Vajrahridaya

If you read the actual thread, he does have knowledge of what he's taking and why.

That's merely your subjective opinion. Take care! The debate is still about there being a beginning or not to manifestation. Vedanta thinks so, Buddha does not.

I thank my teacher for bashing me. Mostly I think this is for other people to read though, not Dwai. It's easier for people to be objective about something that's not happening to them. About wasting virtual space? We'll this is a very ancient debate that started between Buddha and Brahmin's in around 600 B.C. Brahmin's should have their minds changed, through debate, not violence.

Sure it is... you consider the I AM as the ultimate subject of all. Pure being, Pure is-ness. Exactly what the Buddha taught to empty attachment to. It's the cause of recycling. I already had come to understand the basis for Vedanta long ago and used to uphold that view with endless quotes against Buddhist view. Telling Buddhists that they misunderstood the Buddha and Nagarjuna. Then, I realized through study and spontaneous experience through intense contemplation and objectivity. I thought to myself... I don't care if I was raised a Hindu and my mothers a Hindu. I really want to know the truth of experience and what truly liberates. I really had to fight my deeply entrenched in blissful high up I AM level experience to even say that to myself, I had to fight on a subtle energetic level in my being. I still do... I still have Hindu and Vedantic dreams and meditation experiences that aim at reification of a divine source of existence, one that has no center but circumference everywhere. But, I understand through direct experience that I cannot deny the power of, plus an intellectual conscious comprehension that I cannot deny gained through actually studying the Buddhas teachings within context. This subtle supreme identity as Truth, even if it's incredible bliss and leads to yogic powers and divine visions, OBE's, interdimensional traveling, great kundalini rushes, it is not the right view. The Buddhist view is subtler. It's the first part of the 8 fold path, the first thing to establish, "Right View". You just won't allow yourself the objective space in your mind stream to really let go for a moment and see from an entirely different way of viewing the experience of clear light consciousness. Buddha nature is infinite potentiality without inherent existence, it is not the same as Brahman.

Exactly you keep mis-cognizing the experience of objectless consciousness because of the way you interpret the experience. The experience is dependently originated. The experience originates in the mind-stream dependent upon causes and conditions related to meditation, focus or contemplation, or selfless action. The potentiality is always there simply because of infinite regress and infinite openness of dependent origination/emptiness, but the experience is not inherent, only the potentiality of the experience is inherent. Plus you grasp it as a Self, thus when objects fall away at the end of a cosmic eon, unless you've realized a Buddharealm through genuine wisdom through the bodhisattva path of selfless offering in reference to a genuine understanding of dependent origination, you will re-absorb into a formless bliss consciousness state for an untold period of time because you consider that as a self of all. Your the one not getting it. But you probably won't in this lifetime because your very hard lined identified with being a Hindu Brahmin with a long lineage of Swami's and Brahmin's of high realization and it would cause a lot of pain to empty out your current philosophical structure of top down view, of which objectless consciousness is the rooftop. Your ego would fight tooth and nail. p.s. It would take a direct experience of dependent origination that is deeply transcendent to convince your subconscious mind. That's what it took me and I had already experienced formless samadhi's and heaven realms spoken of in Vedic cosmology. You can't imagine how hard it was to humble myself to a subtler view, because you haven't gone deep enough in your own path it might be easier. But, at the same time, you have family lineage and by birth right your a Hindu Brahmin, so... I don't know?

Oh dude, I want to take some of this stuff! YEUP!! Dzogchen land.... LOL!!

They do not point to the same moon. I don't think your getting Shunyata yet if your still positing an absolute existence. Advaita's non-duality is substantialist and Buddhisms is non-substantial. Vedanta still posits a real and absolute Self that is the same for everyone. That is a mistaken cognition to a Buddha and won't even lead to understanding the wisdom of the Bodhisattva path. Ciao. No it is not the Buddhist's emptiness. Because your still establishing an existing void, or an existing Shunyata that all things "are". This is not understanding dependent origination, at all. It's still positing a top down metaphysics where all things are motifications of a single existing, absolute essence. Not Buddhism, and not even the realization of the first Bumi of the Bodhisattva path where one see's emptiness directly, intuitively, without the need for absorption, because shunyata/emptiness is not positing a stage of absorption. Back to the contemplation mirror guys.

