddhism as a whole, not one fringe scripture that really needs some contextualization.

From the Pali Cannon... What are known as the original teachings of the Buddha. So, as one can see above. The Buddha spoke quite clearly that there is no self existing eternal Truth that is the true subject of all beings, that is known in Vedanta as the absolute Self. The real identity of all things that is eternal is subverted by the Madhyamaka of Nagarjuna and clearly by the Buddha as well.

Yup! That movie probably dislodged many subconscious false archetypes within so many people. I bet you had more flying dreams after seeing that movie as well.... Oh, it's just a whole bunch of fun! Questioning philosophical structures and ideation's. Granting opinions and basing them on historical presences.... It's all just a big play anyway...

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NkTMGEsubk [/url] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hY7BUn6CPzo...feature=related

Oh man! That's on my list of top 5 movies of all time!! It's amazing!! Looooove it!! Yes... watching the clips right now... Seeing in all direction while awake is very strange I tell you or maybe the deeper natural? Sometimes it's very stressful, but that's my fault I think. I can watch this movie over and over and over... it's kind of like a scripture of some sort... LOL!! A modern movie version of multiple perspectives. One could say that it's kind of a movie version of Vasistha's Yoga, kind of... a deeply abridged version, !! I left a comment on the second clip. Where you first start to realize that he just might be going through the bardo's. As in the stages between death and rebirth.

In Buddhism, there is no reified ultimate transcendent reality. The Buddha said, "If there was an essence to the universe to be taken refuge in, I would have taught that, but since there is not, I do not teach that." The Buddha taught one to take refuge in the realization beyond essence. The Buddha taught that a universal essence was a mistaken cognition, based upon mis-understanding meditative experience. This, is what the Buddha taught, and he denied Vedic teaching as being worthy of refuge. This is absolutely undeniable if one actually reads the Pali Suttas, not just some of them, but all of them. He taught in many different ways. He even taught some of what are the Mahayana Sutras directly to various very advanced students while still embodied. It feels nice to say all religions lead to the same Truth. They may though for an individual, as stepping stones to higher capacities as each spiritual tradition serves a particular intuitive capacity of experiential comprehension... where one actually see's each spiritual tradition as a rung on the ladder. But, practically speaking, no, they don't each lead to the same place. Because realization originates dependent upon view. It's very clear in the 4 noble truths and the 8 fold noble path. Take care.

Trying to find your particular spiritual path will end up being the most bewildering, the most confusing, difficult, trying, trialing, but also... the MOST rewarding situation one could get oneself into. I am very thankful for my period of intense Shaivite Tantra, Vedantic approach as I learned a whole lot about how the universe works and my mind, then learned even more of what I was missing in my Vedic approach by seeing what Buddhism has to offer, then now Dzogchen, which I haven't talked about at all really, as that takes a lot of qualification I think to do so. I also find Taoism extremely fascinating and have so for quite some time. I wish you all the best in your search!

Well, I was recommending the first one for someone who really likes the nitty gritty. The first one is 800 pages with real tight print, so more like over 1000 pages in regular sized print. It's really detailed. The concise one is good if you just want to go right to the meaning and not so much of the break down. I do recommend the bigger one, because the bigger one is already abridged anyway, so the second one is kind of a double abridging. I mean in Sanskrit it's huge, many volumes spanning thousands of pages, as the second largest book in the entire world. So, I do personally recommend the first one, but you can do a muscle test about it, or feel it out intuitively. If you read the comments, maybe you'll get a better idea of what would be good for you and fit for where you are in your path. Take care! p.s. Notice though, that there are places where even Vasistha doesn't know the reason why some things happen (because of not understanding dependent origination). That was my main point in bringing it up. Other than that, if you want that approach it's one of the best Theistic books because of it's vast and detailed coverage of multiple perspectives.

Yeah, I wrote and stared in that song, those are all my Buddhist ho's!

I suppose it depends on the person, but integration with all cosmic potentiality seems to be the aim of tantra. No dismissing anything as either illusion or inherently real, but just integrating Buddha mind with it all. Utilizing all aspects as sign's of dharmakaya through contemplation.

I think both Taoism and Vajrayana do both, no? Vajrayana has Trukoor Yoga techniques. There are other types and names of the different forms of Vajrayana Physical Yogas. Visualisations and breath controls along with body movements and mantra vibration. Taoism has this as well, yes? I'm not sure what you mean by unconscious collectives, are you talking about alaya vijnana or the 8th consciousness of chittamatra, that's done in Zen too. As Yogachara went to China and Japan and there's forms of Shingon/Tachikawa Buddhist Tantra in Japan which most likely came through China too, but supposedly came to a Buddhist practitioner through visions? I'm not that well versed in the activities of Buddhism east of India. I just read of the Mantra or Tantric School (Mi-tsung or Chen-yen) in China during the 7th century that later just got took over by the popular Lamaism? Hmmm? This is a good explanation of the Alaya Vijnana. http://waynedhamma.blogspot.com/2007/12/wh...sciousness.html