Don't forget to go to the transmission! Tonight at 11pm Kundrolling 151 West 30th st. floor 4. ;-) Bring your wizard hat!

Nice questions. Since we Buddhists don't see that the universe has an ultimate creator, or a supreme source. We aim to raise our interconnectivity intelligence. We are all in the same boat, as in suffering is a common theme. We suffer for the sake of pleasure then when pleasure is over we look for other ways to fill the void. We all crave satisfaction. So, when we Buddhists see that we are all suffering and we feel interconnected, compassion is raised and we wish to free others from suffering, and so we do this through meditating on the nature of reality. We loose selfishness and we start asking the big questions surrounding, "what is this?". We start seeing through the superfluous and experiencing deeper states of peace by letting go of what weighed us down and concerned our minds in petty ways. We stop projecting onto others our problems and we start seeing more objectively. So yes, peace and a clear sense of mind. Not necessarily without thought, but free from the thoughts that roam in the mind and also a better sense of utilizing the power of thought because we see how interconnectivity happens on deeply subtle ways, so we flow better in a wholistic way.

Me too, that's awesome! It'll probably take about a month to really feel it. I may want those herbs too!

Yes, we is key, it's humbling. There's never this ego, this huge blissful and powerful ego that is, "I AM ALL THAT IS!!!" I remember having this experience much. There is interconnectivity and a deep sense of intimate knowing of people and how we all tick. But there is never this sense of I am the source of all being in Buddhist realization. This mistaken cognition happens in Hindu realizers a lot though. Just look at Adi Da especially. He really believes it too.

Chit-Objectless consciousness would just be the Jhana/Samadhi of neither perception nor non-perception in Buddhism, or what is Nirvikalpa Samadhi in Shaiva Tantra. Which the Buddha also said is an impermanent state of being that leads yogis to very, very long lived formless bliss realms where they have no body to hear the dharma and when the focus loosens after many eons, the yogi comes out ignorant as all the merit was burnt up in that state of formless conceptless, objectless focus. The entire premise behind Vedanta is Samsaric according to Buddha.

You don't fathom it, you experience it's truth. It's not an extreme, because these selves have no abiding nature, thus there is no static eternal nature, just the endless flow. Also, there is no death, really, so Nihilism is also refuted by this view. The middle way, neither Eternalism, nor Nihilism. Sure he tried and plenty agreed with him, also, plenty did not. Thus it means that Buddhism and Vedanta lead to different goals. Finally your seeing that the Buddha indeed teaches something different from Vedanta. I really have no problem with the idea that you find Vedanta to be better and more clear than Buddhism. That's fair enough.

WARNING: Way off topic, ignore. I'm not convinced either way about Taoism as of yet. There's no intelligent creator, all phenomena and experiences are mutually co-arising, the Tao is merely a word used to describe the ungraspable nature of the flow. It seems pretty Buddhist to me, though maybe not as detailed in describing what enlightenment actually is? I don't know enough about Taoism to say either way. Having been a Vedantin my entire life... I know plenty about it to say.

Wow, I'm really curious about this Wang Liping stuff. I read Opening the Dragons Gate about 10 or 12 years ago and was thoroughly impressed. I would really enjoy hearing about your experience?

It's a nice New Age idea based on an old age Hindu idea which stems from the belief in a single soul that inhabits all being equally. It's from the Vedas, I am one but my path's are many. This idea is as old as the Vedas. But, Buddhism doesn't believe in that, so has never thought that all paths lead to the same goal. The Buddha in fact went to great lengths to explain where the Vedas are wrong. That is one of the places where the Vedas are wrong which the Buddha talks about that can be read in the Pali Suttas. If one carefully reads the Pali Suttas, not just a couple sentences here and there, one will see what I mean. You only think this way because your used to a top down theory of reality, where all things stem from a single source. Therefore it's eternalism and an extreme according to Buddhadharma. Buddhism is a sideways philosophy and is an entirely different way of thinking that has no single source, so is not top down metaphysics, it's sideways flow of infinite selves that are dependently originated, therefore empty of any essence, including the big Self. There's no beginning, no cause, no supreme essential nature, read the Heart Sutra.

Indeed, which is why Yogi's are called mystics who jump within, into the mystery of the nature of experience. Scientists go without, through the senses while yogi's go beyond the senses. So yes, we are experienced mystics. Our cards are full of mysterious experiences. I won't apologize for it.

There is mention of fullness, luminosity. Rigpa is a word used in Dzogchen and Clear Light is used in Mahamudra. But, it's not an all subsuming source of all existence. It's a realization of the non-abiding nature of things and one's own consciousness, thus all people's consciousness' and all things as well. There's the conception of it in Dzogchen as a little Rigpa meeting the big Rigpa. First you realize your own Rigpa, then you recognize everyone elses Rigpa, and one experiences omnipresence, but never omnipotence. To say that a formless non-conceptual consciousness is the home of all is just wishing for re-absorption into the pralaya, or the big crunch, which Buddhas do not experience. The difference is really subtle and deep. But very important, because Buddhism does not posit a supreme causeless cause that all things are one with. It see's the flow or cycling of universe after universe as merely the infinite chain of causation and we are it. We are the co-creators of it all, there is not one creator, there are infinite creators since beginningless time. Dwai, What your not understanding is that the Buddha said that the stripping away of phenomena in meditation, leaving only consciousness, leads merely to formless jhana's or states, such as the Jhana of infinite consciousness. This the Buddha said is not liberation. I've cut and pasted the 31 planes for you many times. These are still Samsaric states, even if seemingly free from phenomena. Vedanta doesn't teach Buddhahood. There is no such thing as an Omnipotent being that shines on his own in Buddhism. There is no omnipotence outside of being in control of one's own personal universe and one's own arisings, and merely influencing others, but not being the soul of them. They really are different Dwai, since the very beginning, since the Buddha first taught, he himself even said it's different. I don't know why Vedantin's always ignore this fact, he say's it in the Pali Suttas. Yes, I always feel a sense of sadness and compassion when I kill a cockroach. But, I try to offer my merit and wish that it may have a body in its next life that has the capacity to know the dharma.

What a materialist doesn't understand is that spiritual truths can only be proven to oneself, as these truths lay beyond the grasp of the senses, but are in fact behind, or subtler than the senses. Can you show me your mind, not your brain, but your mind? Through meditation one can actually see the workings of other peoples minds and even the imagery emanating from another's mind. I've proven this to a few people before.

Buddhism also is Vajrayana (Buddhist Tantra) and we speak of the luminosity of unobscured awareness, but this is caused by seeing dependent origination, not removing superimposition. Because we don't see one single consciousness as the holder and cause of all being which all things are just layered over. Because dependent origination's doctrine does not allow for such an assumption. Things are empty all the way through since beginningless time, and without static self, or Self essence. There is just a flow without a background, as even space is dependent upon what's in it. Also the Buddha did talk about Non-duality in the Pali Suttas. He said, consciousness, uncompounded, shines all around. Even his first statement after getting up from under the Bodhi Tree before Brahma asked him to teach he said, mind is uncompounded and pure since beginningless time. Yet, consciousness uncompounded shines all around is just saying what I've said before that once the meaning of dependent origination becomes an experience, the consciousness uncompounds and blooms in all directions and one experiences omnipresence. There is still no positing of a single consciousness that all beings consist of. The Buddha from Hinayana to Mahayana never taught of a substantial essence shared by all beings. The Buddha never taught Vedanta, he subverted it. Every Buddhist scholar, Master, even Milarepa wrote refutations of the doctrine of the Self.

Hinduism says no such thing. I don't take anything out of context. Because I practiced and studied deeply the different texts under Advaita Vedantin Yogic Masters. I understand quite well experientially what they are saying and what it is leading to. You can say "yes, there is no cause, because the cause is one with the effect. Brahman is one with the universe and the universe is non-other than Brahman so, how can something be said to have been caused?" I know this approach, but there is no such idea as endless dependent origination in Vedanta. This idea of Brahman being the only true existent is subverted by Buddha's dependent origination. Hinduism still see's a one. They say... "oh but even to say there's a one takes two. So in that state there is no notion of one or two." So, what I'm saying is the attachment to a Self of all arises in a non-conceptual manor in the mind-stream of a yogi under the influence of Monist interpretation, which is Vedanta. The subtle difference between Buddhism and other traditions is not so much in the words, but in the subtle intent, and the subtler meditative experiences, and how they are interpreted in the mind-stream. The Buddha did not come to clear up the Vedas he came to deliver an entirely new teaching to the masses, and he said this. I used to think that, then I studied more. I've read that, plenty of times. Yes, beyond being and non-being, etc. There is still a subtle reification and a deification, there is a taking refuge in an essence of the cosmos. These are all things the Buddha warned about. He said that if there was an essence to the universe to take refuge in, I would teach that, but since there is not, I do not teach that, instead I teach to take refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha. So he taught to take refuge in the teacher of the dharma, the teachings themselves and the students of the teachings and teacher. Not to take refuge in some subtle essential nature of the cosmos that is beyond space and time yet all space and time. This Upanishad still speaks of a beginning, where each arising aspect is based on a single cause which leads to a chain of causation leading from this single uncaused causer. The chain of Dependent Origination has no beginning. The Upanishads are not teaching the same thing as the Buddha. As your meditation deepens and your awareness is refined, you will stop making leaps and putting bridges where non-exist. You will see how your mind assumes meanings. It would help to get a highly realized teacher as well, of whatever system or approach you would like to work through. That way you really can get the meaning of the words from someone who has taken them to deeper states of awareness than you presently hold. This would take genuine humility. p.s. A friend of mine how is a highly realized Hindu named Steven Renoir wrote all these texts down to give to people for free. It's on this sight here. http://members.upnaway.com/~bindu/anantayo.../nssitemap.html He even copied an old refutation of Buddhist logic. But, the person didn't understand that Buddhists don't posit a self standing nothingness, so the refutation is refuting a mis-understanding of Buddhism because dependent origination is not even mentioned. Because generally, Vedantins don't understand what it's actually teaching.

It's only enough if you do it consciously through yoga nidra or dream yoga. If that is clung to as a Self of all, there is a misunderstanding of the experience being had.

Nope, he talks about the meditative experience of seeming non-conceptual abiding as well as being inherently empty and dependently originated and non-abiding, just as the Buddha did in the first turning which is generally known as Theravada at this point. I used to think this way and if you look at my posts in E-Sangha from 6 years ago, you'll see that I argued very strongly with many quotes for this view. Then I had some other level of experiences and also got transmission from a Dzogchen Master where I had another type of experience that showed me where I was validating a non-conceptual essence not in accordance with Madhyamika or Theravada as well. Vedanta posits a Static Self that is also simultaneously Dynamic. A Self that is both the mirror and the reflections in the mirror. It say's that all being is one with this mirror as well as being the seemingly separate images in the mirror. The Pratyabhijnahridayam goes deeply into this. There's a good translation by Jayadev Singh and Swami Shantananda with good commentary. Yet for Buddhism, both are interdependent and empty of any self essence. Vedanta does not commit to a non-abiding flow in all it's texts it commits to a static, selfless Self that is all selves. It posits a real essence behind the seeming illusions of separate beings that all things subsume back into at the end of a cosmic eon. It talks of a oneness that all being sprouts from and returns to to be repressed as in the next cosmic eon. Buddhism transcends this. I'm sorry brother, but I'm well versed in all of Hindu's major scriptures, the well known and not so well known ones. Trika, Kaula Ritual, even the ones that seem very close to Dzogchen, but are slightly different in view, which is like the slight difference between the cliffs edge and the endless end of the cliff. Both Kaula, Trika, and Advaita Vedanta, even the Siddhars of ancient Tamil Nadu posit a real, static Self that is the causeless cause of Spanda (dynamic pulsation) spoken of in the Spanda Karikas. Have you read Jnaneshwars Amrit Anubhava? Or his Jnaneshwari? The first common language non-sanskrit rendering of the Bhagavad Gita with incredible commentary in Marathi? It's amazing for it's time and paradigm! Jnaneshwar is probably my favorite Hindu saint, with an incredibly erudite intellect. But... his explanations still miss the mark of what Pratityasamutpada means.

Yes, someone who clings to Theravada does not understand that it intends Mahayana. So, I don't really care what a Theravadin would say about Mahayana because they don't understand how the Pali Suttas lead to Mahayana. The earliest Mahayana sutras were written down at the same time as the early Pali Suttas. Other than that, you can put it the way you put it, in a simple sense... Sure. That's basically it. Very good. I like that. Though, I can see it leading to some sort of mis-understanding if not understood within context.